By Randall Smith

But first a note: Be sure to tune in tomorrow - Thursday, September 19th at 8 PM Eastern - to EWTN for a new episode of the Papal Posse on 'The World Over.' TCT Editor-in-Chief Robert Royal and contributor Father Gerald E. Murray will join host Raymond Arroyo to discuss the Asian journey of Pope Francis, his comments about America's presidential candidates, religious universalism, as well as other developments in Rome and the U.S. Check your local listings for the channel in your area. Shows are usually available shortly after first airing on the EWTN YouTube channel.

Now for today's column...

A recent article in Crux by John L. Allen Jr. carries the headline: "Pope captures hard truth: American Catholics destined to be 'politically homeless.'" I wouldn't disagree with that statement, but would simply put that headline next to one that says, "Dog bites man." That Catholics will likely have trouble with political authorities is news? Someone needs to read Augustine's City of God. When have Catholics not had troubles with the princes of this world? Was there ever a political regime that instantiated the Church's moral and social doctrine? I've never heard of it.

A more interesting headline would have been: "Pope says Catholics who oppose abortion will have trouble getting into many medical schools," or "Pope says Catholics in Communist China are likely being surveilled by the government."

I'm not denying John Allen's (and the pope's) comment that there is a "lesser of two evils" dimension to the Trump/Harris race or that many Americans "have sometimes felt in recent election cycles that we've been posed with a choice between two flawed alternatives, forced to make the best of disappointing options." Opinion polls show that something like 60 percent of the electorate wish there were different candidates. I'm never quite sure how many of that 60 percent simply hate the other party's candidate. When you watch the nominating conventions, everyone seems so excited for their own candidate.

I wonder whether this is like people's reported hatred of the Congress. Polls indicate that only 16% of the public say they approve of the way Congress is doing its job. Yet 98% to 100% of incumbents get re-elected. Perhaps it's just other people's politicians people dislike. They like their own partisan, pork-barreling politico; it's the partisan, pork-barreling politico for the other side that disgusts them.

But it is probably true, as Allen suggests, that "there are enthusiasts on either side of our partisan divides who probably don't see things in those terms [lesser of two evils], but Pope Francis's way of sizing up the situation nevertheless will resonate with a vast swath of Americans. . .who simply can't get into a full, upright and locked position in favor of either alternative."

I know very few people who "get into a full, upright and locked" agreement with anyone else, even their best friends. And I don't think I've ever met anyone who agreed fully with the political platform of their own political party. It's always a hodgepodge.

So look, I can't disagree with John Allen on anything in the first part of his article, because he is describing what I take to be the standard human situation. Nor can I disagree with Allen when he claims that "any American who takes the full range of Catholic social teaching seriously simply cannot be comfortable in either of our major political parties." As I said, read Augustine's City of God about the dangers of getting "comfortable" in any political party.

And yet, although the Republicans sadly watered down their anti-abortion plank, the "lesser-of-two-evils" situation is clear regarding the most fundamental issue in Catholic moral teaching: Don't take innocent human life. The members of one party have shown that they will support and facilitate abortion as a top priority at every chance they get; the members of the other are at least open to limiting it within politically practical bo...