Pro-Life Catholics, how do you respond to this?

How would you respond to someone who says that if you vote based on the abortion issue or the abortion issue alone then you very well risk neglecting or even throwing others under the bus specially undocumented immigrants, the poor and disadvantaged who rely on social resources or a better holistic agenda specially within today’s two party paradigm? What would you say to someone like a voter who feels self-conscious, guilty if not frustrated about making such choices or even feels like they’re going against others like fellow Catholics (specially those who seem to know or be better than them) and even the religious?

But I don’t vote based on any single issue. Because if I did then I would potentially be throwing other groups of people under the bus. Voting JUST based on abortion (which I’m not denying is far FAR from being a small matter) does risk neglecting the poor, the dispossesed, the homeless, the mentally unwell, etc. I really really try to vote holistically.


Do you know that Republicans are far more charitable than democrats? Democrats want to do charity with other people’s money with government programs that don’t work!


The Church does not ask that you vote on a single issue and you are allowed to vote for a candidate who is pro abortion.

What Pope Benedict, while still Cardinal Ratzinger said about this:

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”


If you mean illegal aliens then they don’t have any rights in the USA. They are breaking the law and expecting to be treated like citizens with rights and privileges of the constitution.

Regardless of how anyone votes, abortion is the murder of an innocent child.


I’m trying to remember my cite, but early on in the history of our country, there was some sort of a disaster (was it a fire? a storm?) that destroyed the homes of a lot of people. And they appealed to the federal government for relief. And John Adams said, basically, that’s not our thing. Our thing is to run the country— citizens need to stand up for each other and help each other out in times of trouble.

So, obviously, we’re not in that mindset anymore these days, but it was a reminder that we’ve traveled to where we are, but it’s not necessarily where we began. Rather than looking at government to solve all of society’s ills, we ought to look closer to where we stand in the chain for help and assistance. So, we rely on a strong family, a strong network of friends and relationships, and a strong community in order to come together and help people in their times of necessity. But ultimately, a lot of society’s ills can be traced to an individual’s choices. Some people, yes, it’s like the universe is conspiring against them. And one form of poverty is lacking those healthy, grounding relationships where you have reliable people who can work with you. But a lot of the people we know who have trouble… we know exactly what behaviors cultivated a lot of their struggles, and what behaviors need to go away.

So-- if someone sez (very truthfully, and it has been for years) that our immigration program is broken, the answer isn’t “disregard it”, but the answer is “fix it through proper legislation.” If someone is concerned about people suffering because of hypothetical social program cuts, ask them for examples of what they’re specifically concerned about. In some cases, yes, cuts happen. In other cases, funds get redirected. Like, for example, with PP that recently chose to forego federal funds than comply with rules that prohibit them from making abortion referrals. The Title X money’s still there-- but it’s being referred to clinics that provide health services without making abortion referrals in the process.

I would give them a hypothetical situation: Candidate A believes in every policy you believe in, except that he supports legalising the murder of POC/White people/Muslims/any group of people. Candidate B believes in policies you disagree with, but the right to live/free speech/etc is safe.

Would they vote for A?

Also, the problem is that the ‘other side’ doesn’t guarantee that these groups of people will be well taken care of. Their policies are not good. So it is difficult to talk about this when you’re just looking at the ‘intention’ to help certain people. Not to mention that the democrats weren’t good with illegal immigrants either. Practically the same thing, except the media didn’t bother because it was not a tool to attack conservatives.

I guess i would reassure them. It’s not their fault that the government is a mess! But also, voting is not the only thing you can do. They can support a party in some cases, and stand up against the same party in others.

For example, pro life feminists are raising money and are actually going to the border to help, like Abby Johnson and Live Action.


What about those who have no one or whose issues may overwhelm their own circle specially since of the poorer and working classes have a cohort who may be struggling themselves? Also, while some individuals seem to support a self inflicted cycle, isn’t a lot of it stemming from an early family background or even a mindset of poverty, one in which one lives day to day since the priority is survival not the long games since that’s set separately due to priorities? Additionally, what about wide-scale systemic issues like schools not meeting student needs, social services seeming overwhelmed and poorly-equipped to support those at the margins and a capitalistic structure where some are left struggling because of dead end work (which may disappear with automation), lack of social mobility upward of catching up with cost-of-living or living cost, those with no recourse or light at the end of the tunnel?

Sorry of/for stressing (not sorry for stating but if I triggered or aggravated any stresses).


I guess you’re not a lawyer. They DO have rights according to US law.

And even if it wasn’t codified in US law, remember that radical, lefty liberal, Thomas Jefferson? Perhaps a re-reading of the Declaration of Independence is in order: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”


As I agree with them, and with the Bishops, that this can happen, I would suggest that we start a study of the Bishops’ guide at our Parish as we run up to election:

I would say that no election is between an angel and a demon, and every election requires the voter to weigh his conscience and choose the candidate they believe is, on the whole, better.

I’ve never had the chance to vote for a candidate with whom I agree on every issue. I just try to choose the one I think is better.


That should be obvious, but of course the pro-life supporters can’t see that.

Let me quote the USCCB document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” issued in 2007: "A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good.”

What could those other aspects of social doctrine be? The bishops give some examples (article 29): “Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed.”

So, in good conscience, can you vote for a party that is pro-life but is racist (“Send her back,” “Very good people on both sides…”), advocates torture, supports unjust war (arms to Saudis they use to bomb civilians in Yemen), ignores those suffering from hunger or lack of health care, has an unjust immigration policy, and much much much more? I certainly can’t.


Sure. We can put a band-aid on their wounds and give them nourishment and then put them on a comfy cozy air conditioned bus back to their country of origin. Send them back across the border so they can apply for citizenship like the legitimate citizens who immigrated here.

1 Like

That is how they maintain their base. Government programs where not meant to be a way of life. Sadly we are in some cases seeing the 4th and 5th generation of families that only know that way of life.

1 Like

So all those treaties about refugees seeking asylum that the US not only ratified, but in most cases sponsored, are just…what? pieces of paper? fake news? nonsense? Commie drivel?

Start with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 14 of the UN charter, and go from there. There are a HOST of treaties the US has ratified that deal with refugees seeking asylum.

The US has an obligation under international law. And, since this is a religious forum, under GOD’S law. Did you listen to the Gospel last week? The Good Samaritan? All that stuff about treating your neighbor as yourself? Is that all “just words”?


Government programs where not meant to be a way of life. Sadly we are in some cases seeing the 4th and 5th generation of families that only know that way of life.

Isn’t the reality of most social initiatives not so much supporting one entirely like living off benefits but serving as an augmentation of cost of living like SNAP support purchasing of groceries, Medicaid to support those who may not access coverage by themselves and Housing Choice Vouchers assisting people in supporting rents which possibly may overwhelm them?

1 Like


The purpose of the Great Society programs was to eliminate the need for them; the idea was that they would give a leg up and help folks to get out of poverty. What we’ve seen instead is that they’ve made poverty more affordable (which is a good thing! But inadequate.) and had some deleterious externalities.

As always when discussing social phenomena, it’s complex.


I don’t think they are wrong, so I would probably agree with them.



So all those treaties about refugees seeking asylum that the US not only ratified, but in most cases sponsored, are just…what? pieces of paper? fake news? nonsense? Commie drivel?

The Good Samaritan

God gave us the right to choose where and when we are charitable. We don’t need a colossal government to tell us when and where we need to be charitable.
As with all treaties we have options. It does not automatically mean we have to let people in our country.
We are generous as Americans. We will always help the refugees until the problems in their countries are resolved. We have sent food and temporary shelter when there is a refuge crisis. We also, have the right to choose who enters the U.S. if properly vetted. Taking on 100 thousand at once is crippling to the economy and that is why the cartels are convincing these people to migrate and force entry and act like they have squatter’s rights. They are using these people as pawns. These people need to stay in their countries and to paraphrase a famous person " Make their country great again." If we left north America before we declared our independence the U.S. would not exist to be the shining light on the hill for all to desire. God inspired our founding fathers to build a nation under God.

As for God’s will. God gave the countries distinctiveness. This is sacred and necessary for the world. What you are preaching is that everyone is the same and there should be no borders. The idea that everyone is the same is socialism, communism, and atheism. We are distinct individuals with God given gifts who build a nation. The illegal aliens have their gifts and they can build a just nation. Inspire them.
If I wanted to go across the border into an American Indian reservation and start building a house what do you think would happen? You know that land is sacred and God guided us for the use of borders. Come into to the country legitimately.

1 Like

I’m not American so I can’t give a true answer to this as we have no parties who are pro life so we cant vote solely for that reason.
But I do say one thing, how you vote is between you and God, it’s no one else’s business unless you ask for advice on it. Our churches give out a standard leaflet advising us not on who to vote for but instead on issues to consider and we read that and try to pray and make the best decision from a bad bunch. I’d say that’s the best you can do too, read all you can on your candidates, pray and make the best decision you can. This broken and sadly secular world will never have a good Catholic candidate (imho) but we have to do the best we can and vote. I’d say it’s going to be different for everyone, those for whom abortion is a major issue may well put that first, others for whom poverty is a major issue may well put that first,. etc. It’s not one size fits all, that where the nudge of the Holy Spirit comes in, if we listen to that we can’t go wrong. Ask your angel for guidance and/or the angel of your country.

1 Like
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit