n Catholic Answers’ Catholic Voters’ Guide, we are taught that there are five non-negotiable issues that guide our selection of political officials:

1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia / Assisted Suicide
3. Fetal (not adult-derived) Stem-Cell Research
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual ‘Marriage’

Of course, we would also hope that the candidate be Catholic, and espouse other values in accordance with the dogma and morals of the Faith. However, I must point out the following:

If you do ever happen to run into a good Catholic candidate, or at least a good candidate who satisfies the five criteria above, remember that there are other important issues to consider, such as a social support structure for the poor, medically indigent, handicapped, mentally ill, elderly and children. After all, our Lord did mandate that we should tend to them, even to the point of sacrifice (love your neighbor as yourself; when you did it for these, you did it for Me; etc.). And it is this sacrifice that makes Charity a virtue, rather than just being ‘nice’ or ‘caring’ or ‘kind’ or ‘helpful.’ Thus, this requires establishing a safety net of sorts.

Recently, Jim Wallis echoed my own sentiments:

In 2004, several conservative Catholic Bishops and a few megachurch pastors like Rick Warren issued their list of “non-negotiables,” which were intended to be a voter guide for their followers. All of them were relatively the same list of issues: abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, etc. None of them even included the word “poverty,” only one example of the missing issues which are found quite clearly in the Bible.

I understand the arguments of those who say that charity can be accomplished in the private arena (individually and by churches and private charitable organizations); but such efforts, while laudable, are inconsistent and vary in coverage from region to region, population to population and season to season. I would argue that it is vital to have something more dependable and constant. Put in all the checks-and-balances that are required to ensure that the system is not abused or taken for granted, but ensure that the system exists. In an ideal world, where everyone lived truly according to the Faith, this system would not be necessary; but in the Real World, it is sorely needed.

Thus, I would kindly propose that a sixth non-negotiable issue be added to the list:

6. Concern for the Poor, Medically Indigent, Infirm, Disabled, Mentally Ill, Elderly and Children — and Support of Social Support Structures Thereof

What to do when there are candidates who don’t meet these six criteria perfectly? The Voters’ Guide says,

In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.

A difficult decision, I think. But one well worth pondering.

Addendum: ‘Normative’ is not equivalent to ‘optional’…

es, unlike the other five non-negotiables, which are essentially Boolean parameters (i.e., yes/no, with no middle-ground), or at least a limited set of ordinal variables (stance 1 > 2 > 3), social concern requires normative assessment, having complex quantitative and qualitative dimensions.

I feel that people who say it cannot be a non-negotiable just cringe at the admitted difficulty involved in its analysis… It’s harder to weigh Candidate A’s stance against Candidate B’s platform. Be that as it may, all things worth doing are difficult! Most people would agree that this is a moral issue that warrants our attention and analysis, and I would offer that our Faith obligates us to do so. Moreover, the fact that it is far more vague and complex and interwoven with other issues makes it that much more deserving of our attention precisely because most people will gloss over the issue in preference of the other, more easily classified non-negotiables.

Wallis says it this way:

After the last election [of 2004], I wrote a book titled God’s Politics…, [in which] I was trying to explore what issues might be closest to the heart of God and how they may be quite different from what many strident religious voices were then saying. I was also saying that “God’s Politics” will often turn our partisan politics upside down, transcend our ideological categories of Left and Right, and challenge the core values and priorities of our political culture. I was also trying to say that there is certainly no easy jump from God’s politics to either the Republicans or Democrats. God is neither.

In any election, we face imperfect choices, but our choices should reflect the things we believe God cares about if we are people of faith, and our own moral sensibilities if we are not people of faith. Therefore, people of faith, and all of us, should be “values voters” but vote all our values, not just a few that can be easily manipulated for the benefit of one party or another.

In 2008, the kingdom of God is not on the ballot in any of the 50 states as far as I can see. So we can’t vote for that this year. But there are important choices in this year’s election — very important choices — which will dramatically impact what many in the religious community and outside of it call “the common good,” and the outcome could be very important, perhaps even more so than in many recent electoral contests.

Just as no candidate in the Real World will espouse, perfectly, the Church’s views on all five of the non-negotiables, no candidate will have the perfect plan for systematized social support structures (e.g., welfare, medical insurance and ensured access, home health assistants, etc.). If we are able to weigh, say, satisfactory conformation in three of the five non-negotiable items for Candidate A against conformation in two of the five for Candidate B, then my argument is that we must also include in this mix an assessment of my Criterion #6. There may not be a clear, objective method to decide if a candidate has a ‘baseline, satisfactory’ position… Assessment here is more akin to subjective discernment, and as such, it may be easier to compare the positions of each candidate. In so doing, I would find the candidate who is better devoted to the Church’s requirement for Charity, at a system-wide level, and award him or her one gold star for this. Add that to the tally of the other five non-negotiables and see who comes ahead.

The sad truth of the matter is that we will likely be disappointed with the candidates, regardless, even after this is thrown into the mix. It just makes us realize that there is a great paucity of true heroes in the world today.

No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. (Mt 6:24; cf. Lk 16:1-14)

All the more evidence that we are engaged in a grand Culture War. Let us continue to be the Church Militant and tirelessly defend God and our Faith from secular threats and sabotage from within.