I don't know who to vote for next year. Do I even have to vote?

[TK421]

@OP:

Feel free to consult the Ask an Apologist section to dispel any fears that not voting is a sin, or even a grave sin. There are those here who are - God have mercy - speaking without authority.

Voting is a relatively recent function of societal life in human history and it is not a civic requirement, least of all in unfortunate circumstances where you are voting between a corrupt secular liberal and a prejudiced demagogue, which looks to be very possible in the near future. You are not morally obliged to drink from a poisoned cup, and those that claim otherwise do not have Rome at their side. Abstaining is a permissible course of action and it has been done by many Catholics in many situations, especially in the first half of the 20th century in Europe.

 

[TK421]

Normally, in spite of their flaws, I would vote for a Republican ticket to fight the culture of death that has hijacked the Democrat party within the past 20 years, but I will not - including under pain of death and torture - vote for a man that wants to openly discriminate against a religious group of people, No way, no how, and under no circumstance. No negotiation. Absolutely none. Hillary could be a neo-Nazi nationalist socialist or a Stalinist that wants to imprison & burn Christians at the stake, including my biological family, and I still would not vote for Trump if it meant sitting in my house on my couch and lifting my pinky finger half an inch. I would chop my finger off before lifting it. If forced with no options, I would not participate in the voting. I would help the country in other ways.

The evangelical support for Trump is a scandal that will shame us for many generations to come and will set the spreading of the gospel behind for 50 years or more.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Our moral obligation to vote by Bishop James D. Conley, STL
lincolndiocese.org/op-ed/bishop-s-column/1971-our-moral-obligation-to-vote

EWTN: Moral Duties Concerning Voting
ewtn.com/vote/voting_faq.htm

The Moral Obligation of Voting by Rev. Titus Cranny (Catholic University, 1952)
novusordowatch.org/cranny.pdf

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Our moral obligation to vote by Bishop James D. Conley, STL
lincolndiocese.org/op-ed/bishop-s-column/1971-our-moral-obligation-to-vote

EWTN: Moral Duties Concerning Voting
ewtn.com/vote/voting_faq.htm

The Moral Obligation of Voting by Rev. Titus Cranny (Catholic University, 1952)
novusordowatch.org/cranny.pdf

The moral obligation to vote is just one expression of the more general moral obligation to work for the common good through civic engagement. This follows from the fact that in many nations, voting for civic leaders is not even an option. Therefore it would be quite strange to have an absolute moral principle that is only applicable in some places and not in others. And even where there are elections, those elections are sometimes a sham. It would be strange to try to apply this absolute moral principle in a way that implied it was a moral duty to vote, even in a sham election.

There are other forms of civic engagement: Exhorting your neighbors and the civic leaders themselves to make specific decisions regarding the common good. These forms are applicable even where voting is not permitted. It would be a mistake to focus on voting as the one and only moral obligation regarding civic engagement and the common good, as if one could simply vote, then sit back and say “I did my duty.”

Yet we rarely hear about an absolute moral duty to talk to your neighbors about abortion, or to visit your congressman and lobby for one man and one woman marriages. All those activities are seen as optional - even if those activities may have a greater potential of accomplishing the common good than simply casting your one vote and then sitting back and watching passively.

Before we start casting accusations of “mortal sin” on those who do not vote in every election, we should consider why we do not cast similar accusations on those who do not do any of those other things that can further the common good.

 

[TK421]

Our moral obligation to vote by Bishop James D. Conley, STL
lincolndiocese.org/op-ed/bishop-s-column/1971-our-moral-obligation-to-vote

EWTN: Moral Duties Concerning Voting
ewtn.com/vote/voting_faq.htm

The Moral Obligation of Voting by Rev. Titus Cranny (Catholic University, 1952)
novusordowatch.org/cranny.pdf

Yes, or no:

If I do not vote for Trump or Hillary, but stay at home, do I (and anybody else) need to go to Confession to make an act of contrition before receiving Eucharist. If I do not, will I go to hell.

 

[b_ulmen]

Before we start casting accusations of “mortal sin” on those who do not vote in every election, we should consider why we do not cast similar accusations on those who do not do any of those other things that can further the common good.

 

[JoeFreedom]

No, I strongly disagree. You must vote, and vote for the lesser evil if given the choice between two evils.

Again, here’s this thing about “expressing opinion” in the same breath as “rights” over doing one’s duty as if rights are the be-all and end-all of the American existence. Your duty as a citizen is to do your part, no matter how small, in trying to form the government you need. Voting is not about “expressing opinions”. It’s about actively trying to build something. By refusing to vote, you abandon this duty to those who would build it in another, and possibly wrong manner.

The Catholic Church has held that the exercise of the right to vote is morally binding, so to intentionally fail to do so is likely at least venially sinful.

And if you don’t vote, and therefore didn’t do your part to at least work towards building the government you want, you will definitely get the government you deserve.

I would respectfully disagree. Imagine a choice between Evil Candidate #1 who believes in abortion for everyone, eugenics, and ethnic cleansing, and Evil Candidate #2 who believes in abortion for everyone, eugenics, but is against ethnic cleansing.

Should I vote for Evil Candidate #2, the lesser of two evils?

And not voting is a form of voting just as much as me not spending my money at a restaurant because they support abortion.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I would respectfully disagree. Imagine a choice between Evil Candidate #1 who believes in abortion for everyone, eugenics, and ethnic cleansing, and Evil Candidate #2 who believes in abortion for everyone, eugenics, but is against ethnic cleansing.

Should I vote for Evil Candidate #2, the lesser of two evils?

And not voting is a form of voting just as much as me not spending my money at a restaurant because they support abortion.

But nothing is ever quite that simple because anyone elected to the presidency has constituencies to worry about for re-election and legislators in his party as well. Let’s say Candidate #1 is of a totally pro-death party, while #2 is of a party that’s against, let’s say, all of those things, and whose constituency is as well.

I say one votes for No. 2 because #1 is far more likely to get those awful goals accomplished than is #2.

 

[Convert_in_99]

I don’t like either main party and won’t vote for the lesser of the two evils, cause that is still supporting morals I and my Catholic faith don’t agree with. When there’s a candidate worth voting for again, then I will vote. Until then my conscience is clearest by not voting.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t like either main party and won’t vote for the lesser of the two evils, cause that is still supporting morals I and my Catholic faith don’t agree with. When there’s a candidate worth voting for again, then I will vote. Until then my conscience is clearest by not voting.

If you’re waiting for perfect congruence with your faith as you see it, you’ll never vote again.

 

[JoeFreedom]

If you’re waiting for perfect congruence with your faith as you see it, you’ll never vote again.

That certainly seems true in this day and age. Why can’t we have to decide between the better of two goods?

And yes, I have not voted before because neither candidate appealed to my political leanings or my faith and morals. But I have also had to choose before between multiple good candidates.

 

[Ridgerunner]

That certainly seems true in this day and age. Why can’t we have to decide between the better of two goods?

And yes, I have not voted before because neither candidate appealed to my political leanings or my faith and morals. But I have also had to choose before between multiple good candidates.

I guess my view is a bit harsher; perhaps more “Irish”. I see the Dem party as “the enemy” notwithstanding that I was born in it and was once an activist and party officeholder in it. I now support Repubs; not so much that I believe in them greatly, but that they are the key to either the defeat or reform of the Dem party. Enough defeats might just cause the Dem party to reform, particularly if the defeats came at the hands of Catholics who understood the difference between intrinsic evils and those things one just doesn’t prefer.

When the party turned to utter and total dedication to abortion and simultaneously abandoned the poor and working class, it seemed to me an evil organization, and it still does.

So to me, it is not a matter of balancing this mundane policy against that one. My attitude is that I’m in a struggle, and it compels me to oppose that party until (if ever) it changes its ways profoundly.

 

[exnihilo]

I guess my view is a bit harsher; perhaps more “Irish”. I see the Dem party as “the enemy” notwithstanding that I was born in it and was once an activist and party officeholder in it. I now support Repubs; not so much that I believe in them greatly, but that they are the key to either the defeat or reform of the Dem party. Enough defeats might just cause the Dem party to reform, particularly if the defeats came at the hands of Catholics who understood the difference between intrinsic evils and those things one just doesn’t prefer.

In single member plurality elections (like we have in the US) the candidates tend to move towards the middle. When you look at the aggregate of candidates in a party you find the party itself tends to occupy the middle ground. That is why local politicians of either party tend to often reflect more local politics than the party. The parties have to have some way to differentiate them from the other. So you’ll have talking points or planks in platforms.

The Democrat party isn’t going away. The Republicans and the Democrats have rigged the system to the benefit of both parties. The Democrat party may change but so will the Republican. Sometimes subtle shifts in politics may cause some voters to move to the other party. Since the game is played at the middle these people tend to be those who don’t benefit as much from the middle ground both parties seek.

The practical problem I see in American politics is that at a national level neither party actually cares for Christian values. They’ll talk about them to get votes. But they aren’t going to actually do anything with the exception of create a welfare state, if you consider that a Christian value. And the only reason they do that is to get votes and increase government power, which is why’ll almost every politician gets into politics.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The practical problem I see in American politics is that at a national level neither party actually cares for Christian values. They’ll talk about them to get votes. But they aren’t going to actually do anything with the exception of create a welfare state, if you consider that a Christian value. And the only reason they do that is to get votes and increase government power, which is why’ll almost every politician gets into politics.

I would disagree a little. After all, if George Bush hadn’t appointed Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court, partial birth abortion would be legalized nationwide. Because of them, states can outlaw it altogether, and some have. Obama’s appointees voted to make it a “right” that states couldn’t prevent.

Might not seem like much. Maybe the Mexico City Accords don’t. Maybe the Bush prohibition on using aborted fetuses in research and products wasn’t much, but it was something. Those things are not without merit. And, to be sure, the Repubs would never have forced the Little Sisters of the Poor and similar orders to pay for abortifacient coverage for their workers and themselves like the Democrats have, then sue the religious orders when they refused to do it.

No, I think I can see differences. They might not be what people would want in the way of Christian value measures, but they are something.

But I will agree that neither party has done a thing for the truly poor since the Earned Income Credit. That was Reagan’s and look how long ago that was.

But I will say again that I don’t think the Dems will change from pro-abortion and anti-marriage until they start losing election after election because of it. Catholics could make that happen, but won’t.

 

[ALoveDivine]

I can’t vote in the upcoming election because to do so would be to vote against the clear dictates of my conscience. To vote for the democrats means to vote “yes” on abortion, which is consent to the continuation of legally sanctioned murder. To vote for the republicans, who have promised to cut social safety nets, means to consent to the further ruin of the most poor and vulnerable in society, including children and the elderly. I will not be complicit in the murder of abortion or the more indirect murder of destitution and poverty.

If Bernie Sanders was pro-life I would not only vote for him but campaign for him as well. I refuse to ratify either abortion or capitalism, hence I’m staying home on election day. There is absolutely no electoral choice for those of us who are socially conservative and fiscally liberal.