Bishop Nickless Answers Questions on Politics and Issues

Dec. 20, 2007

Bishop Nickless frequently receives questions from the faithful of the Diocese on many different topics. Here are three common questions on the subject of politics, which he would like to answer for all.

Is it okay for a Catholic not to vote?

In principle and as far as possible, a Catholic should always vote (CCC, 1915-17). In general, because God works in and through people and institutions in the world, Catholics are obliged to participate in social, economic, and political processes. By our participation as members of the Body of Christ, we are a principle means for God's universal and perfect Providence to achieve what God wills for the world. We change the world for Christ by being His hands. From our baptism, then, we have the responsibility to use our power in the world (our purchasing, our voting, our freedom of speech) morally, for Christ, and in opposition to all that is evil.

Only in the situation in which such participation would require idolatry, apostasy, or similar grave evils, should a Catholic not vote. Realistically, in our country today, these evils are not inherently implied by our social or political participation. However, a Catholic might choose not to vote in the race for a particular office - for example, if no candidate could be supported without violating basic moral norms - but still vote on other races and issues.

What is the most important issue today, and why? Can't other issues together outweigh just this one?

As Pope John Paul II taught so clearly in Evangelium Vitae, the most important issue today is the status of the human person. This issue is politically very complicated and touches on various rights, various issues, and many very personal fears. But at root, this issue is very stark. The core question is: What is a human person? And the necessary corollary is: Who decides?

This is the fundamental issue of the 21st century, for two main reasons. One, our technology is beginning to give us the ability to manipulate life at the cellular level. Are there any clear moral limits on what we can do with that technology? And two, our modern world is built on the enfranchisement of the human person. The revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe and America justified themselves by claiming to defend the inherent liberties of all citizens. In the 19th and 20th centuries, we expanded our definition of "citizen" as broadly as possible. We listed all the "liberties" we could think of, and constructed legal defenses for them. Now we have to face the issue of their "inherency." At root, does the State get to define who is human and who is not, and on what basis their "inherent liberties" can be recognized and protected; or does that humanness of the human person begin at some level before the State, so that the State can only recognize what already exists? Even more crudely put, the issue is: Can we allow the State to pretend to be God?

No other issues, even together, outweigh this issue, because this is the issue that the very concept of the "common good" turns on. Every other issue is defined in reference to this issue.

Does listening to the Church take away our freedom of conscience?

No. The greatest freedom is that of Mary (CCC 144): conceived without sin, protected from sin throughout her life, Mary was not limited merely to the restricted choices of. She was free to give herself to God in the Annunciation, without any hesitation. The fact that she was not able to sin made her more free, not less (CCC, 1733).

There are two ways of being free: freedom from unjust control, and freedom for some greater good. These two work together, as in the example of Mary. Not every external control is unjust, and a good person does not seek to be free of the just influence of others: for example, of spouse and children, of friends and neighbors, of mentors and teachers. By resisting unjust control but working with just influence, we open ourselves to the transforming grace of the Church; we can be formed in freedom for love. This is the most radical freedom. It makes possible the sanctity of ordinary men and women, who transform their small corner of the world for God.

Formation of conscience requires formation in both kinds of freedom. We must learn to recognize what influence is harmful, and what is proper to our social nature. We must learn to sacrifice for others, even for our enemies, as Jesus taught us. We must learn to love the sinner without measure, as Jesus did, but never to compromise with sin.

The teaching authority of the Church comes from the power of the Holy Spirit. It is never an unjust authority, robbing us of proper freedom. If we resist it willfully, we are blinding ourselves to Truth and limiting our freedom to love. If we respect it, even in ignorance and wrestling to conform to the Church's teaching, we will grow in freedom as we grow in holiness and love for God.