Pope Francis issued Fratelli Tutti in October 2020 and Dilexit Nos just yesterday. These two documents, one focusing on political love and the other focusing on the importance of the heart, have much to teach Catholics who are discerning how to vote in the upcoming elections. The candidates for President have different policies, to be sure. But they also have different understandings of democracy and vastly different temperaments. At least at the level of the US Presidency, much is at stake in this election. What does it mean, then, to vote “with heart”? Pope Francis writes:
For this reason, when we witness the outbreak of new wars, with the complicity, tolerance or indifference of other countries, or petty power struggles over partisan interests, we may be tempted to conclude that our world is losing its heart.
Dilexit Nos, 22.
He goes on to say:
Whenever a person thinks, questions and reflects on his or her true identity, strives to understand the deeper questions of life and to seek God, or experiences the thrill of catching a glimpse of truth, it leads to the realization that our fulfilment as human beings is found in love.
Dilexit Nos, 23.
Voting with heart, then means that our political participation is the fruit of thinking, questioning, and reflecting on our identity; striving to understand the deeper questions; and figuring out what it means to use our vote for love.
In Fratelli Tutti, Francis explains that the telos of politics is the common good. In the papacy of Pope Francis, the scope of the common good has been expanded in two important ways: first with respect to who is included, and second with respect to the timeline under consideration. Regarding the first, Francis includes other animals and the natural world—the planet, this common home—that sustains life. In Laudato Si, Francis explained that “the climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all” (23). When I harm the natural world—through overconsumption, or by giving in to the convenience of single use water bottles—I sin against the creatures who need a thriving planet to survive. These might include fish, birds, and polar bears far away. Such an expansive understanding of the common good—encompassing all planetary life—can seem too capacious, but it results in a challenge that requires us to identify our interdependence with all other creatures.
Francis has expanded the common good in other ways as well — In the fifth chapter of Fratelli Tutti Francis explains the need for a better kind of politics. Francis rejects short-term solutions; instead he advocates for preferential concern for those most in need and consideration of what he calls the long-term common good. Much like the seventh generation principle in indigenous traditions, Francis calls us to attend to the wellbeing not only of those living on our planet today, but the generations that will follow us. What kind of world are we passing on? What kind of politics?
Given the upcoming elections in the US context, it is worth lingering on this category a bit longer. After all, what really is at stake when we cast our ballots? We’re told by campaign slogans on all sides that we should think about whether we are better off under this or that administration, or whether new tax laws would harm our family budget, or whether the next administration will take away my rights. These are all important and moral issues. But the correction issued by our Catholic faith is this: Your vote is not just about you. You should not vote to make your life better. Instead, you should vote in support of the long term common good. Francis explains:
In the face of many petty forms of politics focused on immediate interests, I would repeat that true statecraft is manifest when, in difficult times, we uphold high principles and think of the long-term-common-good. Political powers do not find it easy to assume this duty in the work of nation-building, much less in forging a common project for the human family, now and in the future. Thinking of those who will come after us does not serve electoral purposes, yet it is what authentic justice demands.
(in #178 of Fratelli Tutti, quoting #178 of Laudato Si)
Voting with a view to the long term common good may sound overly complicated, but if we prayerfully consider the lived experiences of those on the peripheries today, we can simply ask ourselves: How can I use my vote to help the incarcerated, the hungry, the unhoused, the woman facing an unplanned pregnancy? How will my vote help the worker who struggles to pay his mortgage even though he works two full time jobs? How will my vote help to create a society in which people are kinder to one another, and politicians tell the truth?
Francis does not boil down his teachings on authentic justice to one hot-button issue for voters. Instead, he discusses a broad range of social issues that voters should care about, from hunger to homelessness to health care; from immigration policies to economic policies; from reform of criminal justice systems to nuclear disarmament and peacemaking; and expanded environmental regulations that care for the natural world.
While Fratelli Tutti was written in 2020, the issues identified as challenges in the political sphere are no less relevant today. Francis rejects:
- a throw-away world (18-21)
- short-term thinking (161)
- political propaganda (166)
- dehumanizing treatment of migrants (39-41)
- liberalism that serves the self-interest of the powerful (155)
- any person or group’s claim to absolute power (171)
- political corruption (176)
- a vision of politics that focuses on a quest for power (195)
- the death penalty and the use of war/violence to settle political disputes (255-285)
Instead, Francis affirms:
- politics in the service of the common good (154)
- far-sighted planning and a focus on the long term common good (178)
- the right to dignified work (162)
- women’s rights (23)
- special concern for the poor and those on the peripheries (64-66, 165, 187)
- just taxation structures (168)
- a fundamental reform of legal systems (183)
- the importance of reducing polarization and seeking a change of heart, attitudes, and lifestyles (166)
As someone who lives near the US-Mexico border, I’m particularly struck by the way in which both Fratelli Tutti and Dilexit Nos invite us to see the threats to human dignity in migration policies. Fratelli Tutti reads as if it was written after the Presidential debate between Trump and Harris, rebuking Trump’s lies about Haitian asylum seekers: Francis explains:
“Many migrants have fled from war, persecution and natural catastrophes. Others, rightly, are seeking opportunities for themselves and their families. They dream of a better future and they want to create the conditions for achieving it.”
Fratelli Tutti, 37.
The pope goes on to explain how migrants experience separation, fragmentation, and for some violence and exploitation.
“Then too, in some host countries, migration causes fear and alarm, often fomented and exploited for political purposes. This can lead to a xenophobic mentality, as people close in on themselves, and it needs to be addressed decisively.”
“There is a problem when doubts and fears condition our way of thinking and acting to the point of making us intolerant, closed and perhaps even—without realizing it—racist.”
Fratelli Tutti, 41.
If you are trying to avoid voting for a racist politician, the pope says, pay special attention to the way the politician talks about migrants. Does the politician use dehumanizing language? That’s racist. Does the politician stoke fear and alarm leading to a xenophobic mentality? That’s racist. Does the politician call all migrants criminals, or say they are eating their neighbors’ pets? That’s racist. “For Christians, this way of thinking and acting is unacceptable,” says Francis.
Does Catholic social teaching explain how exactly the next President should honor the human dignity of migrants while balancing the security interests of US citizens? No. But there have been bipartisan efforts to come together to make modest changes that would help the most vulnerable. The next President needs to bring stakeholders back to the table to work on this complex issue.
The fact that Trump killed the last attempt at a bipartisan approach is worth noting as voters discern whether someone with his record can be trusted with such an important task. Consideration of the long term common good with regard to immigration will require not only that we treat immigrants and asylum seekers with dignity, but also that we advance structural reforms.
Some Catholics may argue that Trump’s role in re-shaping the Supreme Court during his first term, and the resulting overturning of Roe v. Wade, make him the more “pro-life” candidate. But gone are the days when the pro-life movement could confidently and unambiguously claim that a vote for the Republican candidate was a vote for life. Instead, the pro-life movement today is facing the reality of an unpopular Dobbs decision, evidence of real harm to pregnant women and moral injury to medical providers, and an undisciplined Republican Presidential candidate who seems to want to both take credit for the overturning of Roe v Wade and claim that women should trust that if re-elected, he would care about their ability to access reproductive health care.
I’ve thought a lot about what it means to advance justice for pregnant people today, and what role abortion should play in our discernment about voting. In my book, I explain that pregnant women today have reasonable concerns about what is expected of them if they continue a pregnancy. Caring for children requires prioritizing the needs of a vulnerable other, and struggling to balance many responsibilities. Class, race, and gender complicate the ways that parents experience and navigate these responsibilities. The Catholic moral tradition has rightly emphasized the interdependence of human persons and the importance of fostering the social conditions for families to thrive. In my book I spend a chapter articulating wide-ranging structural reforms. If pregnant women could depend on practical supports such as good jobs, fair wages, safe housing, opportunities for home ownership, adequate nutrition, affordable health care, affordable child care, quality public education, increased support for caring for children with special needs, and freedom from relationship violence, this would radically reshape the discernments pregnant women face.
The question for voters is – Which candidate will make forward progress on these structural reforms that are needed? Which candidate is most likely to expand family leave, address the high costs of day care, and ensure that our children’s schools are safe from gun violence? These are life issues too.
To vote with heart in this election means to prayerfully and critically consider the harm to vulnerable people in a potential Trump second term. Here is a leader who is a convicted felon who regularly cites authoritarian dictators as role models. He threatens journalists and was considered liable for sexual assault.
Do you have a heart? Let your heart tell you what is at stake in this election.