Last Wednesday, the Irish Rover published an article titled: “The Catholic Case for Trump.” The author, Shri Thakur, is a friend of mine, so I decided to allocate the necessary fifteen or so minutes to read the article through. The article was well-written, with concise argumentation and a plurality of well-presented points. I was concerned not with the thesis itself — namely, that Catholics should vote for Trump — but with the article’s critical lack of contemporary context, which was further exacerbated by its tone. I therefore felt compelled to respond, but not with some sharp-tongued, abrasive polemic, the likes of which are all too common in today’s fundamentally polarized society. Rather, I am simply entering into dialogue with my friend, with whom I would not have a relationship were we to fundamentally disagree about the most important issues of the day. Having read the article through, and with this in mind, I wish to analyze the claim that Catholics should vote for Trump from the perspective of politics and the perspective of faith.
Throughout the article, Shri issues a call to action in a variety of ways, such as when he says: “[n]owhere in modern American history has the country seen a candidate who has posed as much of a threat to the faith as Vice President Kamala Harris,” noting that “[t]he future of our nation depends on [voting for Trump].” Shri concludes by saying that: “[t]he stakes of this election are simply too high to forbear. Catholics should vote for Donald Trump as if their faith depended on it, because this time, it does.” Whilst these statements may be true, they are clear alarmism, the type which comes around what feels like every election cycle, where every election seems to be more important than those that have come before it — every time! Both sides act as if American ideals are at stake in the voting booth, but it is the most fundamental American ideal to have a voting booth in the first place. If the alarmism of every election cycle were justified, then either America would be perpetually doomed every four years before miraculously resurrecting in time to be doomed again four years later, or this process — and by extension its result — is fundamentally American. Unlike other nations, which are constituted by a land and a people, America is constituted by a document fittingly named according to its function.
Of course, other countries have constitutions, but these are governmental constitutions — they do not constitute the country itself. When France cycled through various types of government between 1789 and 1815, the country of France remained, being defined throughout by its land and people. As long as there is a consciousness of this, the country can still exist — Israel was reestablished two millennia later due to this consciousness being preserved by its people. It is in this manner that countries are generally constituted. America, however, is constituted by a document, without which it would necessarily cease to exist – it is no accident that our Supreme Court is its “guardian and interpreter.” The supreme courts of other nations are simply guardians and interpreters of the law; America, however, gives its highest judiciary authority, the keys to the country’s very essence. Over time, therefore, America is constantly manifesting itself, as the Supreme Court’s work of interpretation is particular to every historical moment, and is therefore endless. The rigorous checks and balances, in conjunction with America’s perpetual state of becoming, mean that any governmental action is distinctly American, which is not possible to say for other countries. Such an identification of a governmental action with its nationality in any other country would break down, as there are more degrees of separation between the country and its government than in America. If it happens that an elected government which you dislike which does things you dislike is elected, it must therefore be conceded that this election and these actions are as American as your voting in the first place. As long as the Constitution is upheld, America exists as it is, regardless of our opinions or what is said in the myopic political squabbles of the here and now. From a political perspective, therefore, I disagree with the alarmism within Shri’s article; namely, that the future of America is somehow at stake.
I now wish to treat Shri’s thesis from the perspective of faith. According to Professor Paul Kleppner, in his book “The Third Electoral System 1853-1892” the Democratic Party was the undeniable Catholic party by the late 19th century; with its emphasis on helping the poor and defending trade unions, 70% of Catholics voted for the Democrats. This continued well into the 20th century until the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s. With the Democrats adopting positions contrary to Catholicism, such as championing abortion, contraception and gay rights, Catholics were left at a crossroads: regardless of who they chose to support, they would inevitably side with something they did not agree with, whether it be the economics of the Republicans or the social policy of the Democrats. Some people changed their party affiliation; some stayed. The contemporary cultural pulse could not be more lucidly expressed than by Mario Cuomo in his speech titled “Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor's Perspective,” given right here at Notre Dame. His thesis can be summarized in the following paragraph: “Our public morality, then — the moral standards we maintain for everyone, not just the ones we insist on in our private lives — depends on a consensus view of right and wrong. The values derived from religious belief will not — and should not — be accepted as part of the public morality unless they are shared by the pluralistic community at large, by consensus.”
To many Catholics, this distinction between our private and public lives resolved the newfound cognitive dissonance of political participation, and it was therefore widely adopted by many Catholic politicians such as Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi. This distinction, however, is bogus. Catholics must be Catholics always, in both private and public life, lest Our Lord’s instruction to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Mt 28:19) go unheeded. When we die, only one soul is going to be judged – not a private soul and a public soul. The blatant hypocrisy of these politicians led many Millennial and Gen Z Catholics to side with the Republicans.
This has been a net good – it was because of this allegiance that Trump was able to be elected; Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett were appointed to the Supreme Court; and Roe v Wade was overturned. The Republicans, however, are still opposed to much of Catholic Social Teaching, something which has been largely ignored in this wave of new conservatism. The longer that Catholics have aligned themselves with the Republicans, the harder it has become to ideologically distinguish between them. This has led to the opposite cognitive dissonance of Biden and Pelosi – now, many Catholics find themselves in support of right-wing policies, against welfare for the poor, aid for climate change and unions (though Trump has won more union support recently). In voting for the Republicans, these Catholics have gone the extra step of identifying with them, as if this were a natural consequence of their vote. In so doing, they participate in the fundamental desire of a political party to be in power and therefore share in its alarmism every election cycle; to political parties, anything that would detract from them being in power is alarming. As Catholics, we should not care who is in power, and therefore not participate in this emotive frenzy; we should vote according to our conscience based on issues, not parties. The unconditional attachment of Catholics to political parties has been proven by history to be detrimental to their Catholicism – our vote, therefore, should be based on a sober analysis of the issues at hand, uninfluenced by the piercing political noise from both sides of the aisle.
I agree with Shri that Trump is the better candidate this year between him and Harris. Due to this, I have not objected to any of the points of his article, as that was not my intention. Latent within the article, however, I see a broader trend of history repeating itself, where Catholics align themselves with beliefs antithetical to their own under the auspices of political participation. As I have said earlier, there is no reason that voting for a party needs to mean that you identify with it. With the 2024 election right around the corner, I worry for American Catholics. Given the current rates of polarization, our identification with the right-wing may lead to further ideological concessions, to the point where we become unrecognizable as Catholics. As John 15:19 reminds us: “If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world.” Whilst we must change the world for the better and maintain the extant good, we must view our lives teleologically — towards God. To get bogged down in the weeds of political myopia is to lose sight of this grand end. In being not of this world, we must be detached from those things that are of this world, that we may more readily yoke ourselves to God. As we go to the voting booth on November 5th, may we vote as Catholics, and nothing else.
Rafael Llull
junior
Nov. 3
