Offered to assist faithful voters

“‘There is no Catholic vote, and yet the Catholic vote will decide the election.’”[1] Perhaps you have heard or seen this adage; perhaps it sobers. Could it be galvanizing? Is there an opportunity before us to reflect favorably on the values of our faith in the context of shaping who we choose to lead, how we are governed in society, and how we wish to shape America’s outreach to the world?

Winters, in his article cited above, mentions the economy and immigration as two potentially influencing factors. Should they be influencing, and to what extent? A recent data-based article in Deutsche Welle reports that the impact of Presidential policies since 1995 on the economy are not clearly discernable among various factors that affected the U.S. economy during this time period.[2] According to data cited from the Economic Policy Institute supporting this article, only under Biden’s administration, among the three presidents, are wage inequalities (a leading factor for the impact of consumer prices on the less fortunate) between the top 0.1% and 1% earners and the bottom 90% of American workers decreasing after peaking during the pandemic. Under Trump’s administration wage disparity for the wealthiest 0.1% grew from 67 times the average salary for the bottom 90% of workers to 76 times their salary. Only under President Biden has the Federal Reserve reversed “quantitative easing” (a driver of inflation and income disparity) with “quantitative tightening,” which shows favorable downward trends in inflation and income disparity.[3]

In terms of inflation-adjusted dollars, a gallon of milk costs less today than it did in 1995 according to data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.[4] The inflation-adjusted cost, in terms of 1995 dollars, dropped 44 cents per gallon under the Obama administration. It fell 3 cents under the Trump administration and has risen about 5 cents under Biden’s administration. Looking at data[5] from the same source for a comparison of staple consumer-item prices in September 2024 against equivalent dollar values in September 2004 shows the following changes for a pound of bread, a gallon of milk, a dozen eggs, and a gallon of gas: +20%, -24%, +99%, and +6%, respectively. There are upward trends in the price of eggs, gas, and bread beginning in the middle of the Trump presidency, extending into Biden’s term, but indicating a leveling and/or declining trend over the past two years. How much of these recent price trends are due to Presidential policies rather than a pandemic, invasion of Ukraine, and change to free-range chicken standards (the latter of which has been decided state by state, mainly enacted under the Trump administration[6]) is difficult to discern. Rhetoric from candidates about the economy will be forgotten in six months, any successes taken credit for, and any failures likely blamed on the other party.

Under present laws, undocumented immigrants are duly processed. Some may stay; some will go. Some, or their progeny, may make helpful or even great contributions to our society. Some may rise to Presidential levels. Aren’t we a nation mostly of immigrants? Which Presidents did not descend from immigrants?

Pope Francis, when asked to offer advice to the American Catholic community, cast the decision mainly as a choice between two “evil” public policies – reproductive rights vs. fencing out and deporting immigrants.[7] Hopefully, His Holiness’ choice was not adjudging the candidates themselves. Unfortunately, His Holiness did not touch upon other issues complicating the November decision: the current wars and daily loss of lives in Ukraine and the Mideast; income disparity, poverty, racism, and gun violence in schools and public places in the richest country in the world; the integrity of the candidates themselves and whether they are deserving of absolute immunity from the law in all their official acts.

Among Jesus’ teachings are aid to the ravaged,[8] the well-known golden rule,[9] not letting matters of money adversely affect our values,[10] seeking righteousness,[11] knowing a tree by the fruit it bears,[12] and caution about judging.[13] As Christians, we hold these values dearly from an early age. 

And how do the candidates, based on their words and actions, measure up to these values? One candidate this past year has aided delay of defensive aid to victimized Ukraine, offered words of praise[14] and encouragement to the ravager to do more[15], threatened to abandon NATO allies, and has been convicted (by a jury of his peers that was approved by the trial attorneys of both contending parties) of 34 counts of felony crimes involving fraud. This candidate sat for nearly three hours in the White House dining room, ignoring advice from his closest advisors, watching the violent attack unfold on January 6, 2021 doing nothing, as an official act, to stop and prevent the destruction of property, the injury of 174 police officers of which 15 were hospitalized, injuries to an unknown number of rioters, and possibly prevent six deaths attributed to the attack and at least 1,200 legal charges brought against the rioters.[16] Instead, this candidate incentivized the angry mob, in the moment, to direct its rage at his loyal Vice President, who failed to violate the law and shirk his Constitutional duty at the President’s insistence and attempt to remain in power.[17] Afterwards, this candidate had his many attorneys argue that even though the actions committed that day were heinous, their defendant deserved special consideration and should be absolved from any guilt under Presidential immunity for his official acts.[18] This candidate is someone who has encouraged Israel to start a war with Iran[19], and now, weeks before the election, claims he threatened Putin with missiles launched on Moscow if Ukraine were invaded[20]. Is it true, or more fraud[21] to gather votes? Ukraine had been invaded and Crimea annexed two years before Trump’s presidency. What did he do in his official acts about the annexation and fighting in eastern Ukraine during his presidency?

So far, advocating for abortion rights appears to be a significant deterrent for Kamala Harris in terms of alignment of public policy with Catholic values. Otherwise, we know she has advocated for continued defensive aid to victimized Ukraine and for curbing hostilities in the Mideast.[22] We know she has served the public throughout her professional career, respecting, and upholding the precepts of our nation’s laws. She is someone who values equality among our people, inclusiveness, the rules of law, and the democratic process. She has loyally supported the Biden administration which has restored respect among our allies on the world stage, been a leader in defensive aid and assistance to victimized Ukraine, and recently checked and begun to reverse the trend of increasing consumer costs and wage disparity. Of the two candidates, Harris is the only one with plans to address child poverty and wage disparity.[23] 

As a Catholic community, we hope and pray that those contemplating abortion, after careful consideration of the totality of the circumstances, would choose birth and rearing or putting the child up for adoption when there is minimal risk of harm to the mother and child. Is it rightful for others, knowing nothing about the individuals’ particular circumstances, to dictate this choice for them? On the other hand, fundamentally, many Christians with values learned from an early age are not accepting of the reverse, being dictated to participate in any way in the taking of a human life form once started.[24] If I were in a physician’s shoes and asked to terminate such a life form with my own hands, would I willingly participate? We hope that candidate Harris can take these life-saving pleas equally to heart.

Does a vote for candidate Harris mean that I or we support her completely with regard to reproductive rights? Will she be able, unilaterally and instantly, to reverse the bans already enacted and dictate actions to the faithful they wish not to perform? Roe v. Wade has been overturned, and states are independently determining their laws regarding reproductive rights. Is there room for compromise, with our petitions and cooperation among the parties, should she rise to the Oval Office? Do we not have any religious exceptions for this difficult issue? If not, why not? A religious exemption from mandated health insurance coverage exists in Massachusetts.

Before us is a decision arguably much greater than a choice between two public policies. This decision can have far-reaching consequences in Europe, the Mideast, and Asia. If we think we can elect a candidate that can wave a magic wand and immediately fix consumer prices and issues relating to immigration and reproductive rights, we may be inadequately informed. 

Do we want someone in the Oval Office who wants to be a dictator, and has encouraged another to do more worldly harm; someone who would, in all likelihood and without compassion, abandon the ravaged in Ukraine; someone who, most likely, would return America (in his effort to make it great again) to an object of pity abroad;[25] someone who, along with his new companion, still cannot accept the facts and truth of the 2020 election and therefore is unlikely to accept the truth of any election not won by him or his chosen ones; someone who has incited and allowed deadly violence during his official inaction in the Office. Can we trust his deeds to “insure domestic Tranquility” and “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity?”[26] 

On the other hand, we have the public servant. Someone who was not privileged with excessive wealth from birth. Someone who has spent her life respecting and upholding the laws of this country. Someone who at least has a reasoned plan to address children living in poverty in America.[22] (Neither Trump’s website nor sparse 16-page platform pamphlet[27] even mentions poverty.) On this hand, we have someone who has a plan with revised tax codes to address wealth disparity in America. (Trump’s pamphlet nowhere addresses wealth disparity or increasing taxes on the wealthiest.) On this hand, is someone who could be the first female President of this great nation ruled by “We the people,” possibly becoming a shining example for others, and perhaps someone who can find a suitable compromise to our differences about reproductive rights. Whom shall we join by law to that Office? What message, as the American Catholic community, shall we send to the world, to our neighbors, to our children, and to their children?  

Can we, as Catholics, “judge critically, to discern the true from the false, the fact from the fiction” in the popular press to elect an effective leader with “a tough mind and a tender heart,” as Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in 1962.[28] What Dr. King penned and preached then rings with clear relevance today:

There is little hope for us in our personal and collective lives until we become tough minded enough to break loose from the shackles of prejudice, half-truths, and downright ignorance. The shape of the world today does not permit us the luxury of soft mindedness. A nation or a civilization that continues to produce soft minded men is using an installment plan to purchase its own spiritual death.

Regarding the choice, His Holiness advised, “Everyone, in conscience, think and do this.” Who will we collectively trust to faithfully administer the oath and actions of the Oval Office with absolute immunity from the law for all their official acts: the one unaccepting of hard truth, the convicted felon, or the public servant, the supporter of our laws? May our thoughts and actions be informed with truth and tough mindedness. May we hear “the better angels of our nature.”[29] And perhaps, at the end of the day on the 5th, our guiding light will be something else you might have heard or seen: 

“Honesty is the best policy.”[30]