Fr. Peter Stravinskas' homily for the Sunday before Election Day, 2024 (2024)

Homily preached by the Reverend Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Ph.D., S.T.D., on the 2/3 November 2024, with a catechesis for the presidential election on 5 November

In the lead-up to the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, I had the privilege of providing guidance to this parish community toward a truly Catholic exercise of one’s voting franchise.I do so again, happily.Two days out from arguably the most momentous presidential election in any of our lifetimes, how can the Church’s teaching assist us in fulfilling our Christian and civic duty?

Back in August, I shared with you the clear and pressing teaching of the Church on how a committed, serious and biblically grounded Catholic is to exercise his voting franchise. Today, I want to be even more explicit.In doing so, I am fulfilling the responsibility given me through sacramental ordination to “teach and admonish” the faithful, in the hope that my fidelity to my vocation will spur you on to fulfill the responsibility given you in Holy Baptism to be the salt and light and leaven Christ expects you to be and which our society so desperately needs – whether it knows it or not.

First and foremost, Catholics do not back parties; we back policies.Let me give two examples of what I mean.

The late Archbishop John Whealon of Hartford once cheekily observed that if a child was baptized in this country between World War II and the Vietnam War, his parents received three documents on that day: the child’s baptismal certificate, a union card, and membership in the Democrat Party.To be Catholic in America meant to be a Democrat.

Which leads to my second example.The first time I was to vote in a presidential election was in 1972 as a 21-year-old seminarian.My mother asked for whom I intended to cast my ballot.I replied, “Richard Nixon.”“But he’s a Republican, and we’re Catholic,” came her swift reply.“But I can’t vote for a man like McGovern, with all his problematic policies.”No matter how hard I tried, her mantra was the same: “Nixon is a Republican, and we are Catholic.” As I entered the voting booth and reached for the lever, pulling it down for Nixon, I had something close to spasms, realizing that I would be the first member of my family to vote for a Republican. That night, I called home.My mother asked if I had voted.I responded in the affirmative.“Who got your vote?”“Nixon, as I told you.”I pressed on, “And who got your vote and Daddy’s?” “Nixon,” she answered sheepishly.

Now, to be clear:Although I have cast my ballot in every presidential election since 1972 for the Republican candidate, I care nothing for party loyalty. I have voted for that ticket solely because I could not (and still cannot) countenance the policies of the opposition. Cardinal Timothy Dolan was confronted by a reporter who asked why he appeared to be a Republican rather than a Democrat.Riffing on Ronald Reagan, he offered this terse response: “The Democratic Party left me; I didn’t leave the Democratic Party.”Policies, not party, nor personality.

A serious Catholic votes according to an informed Catholic conscience, for which many resources are available and which I would be happy to share with you after Holy Mass.1 The document of the American bishops encourages Catholics to produce and consult “voter guides” (n. 8); I hope this sermon will serve as one such “voter guide.”

Whether one is a candidate for public office or but a common citizen, the strong denunciation of a certain mentality by the Fathers of Vatican II needs to be taken into account:

One of the gravest errors of our time is the dichotomy between the faith which many profess and the practice of their daily lives. . . . Let there . . . be no such pernicious opposition between professional and social activity on the one hand and religious life on the other. . . . It is their task [i.e., the task of the Catholic laity] to cultivate a properly informed conscience and to impress the divine law on the affairs of the earthly city. (Gaudium et Spes, n. 43).

It is precisely this “pernicious opposition” between one’s personal, deeply held beliefs (we are told) and one’s inability to “impose” these on the rest of society that has given cover to the Cuomos, Kennedys, Kerrys, Pelosis, and Bidens.However, following the sage admonition of the Council Fathers, we must conclude that these would-be emperors have no clothes.Can a black man dissociate himself from his race when considering the positions of a party or candidate?Can a Jewish woman put aside her Jewishness?In fact, would anyone even dare to suggest such a possibility?No, these aspects of one’s person are integral to one’s identity – and so is one’s faith. Hence, the American bishops declare: “The Church’s obligation to participate in shaping the moral character of society is a requirement of our faith” (n. 9). And “the Church” here means all the baptized, which means every one of you!

Is such involvement inappropriate or even “un-American”?The bishops wisely note:

. .. the obligation to teach the moral truths that should shape our lives, including our public lives, is central to the mission given to the Church by Jesus Christ. Moreover, the United States Constitution protects the right of individual believers and religious bodies to participate and speak out without government interference, favoritism, or discrimination. . . .Our nation’s tradition of pluralism is enhanced, not threatened, when religious groups and people of faith bring their convictions and concerns into public life. Indeed, our Church’s teaching is in accord with the foundational values that have shaped our nation’s history: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” (n. 11)

The Catechism likewise teaches that “citizens should take an active part in public life” (n. 1915).

And what about voting “according to my conscience”? Let us also be very clear:“Conscience”is not a synonym for “opinion.” A Catholic informs his conscience by nurturing his mind and heart on the infallible Word of God and on the constant and consistent teaching of the Church down the ages.Cardinal Newman reminds us: “Conscience has rights because it has duties.”2 And our first duty is always to the truth as revealed by Almighty God and handed on by His Church.

Certain issues must always be entered into the moral calculus of one’s vote. The bishops are crystal clear about priorities:

There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, “abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others” (Living the Gospel of Life, n. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed. (n. 22)

Is this “single-issue” voting? No, while I do not vote for someone solely on the basis of one issue, there are certain issues that are what we can call “automatic disqualifiers.” Just as one would most reasonably conclude that a member of the KKK or a neo-Nazi should never hold public office because of his racism, so too any reasonable person can and should conclude that anyone who favors the killing of innocent human babies in the womb is manifestly unfit to hold any position of influence in a civilized society.Or, as the bishops put it:

As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet if a candidate’s position on a single issue promotes an intrinsically evil act, such as legal abortion, redefining marriage in a way that denies its essential meaning, or racist behavior, a voter may legitimately disqualify a candidate from receiving support.(n. 42)

And what about “all the other good positions” a candidate may have, even if lacking in that one area?St. John Paul II, in Christifideles Laici, could not be clearer:

Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights –for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture – is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination. (n. 38)

Following on Pope John Paul’s assertion, the bishops leave no doubt about Catholic social teaching on abortion and euthanasia: “The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed” (n. 28).

“Faithful Citizenship” also has counsel on what to do if all candidates are equally bad on critical issues:

When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. . . . it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose policies promoting intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. (nn. 36, 37)

As you may have heard, on one of Pope Francis’ airborne press conferences, he weighed in our election situation, indicating that he didn’t like either candidate, but he made a fascinating comparison.He said that one “throws out migrants,” while the other “kills babies.”I think anyone with even the smallest moral compass can deduce that migration and the murder of innocent children are not co-equal issues – as the American bishops have been saying for decades. Or, as the indomitable Flannery O’ Connor put it so succinctly in her 1955 short story, “You can’t be any poorer than dead!”

While the Church proposes certain issues as admitting of no compromise on certain non-negotiable issues, like: the right to life, marriage, the family, and parental freedom of choice in education, on other issues she allows for prudential judgments.For instance, care of the poor is essential, but what is the best way to bring about that effect?Welcome for migrants and refugees, to be sure, but under what circumstances?As the fundamental principle is clear, the Church leaves the “how” up to the wisdom and prudence of legislators.Why?Because people of good will can disagree on the means, even as they agree on the principle.

Finally, how do the two principal parties compare on issues traditionally of great import to Catholics? In the past two presidential elections, Catholics had an easier task; the differences between the two major party platforms were stark. They have become more blurred this time around (although still identifiably distinct). Let’s be blunt:The current Republican platform is rather disappointing as it reflects unfortunate and, in my judgment, unnecessary compromises. It is an object lesson, however, in the truth of the biblical verse that admonishes us:“Put not your trust in princes” (Ps 146:3).

Although the GOP platform no longer calls for a constitutional ban on abortion, it does proclaim:“We proudly stand for families and Life. We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied Life or Liberty without Due Process, and that the States are, therefore, free to pass Laws protecting those Rights.” It continues, “After 51 years, because of us, that power has been given to the States and to a vote of the People. We will oppose Late Term Abortion, while supporting mothers and policies that advance Prenatal Care, access to Birth Control, and IVF (fertility treatments).” The last two components are unfortunate and unnecessary compromises.

On a matter promoted by the Church for over a century, the Republican program advances parental freedom of choice in education, as well as religious freedom rights, while the Democrats call for the suppression of both, as has been their consistent policy for decades.

Truth be told, the Democrat platform is the most radical in history at every level.Most distressing is its commitment to press for a constitutional amendment to enshrine Roe v. Wade in perpetuity and support for abortion for all nine months of a pregnancy.Beyond that, the platform calls for protection of LGBTQ+ “marriage equality in federal law” and “gender-affirming care” (which means supporting the mutilation of children and government payment for such procedures for illegal immigrants, military personnel, and prisoners), along with a promise to “maintain the separation of church and state” (which means hostility toward religion in general and toward traditional Catholics in particular).

Equally important to enter into the equation is Kamala Harris’ own personal track record: She led the Biden Administration’s pro-abortion efforts; as senator, she grilled judicial nominees about their affiliations with the Knights of Columbus; as California attorney general, she launched a raid on the home of a pro-life activist; in that same capacity, she promoted legislation that required pro-life pregnancy centers to post notices advertising abortion services; she has consistently fought against exemptions for religious institutions to maintain their integrity in regard to issues relating to life, marriage and family.She is now aided and abetted in her program by the ex-Catholic Tim Walz, who is perhaps even more extreme than she in his leftist agenda.

To put a finer point on the abortion issue, it is very important to note that, given the GOP’s regrettable backsliding on its previous full-throated promotion of the sanctity of human life from the first moment of conception, how are we to proceed? St. John Paul II helps us in his 1995 landmark encyclical Evangelium Vitae, where he notes that when neither political program is ideal, one can vote for the one that inflicts the lesser harm (n.73); that position is echoed by the American bishops in their 1998 document, Living the Gospel of Life (nn. 31-32).

In our present situation, that means that while no Catholic could support the Democrat proposal for abortion-on-demand, one could, in good conscience, accept the Republican platform which, at least, opposes late-term abortion and stands behind the right of a State to ban abortion completely.

Some complain about the Republican standard-bearer’s brashness, but his accomplishments over his four years as President were truly extraordinary, from a Catholic point of view: the most pro-life action of any president since Roe v. Wade; advancement of the cause of religious liberty; appointment of judges of stellar quality to the federal bench and the Supreme Court; strong support for Catholic education.He is accompanied now by J.D. Vance, a convert to Catholicism who, I believe, will bring Trump along in important ways.Am I suggesting that Donald Trump is perfect?Hardly, but no candidate ever has been or ever will be. I would simply remind all that God can write straight with crooked lines; after all, the Lord God used the pagan king Cyrus to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple, as we learn in the Book of Ezra.

Given the fact that we have no “perfect” candidate, please do not fall into the trap of despair and conclude, “A plague on both your houses,” and thus refrain from voting at all.With the stakes as high as they are this election cycle, I do not think one can make a moral case for sitting this one out.The Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 2240) is quite direct on this score: it is “morally obligatory. . .to exercise the right to vote.”Very interestingly, not a few pollsters have observed that conservative Catholics could actually swing this election in the right direction..

Many of you have logically and rightly asked your priests what they are going to do – and you have a right to know that.In sharing this perspective with you in the name of all the clergy who serve this wonderful parish, I have fulfilled the responsibility given me in the hope that it will spur you on to fulfill yours. =If we Catholics have our priorities straight, we shall know how to interface with secular society with conviction, boldness and courage.Our vote will not be about party loyalty or personal expediency.When Bishop of Fall River, Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston penned an “election reflection,” which offers some potentially unnerving remarks for certain Catholic voters (and politicians):

I will not vote for any politician who will promote abortion or the culture of death, no matter how appealing the rest of his or her program might be.They are wolves in sheep’s garments, the K.K.K. without the sheets, and sadly enough, they don’t even know it.
If I were ever tempted to vote for simply selfish reasons, tribal allegiances, or economic advantages, rather than on the moral direction of the country, I should beat a hasty retreat from the curtain of the polling booth to the curtain of the confessional.

God willing, no one present here today will have to do that.

Footnotes:

[1] Vatican II’s Apostolicam Actuositatem (on the laity) and Gaudium et Spes (on the Church in the modern world) offer sound guidance, as do the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. For a specifically American application of these universal principles, read “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States” of 2019 (generally updated every four years to coincide with a presidential election).
[2] A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk, 1874.

Fr. Peter Stravinskas' homily for the Sunday before Election Day, 2024 (1)
Fr. Peter Stravinskas' homily for the Sunday before Election Day, 2024 (2024)
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Recommended Articles
Article information

Author: Fr. Dewey Fisher

Last Updated:

Views: 5898

Rating: 4.1 / 5 (62 voted)

Reviews: 85% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Fr. Dewey Fisher

Birthday: 1993-03-26

Address: 917 Hyun Views, Rogahnmouth, KY 91013-8827

Phone: +5938540192553

Job: Administration Developer

Hobby: Embroidery, Horseback riding, Juggling, Urban exploration, Skiing, Cycling, Handball

Introduction: My name is Fr. Dewey Fisher, I am a powerful, open, faithful, combative, spotless, faithful, fair person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.