Pope Francis Makes Perfect the Enemy of the Good
The US Presidential election pits "two evils" who are "against life."
CNN (“Pope Francis criticizes Trump and Harris and says voters must choose between ‘lesser of two evils’“):
Pope Francis on Friday described the choice US voters must make in the presidential election as one between the “lesser of two evils,” deeming former President Donald Trump’s anti-migrant policies and Vice President Kamala Harris’ support of abortion rights as both being “against life.”
“One must choose the lesser of two evils. Who is the lesser of two evils? That lady or that gentleman? I don’t know,” Francis said during a press conference on the papal plane, referring to Harris and Trump. “Everyone with a conscience should think on this and do it.”
Francis has been more vocal about politics than his predecessors and has moved to make the Catholic Church more open. While he has consistently and strongly defended the Catholic Church’s teaching that abortion is the deliberate destruction of a human life, Francis has also insisted it cannot be isolated from other issues concerning human life, including immigration.
“To send migrants away, to leave them wherever you want, to leave them … it’s something terrible, there is evil there. To send away a child from the womb of the mother is an assassination, because there is life. We must speak about these things clearly,” he said.
Francis has previously weighed in on political issues, signaling more progressive stances by allowing priests to forgive abortions, authorizing blessings for same-sex couples and repeatedly warning about climate change.
He has challenged Catholic bishops in the US who have insisted that abortion is the “pre-eminent” issue, arguing that the plight of migrants is also about the defense of life. In 2016, Francis described then-presidential candidate Trump’s plan to build a wall to stop migrants from crossing the US-Mexico border as “not Christian.”
And when bishops were debating in 2021 whether to deny communion to public figures who support abortion rights, including President Joe Biden, Francis urged them to make their decisions from a “pastoral” viewpoint and not a political one. The pope has said he has never denied communion to anyone.
Francis has criticized couples who choose to have pets rather than children, aligning with views expressed by Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance, a converted Catholic who has derided women without kids as “childless cat ladies” and described those in the country’s “leadership class” who don’t have children as “more sociopathic.”
The answer to the old question, “Is the pope Catholic?” remains an emphatic Yes.
As a matter of principle, I would just as soon Francis and other religious leaders—especially non-Americans–stay out of the business of presidential endorsements. The notion that some divine force has a preference in our elections rather grates and contributes to the unhelpful sense that the outcome is existential and therefore justifies extreme measures.
That said, if Francis is going to weigh in, it baffles me that he genuinely believes Trump and Harris represent equivalent degrees of “evil.” Trump is actively seeking to make the lives of millions of people worse and, indeed, doing so simply with his extreme rhetoric. Harris is seeking to return to the status quo of half a century in protecting abortion rights. While I understand that Catholic doctrine has life beginning at conception, it’s not as if Harris is encouraging people to have abortions; she merely thinks they should have that right.
First off, I think you meant to say “As a matter of principle, I would just prefer Francis and other religious leaders…”. Because “assume” doesn’t make sense.
And since we’ve heard from Protestant religious leaders (albeit mostly home-grown ones) since the 1950’s at least, I don’t see what the big deal is when the President and CEO of the multinational Holy Mother Church Inc. weighs in as well. At least he’s basing it on Catholic doctrine and not making stuff up like the Prosperity Gospel types. Or Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell saying 9/11 was America’s fault because we tolerate gays and lesbians.
So just some more noise that voters can decide to listen to or ignore.
And just for the record, I’m Catholic.
@Not the IT Dept.: It was supposed to read “just as soon.” I’m not sure if autocorrect got me or I just mistyped.
As noted in the OP, I’d prefer American religious leaders not bring God into our politics, either. But they’re at least American.
The pope is picking and choosing just like most religious people do. They have decided that life begins at conception, but not really – just for abortion policy.
But they still employ a large number of pedophiles and still have a long and storied history of protecting them (and themselves) from consequences, so they’re not truly concerned about the safety of children.
And they seem unconcerned about Trump’s support for the death penalty, cheating on all of his many wives, and breathtaking commitment to dishonesty.
Just as I look beyond President Bonespurs for guidance on patriotism and service to one’s country, I look beyond the Pope for leadership on matters of ethics and morality.
On the catholic doctrine of life, NO. political candidate that tolerates the death penalty is acceptable – hence “evil”.
I’m not defending the pope, but interpreting his POV, where he is compelled to support Catholic doctrine.
@Not the IT Dept.:..At least he’s basing it on Catholic doctrine and not making stuff up like the Prosperity Gospel types.…
All religious doctrine was made up at one time or another.
Priest who kept his mouth shut through Argentinian military dictatorship and now presides over the world’s largest protectorate of child rapists, says what?
@Not the IT Dept.:
An important Catholic doctrine is that the pope is infallible, no? Well, Francis is surely undermining that doctrine if he can’t differentiate between Trump and Harris.
The Pope is bound by Catholic doctrine. Unlike Evangelicals who changed their doctrine post Roe, Catholics have believed since the mid 1800s that “life” begins at conception. Meaning, if I understand it, that that is when God implants a soul. I have no problem with him asking Catholics to behave in accordance. I was born and raised Lutheran. We believed “life” began at birth. Although I’m long gone from that tradition, my brother, the late Reverend, told me the ELCA still accepts abortion, albeit reluctantly. The political question should not be “is abortion evil” but “are Catholics, and Evangelicals, allowed to impose behavior on others”.
Meanwhile, the threat is not the Pope. The problem is the more Catholic than the Pope Catholic Integralists and “postliberals” like JD Vance. Along with their Dominionist protestant allies. The linked AP story and a few like it are something of a rarity. I wish the supposedly liberal MSM would take these people more seriously and dig into just how weird JD and others really are.
Taylor Swift’s endorsement carries more weight.
To me, the most important sentence in that quote is:
I will maintain that this is about as far as Francis can go in supporting Harris. He’s saying that Catholics should not assume that their faith requires them to vote for one or the other candidate.
Trump has complicated the situation with his waffling on abortion, but given the Parties’ positions on abortion, I wonder if the Pope hasn’t gone as far as he could. Better he stayed silent, but if he feels he has to say something, neutrality is better than saying vote on the single issue of abortion,
Says the man who lives in a walled city with guards at the gates.
Interesting that Francis has not pushed back on the “life begins at conception” doctrine that only dates from the jihadist Pope Pius IX of the mid 19th century. Jihadist in that he also promoted Catholics gaining positions of power in their nations with the goal to make them Catholic nations. A doctrine that fed into the “reluctance” of electing a Catholic to the presidency until JFK pushed back on the fear.
Of course, prior to Pius IX the doctrine was the “quickening” which is fetal movement felt by the mother. Modern interpretations us the shift from embryo to fetus at about week 10-12
@Scott F.:
Actually Papal infallibility is limited. Infallibility does not apply here.
@JKB:
“Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.’” Zechariah 7:10
“He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.” Deuteronomy 10: 18-19
There’s always that dude, Jesus who said to love your neighbor as yourself (and clearly defined “neighbor” as not only pretty much anyone, but actually to specifically include foreigners who are treated with disdain by the general population–see, the story of the good Samaritan). And don’t forget, “do unto others as you would have done unto you.”
You might look at Matthew 25:32-46
I know you like older texts, so perhaps you might consider what lessons are being imparted here.
@gVOR10:
More accurately, The political question should not be “is abortion evil” but “are Catholics, and Evangelicals, because of their religious beliefs, allowed to impose behavior on others”.
Just for the record, I’ll note that
doesn’t sound like much of an endorsement of one candidate over the other. If you want to be angry that the Pope said something that offended you, that’s fine by me. But the Pope didn’t make an endorsement, he made a comment on the state of morality in America.
And also for the record, I don’t think that’s his job either. Christianity is a religion of individuals not nations, or it’s at least supposed to be.
@Scott F.: “An important Catholic doctrine is that the pope is infallible, no?”
Actually, it’s become pretty clear over the past few decades that at least in the US, the pope is infallible only if he’s a right-winger, and preferably if he has hints of Nazi ties in his past. Liberal popes are to be suspected of consorting with Satan.
The amount of people who have not reckoned with abortion and are undecided about the issue is pretty negligible, and likely too young to vote. Once you’re an adult you’re pretty set unless the issue confronts you very personally and immediately.
Here is my outsider’s perspective – the Roman Catholic church sorta screwed themselves on birth control. I know, dogma, traditional teachings, etc., but the church was way out of step with modernity on that issue and it reflected on them. Most folks want to choose when to have a kid. When the prescribed solution is to pull out, pfft.
Outside of weirdo, narcissistic Mormon lifestyle vloggers who has 7+ kiddos anymore today? 90+% of firm adherents to your faith practice are blatantly ignoring your strictures on birth control if they can afford it.
And birth control is often the gateway drug that leads to one becoming ex-Catholic. Who are you to say what I can do with my body?Why are females shunned? Why did child molestation get covered up for centuries?
The failure to reckon with modern ideas on family planning was the crack.
@just nutha:
RE your comment
Who is the lesser of two evils?
I don’t know.
doesn’t sound like much of an endorsement of one candidate over the other.
I would like to disagree. I would say that his statement is inappropriate in that it is “not weighing in as a moral leader” during a time that Indiana Jones has never been needed more. Liz and her Dad stepping up fur Democratic (Big D) Principles worldwide showed much more character. It’s yet another disappointing papal position to take when lives are on the line, and generally I have been a big fan of this Pope, to date. Best from Seattle.
@Josh in Seattle: Hmmm…
I thought that when I said
that other readers would not need to disagree with me about a point to which I made no reference at all because it was ancillary to my stated belief that he overstepped his authority as a Christian. My apologies for the misunderstanding.
ETA: As a non-conformer, I’m never a fan of any Pope. I’m one of those dangerous people who believes that I can read the Bible for myself and decide how to live based on my own agency.
Once upon a time, Alexei Sayle had a joke about how if Hitler had annexed the Sudetenland for spina bifida, everyone would have thought it was fine. I thought it was hilarious at the time, but not any more.
@de stijl: Yes, it is pretty remarkable when the world is getting vastly better ethical advice from a pop diva than from the papa diva.
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
In Catholic doctrine, the technical term for such a person is ‘heretic’. Evangelicals agree with you, but only because that means they can ignore the parts they don’t like, such as the instructions from that effeminate libtard Jesus of Nazareth.
Why is this a surprise? Wasn’t the Vatican neutral on Hitler?
I think few people would claim that Donald Trump is, at present, significantly worse than Hitler.
@DrDaveT:
Not to any degree that I’ve experienced personally. As a teenager, I was ordered to come to see my pastor for a conference at which he explained that my belief that I could just read the Bible for myself and decide what it means made me dangerous and put me at spiritual risk. Most of my later experience with evangelicals leans toward evangelicals agreeing that I can read the Bible in any way that conforms to their own personal reading.
You’ve obviously been paling around with evangelical liberals who hate our country if you think what you said.
ETA: And yes, I’ve been told that I’m a heretic by any number of people during my life. One of the Bible passages that I find most encouraging, in many different venues, is “Remember, when the world hates you, it hated me first.”
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
Interesting. When I was a Southern Baptist kid, belief in “the priesthood of the believer” was a cornerstone of evangelical theology. It was what got the Baptists kicked out of Massachusetts Bay in the first place, IIRC. I hadn’t realized that this has changed.
IANAL.
We know that Texas legislators are in the process of trying to regulate interstate travel to prevent Texans from traveling to another state to get an abortion.
Would such a law be in any way constitutional?
I know of certain crimes that involve transfer of funds that get extra charges for cross state border activity. Doesn’t that require superseding federal law, though?
Without a federal law, can a state enforce a law like a state-wide abortion ban outside of it’s boundaries? Is this the “commerce clause”? (I need to educate myself on that.)
What if, during a fishing trip to Minnesota, I decide to have a legal abortion there? On a whim. Just because. Why not?
Is it intent?
Is it at all constitutional for Texas to try to enact this law that bans interstate travel to obtain a legal abortion?
Let’s assume gambling is illegal in Idaho. If an Idahoan goes to Las Vegas and plays a hand of blackjack, are they breaking any law?
Why are serious questions like this decided by partisan judges appointed to basically tip the scales for their preferred party?
@DrDaveT: The “priesthood of the believer” is something we want to want to believe in more than something we actually practice believing in, at least in my experience. Everything is always great until someone disagrees. Then we revert to what you might remember being referred to as “the old nature.” That’s when things get ugly.
ETA: Of course, the SBC wasn’t nearly as relentlessly separatist as I grew up with in the GARBC.* You guys and the ABC were the liberal modernists we departed from in the 1920s after all.
*General Association of Regular Baptist Churches
@de stijl:
Would the current Supreme Court be unable to find an excuse/pretence to justify it as constitutional? Color me skeptical.
ETA: As to the “why” question, the men who wrote the Constitution never imagined they would lose control of the reins of power. At least that’s MY cynical take.
Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society is GOP Catholic, has 9 kids. Almost all of Ohio’s elected, state level politicians are right wing Catholic. Gov. Dewine fathered 8 kids.
James Joyner and Greg Olear are rare influencers who are brave enough to shed light on the politicized Catholic sect. Olear described right wing Catholics as the strategists gaining successes and, he described protestant evangelicals as their foot soldiers.
Jefferson warned, in every age, in every country, the priest aligns with the despot.
The education vouchers sweeping state legislatures which are the libertarian’s school privatization, are spearheaded by the lobbyists of Catholic Conferences. They are aimed at filling Catholic organization coffers. Taxpayers have made Catholic organizations the nation’s 3rd largest employer.
The exec. director of the Colorado Catholic Conference was formerly with EdChoice and the Koch network.
Btw- 22 years elapsed between the first reporting about priest abuse and the Boston Globe’s reporting.
@de stijl: @de stijl: @de stijl: @de stijl: @de stijl: @Gustopher:
The view/perception that the Catholic Church and right wing Catholics are benign, politically, in the US is inaccurate. Catholic, Adrian Vermuele, an Ivy League professor of law, has been described as liberalism’s most dangerous critic.
One of the early originators of the education voucher (tax dollars for religious schools), political scheme, prescribed in Project 2025 (the Guardian recently described associations between Kevin Roberts, architect of the “2025” document, and the secretive Opus Dei) was Father Virgil Blum of Marquette University. The Center on campus, named after Blum, was funded by the Bradley Foundation.
Btw- Kevin Roberts founded a Catholic K-12 school and he was formerly president of Wyoming Catholic College.
As a second example of an array of political initiatives, in August 2023, three Ohio dioceses spent $900,000 for anti-democracy, GOP ballot Issue 1, according to Ohio Capitol Journal. Simultaneous to the spending, the state’s bishops were claiming they had no position on the issue because it had no moral content. Another, among the top 5 spenders on Issue 1, was American Principles Project which was co-founded by Catholic activist and Princeton law professor, Robert P George.
I appreciate the willingness of the blog to post my comments.
Two days ago, Pro Publica wrote about the summer’s successful scheme of GOP, Catholic lawmakers in Ohio to get tax dollars directly to Catholic schools that would enable them to construct new facilities with public funds. Unlike the public schools built with public funding, the new builds, funded by taxpayers, will be assets owned, not by the public but, by Catholic organizations. (To my knowledge, Pro Publica is the first national media to write about the Catholic advance of power and gain of tax dollars through law).
The Ohio Supreme Court which is dominated by Republican Catholics, ruled that public funds once transferred to private schools lose accountability to the public. Neither are private schools’ boards elected by the public. Nor do the various religious sects operating schools have to adhere to civil rights employment law (a result of the Republican Catholic majority decision by SCOTUS -Biel v St. James Catholic school).
A legitimate concern that libertarians could consider, based on support of individual rights (assuming it includes the rights of women) is the overt discrimination of the Catholic church against women. To the extent that a plausible, forthcoming SCOTUS decision exempts all religious organizations from civil rights employment law, many demographic groups, including the non-religious, may find themselves unable to get employment in organizations like those of the nation’s 3rd largest employer. Childless men and women can be denied employment by publicly -funded employers. Students can be denied enrollment because of their parents or their own “bedroom” decisions, etc.
Conditions are aligning to set up the US as an authoritarian theocracy instead of a representative democracy. Much of the effort is led and paid for by wealthy, GOP, self-identified libertarians.
Expect the school funding plan in Ohio to spread to other states. Based on history, the legislation will receive especially warm welcome in states with Republican, Catholic Governors/Senate and House leaders.
Economist Germa Bol’s research identified a characteristic of the lead up to Nazi Germany. It was expansion of privatization.
Btw- research showed there are parishes that generate more income from vouchers than from collection plates.