The group Catholic Answers Action (
www.caaction.com) has come out with their “Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics”. It gets distributed by the Knights of Columbus, which I am a local member of. In the guide they say it is never acceptable to vote for candidates who favor abortion, euthenasia, fetal stem cell research, cloneing and gay marriage. It states that these are non-negotiable issues and a Catholic can’t vote for a candidate who favors them unless all candidates favor them. It also states that war and the death penalty are not considered non-negotiable issues and Catholics can vote for candidates who favor them. This does not sound like “official” Catholic teaching to me, since our own Pope states that there are circumstances where a vote for candidates who favor these labeled “non-negotiable” issues is acceptable. And the Catholic bishops officially said it was not a sin to vote for a prochoice candidate if you voted for them because of issues other than their postition on abortion. These pamphlets look like political propaganda to me. Who are the people behind the Catholic Answers Action group? Are they misrepresenting the teachings of the Catholic Church? What can a person do to stop this garbage from being distributed at our Church? Does the Catholic Church, itself, have a voters guide available for distribution and how is it available?
No, they are not misrepresenting the teachings of the church. They are orthodox and faithful.
You can only vote for a pro-choice for proportionate reasons.
An example would go like this:
There are two candidates. Both are pro-choice. One is for euthanasia, one is not. You should cast your vote for the one that will render less harm. That is the Catholic teaching on this and that is what the CAA voter’s guide says.
As far as war and capital punishment goes the Church allows for them.
Legitimate defense:
Legitimate defense
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
%between%
you agreed with me on something. 
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.