Does voting on the basis of faith (e.g., voting for pro-life policies or candidates because of the Church’s teaching) mean imposing your faith on others? Immersed in a culture of classical liberalism—the theory that everyone has the right to personal liberty insofar as it does not interfere with the liberty of others—Catholics may be hesitant to let their religious convictions motivate their political involvement for fear of “imposing” their religious beliefs on others.
In recent political philosophy literature, “public reason liberals” raise a similar concern. They claim that citizens ought to rely only on shared, “public” reasons when participating in politics. Out of respect for citizens as free and equal, they argue, we should only support the laws and policies that everyone else could be “reasonably” expected to endorse. By analogy, just as respect for one’s roommates might mean giving them reasons they can accept for the rules of the house, respect towards one’s compatriots might mean only supporting laws they can accept.
While there is much disagreement over what exactly constitutes a public reason, some philosophers maintain that arguments based on faith are not accessible to others and thus cannot be used in political advocacy. Instead, they think that we should only support laws on the basis of shared principles like freedom, equality, etc. Thus, from their perspective, voting on the basis of faith risks imposing laws and policies that others cannot be reasonably expected to endorse. This, it seems, amounts to imposing faith.
In response, it is important to note the Church’s distinction between the justification for civil laws and the personal motivation of particular voters. The Church teaches that the basis of civil law is the natural law—the moral sense “which enables man by reason to discern the good and the evil” (CCC 1954, 1959). While the natural law must justify civil law, it need not be the motivation for a particular voter. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in the Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, states that faith as the motivation for political advocacy does not delegitimize that advocacy:
The fact that some of these truths [i.e., moral truths concerning society, justice, freedom, respect for human life and the other rights of the person] may also be taught by the Church does not lessen the political legitimacy or the rightful autonomy of the contribution of those citizens who are committed to them, irrespective of the role that reasoned inquiry or confirmation by the Christian faith may have played in recognizing such truths. (6)
Voting on the basis of faith on said moral issues does not lessen the political legitimacy of that voting because “such ethical precepts are rooted in human nature itself and belong to the natural moral law. They do not require from those who defend them the profession of the Christian faith” (Doctrinal Note, 5). For example, even if a Catholic were to solely vote against abortion or same-sex unions as a matter of faith, that would not be “imposing faith” because such matters are grounded in the natural law. Since any moral truths grounded in the natural law can be known through reason and do not require faith, voting for such moral truths cannot be considered “imposing faith.” Thus, voting on the basis of faith does not mean imposing your faith on others, as long as the moral truths are also grounded in the natural law.
Since any moral truths grounded in the natural law can be known through reason and do not require faith, voting for such moral truths cannot be considered “imposing faith.”
How do Catholics know if moral truths are grounded in the natural law? Notably, some Catholics might not be able to articulate the natural law arguments, say, against abortion. Nevertheless, their political legitimacy is not lessened. Such truths remain grounded in the natural law regardless of whether or not someone is able to articulate them. Trusting that the Church’s teachings on moral truths concerning society, respect for human life, etc. are grounded in the natural law, even without being able to understand all the philosophical nuances, is sufficient. And Catholics are certainly justified in trusting the Church. God has revealed himself as good—through Scripture, the Church, the sacraments, historical testimony, miracles, personal encounters in prayer, etc.—and it is not irrational to submit to him and his Church in faith. The natural law—with all its demands on the human community—remains true and binding regardless of whether it is known through natural reason or faith.
However, just because some moral truth is known by natural reason does not necessarily mean that it ought to be enforced by civil law. Aquinas says penalizing every breach of the moral law would be overbearing (Summa theologiae I-2.96.2.), and impossible since civil law cannot know interior human states (Summa theologiae I-2.91.4.). Civil laws should only prohibit those acts “that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like” (Summa theologiae I-2.96.2.). In addition to prudence, the Church provides some guidance in our deliberation on what precepts of the natural law ought to be enforced by civil law. For example, the Church teaches that the legal protection of abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex unions is contrary to the natural law and cannot be justified.
It is also important for Catholics to know the distinction between specifically religious moral truths and truths grounded in the natural law. Civil law ought not to enforce specifically religious moral truths—namely, the profession of the Creed and the precepts of the Church, i.e., attending Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation, going to confession at least once a year, etc. This is because specifically religious moral truths cannot be known through natural reason but only by faith. To pass such moral truths into civil law would be a violation of religious freedom (Doctrinal Note, Dignitatis Humanae).
Confusion about the distinction between specifically religious moral truths and moral truths grounded in the natural law can have serious consequences. A Catholic might erroneously refrain from voting on issues they hold by faith because they are unaware that the truth is also grounded in natural reason. Catholic moral views, apart from those that are specifically religious, are not simply sectarian but rather are truths grounded in human nature and accessible to all.
Notably, advocating for civil laws that are grounded in the natural law does not mean that everyone will actually endorse said laws and policies. In the current fallen state of the world, the disordering of the passions, weakening of the will, and darkening of the intellect hinder our ability to ascertain the precepts of the natural law clearly (CCC 1960; Summa theologiae I-2.85.3.). Catholics would do well to study the natural law principles that support the various Catholic positions on contemporary issues, both for increasing their own understanding and for guiding others towards the truth.
Instead of removing faith from our public life, we should do just the opposite. Because of man’s fallen condition, he needs the light of faith to illuminate who he is and how to act according to his nature. Just as the Lord gave the Ten Commandments to reveal with greater clarity what was already accessible to reason (CCC 2071), he has given us the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to elucidate the moral truths necessary for the flourishing of the human community. Let faith inform our reasoning and compel us to proclaim the truth boldly.