On his return to Rome from Southeast Asia, Pope Francis was asked about whom he would vote for in the U.S. election. 

First, the Holy Father said he does not vote in U.S. elections, and then said, “Both are against life. The one who kicks out migrants and the one who kills children. In general, it has been said that not to vote is bad, it is not good. You should vote. You should choose the lesser evil. Who is the lesser evil, that man or that woman? I do not know. Everyone should think in conscience and vote.” 

Is there a gradation in evil? Yes, but when it comes to life issues this is very difficult to distinguish. Are some migrants condemned to death by being expelled from the United States? Certainly, it is possible. However, are all aborted fetuses condemned to death? That is more certain. 

I wish it were that simple when voting in an election. It is more complex, and many factors and probabilities must be considered. I chaired the U.S. Bishops’ Conference Committee that drafted the document on the responsibility to vote in elections — “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” 

The document has withstood many years of scrutiny and has needed to be supplemented by adding some issues that are new or not directly addressed. The document does now include some new papal teachings. For example, issues surrounding migration were not given great prominence at that time, as it was not necessary at its first writing, but the general direction on conscience formation has withstood the ravages of time and opinion. 

Let us first tackle the most obvious life issue, which is abortion. It is clear from the bishops’ statement that the right to life, especially in relationship to abortion, must be our preeminent concern. However, we must recognize that the issue has changed over the years. First, abortion access and restrictions have been relegated to the states because of the Dobbs decision, perhaps slightly changing the focus of advocacy to state and local governments. Second, half of all abortions today are performed by taking a pill, which has been sanctioned by the Supreme Court, which slightly changes the tactics and strategy of pro-life advocacy. This is not because of its abortion effect, but because of the right to have medications. 

The question for that woman is that she supports an unbridled right to abortion but in all probability would not be able to get Congress to approve legislation making it legal nationwide, much less make it a constitutional right. The odds seem to be very slim. The Democratic candidate has opposed pro-life pregnancy centers and activists and has embraced gender ideology, including transgender and contraception mandates that have at times jeopardized religious freedom. She supports in-vitro fertilization (IVF), which is now in line with the Republican candidate’s position, except that he wants it to be paid for by the federal government. 

On the other hand, the Republican candidate’s policies regarding migration, most especially regarding limiting the right to asylum and the deportation of all the undocumented in our country, seem to be a more certain consequence if elected. 

This would include border enforcement which would limit the right to asylum; interior enforcement which would feature mass deportations and family separations; an end to birthright citizenship and to parole programs including deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA); negative changes to the family-based immigration system; a reduction in naturalization numbers, which would become much more expensive and difficult to attain; and a reduction, as in his first term, of the refugee resettlement program. These negative policy changes would certainly affect not only the quality of life for migrants but also endanger many lives of those deported. 

There are many other issues that need to be considered in the decision to vote for a particular candidate, but, unfortunately, today, in our political system, we usually wind up voting against someone and not for them. Our choices are severely limited by those who present themselves for elected office. We certainly need a mature and informed electorate who understand the issues before them, especially the life issues, but also, we need qualified candidates who also reflect Catholic values. 

Voting after reflecting on a well-formed Catholic conscience will not be an easy matter in this election, but as we vote, we must seek God’s assistance. 

Over the long term, the Catholic community and others of goodwill must work together to produce and support candidates who embrace life and human dignity and work to establish the common good for all.