No Deals With Molech—the Limits Of Political Prudence

I refuse to support any politician who backs legal access to abortion. The deliberate killing of innocent human beings crosses a moral line that the Church prohibits me—or anyone—from crossing. I also refuse to submit to emotional pressure that claims Catholics must tolerate that killing for the sake of the “common good,” as if social programs or economic benefits could justify destroying unborn human life.

This stance does not reflect extremism. It reflects the moral foundation of Catholic teaching. The Church teaches that no one may trade innocent life for political advantages, humanitarian goals, or social improvements. In Evangelium Vitae §73, Pope St. John Paul II teaches that Catholics may work to limit an existing evil, but they may never endorse the principle that some lives may be destroyed for the sake of other aims.

Yet many Catholics insist—openly or indirectly—that defending the unborn means nothing unless I also support their preferred political programs. Their argument turns unborn children into bargaining chips, items to trade in a broader deal. That reasoning does not express prudence. It repeats an ancient temptation: sacrificing the vulnerable to gain benefits for others. No Catholic may make a deal with Molech.

The Logic of Molech: Sacrificing the Innocent for Perceived Social Goods

In the Old Testament, child sacrifice stands out as one of the gravest sins Israel ever committed. God condemns the people directly:

They built the high places of Topheth… to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it enter my mind. (Jeremiah 7:31)

Scripture describes sacrifices to Molech as burnt offerings—deliberate attempts to secure divine favor (Jeremiah 19:5). The prophets expose the logic behind these acts. Israel offered its own children, the most sacred gift God entrusts to the family, in exchange for protection, stability, or success (Ezekiel 16:21; Micah 6:7). The wider ancient Near Eastern world shows the same pattern: kings sacrificed their sons to avert disaster or to win military victory (2 Kings 3:27).

In every case, the people treated their children as bargaining chips—lives they could trade to obtain prosperity or security.

That logic should sound familiar.

Evangelium Vitae §73: The Church’s Absolute Line Against Such Reasoning

Pope St. John Paul II draws a clear moral line regarding Catholic involvement in politics where abortion is concerned. In Evangelium Vitae §73, he teaches that Catholics may support imperfect laws only to reduce the harm caused by existing unjust laws—never to justify, authorize, or strengthen those injustices. He states plainly that a Catholic cannot formally cooperate with, defend, or accept any principle that allows the deliberate killing of the innocent.

Pope St. John Paul II writes:

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.

The wording leaves no wiggle room. The Church identifies abortion laws as intrinsically unjust. It then states, without qualification, that a Catholic may never promote such laws, support campaigns that advance them, or vote for laws that permit them.

Furthermore, in a representative system like ours—where lawmakers craft, preserve, or expand abortion laws—voting for a politician who pledges to maintain legal abortion effectively means voting for those same unjust laws. The moral object remains the same. A Catholic cannot treat innocent life as a negotiable good or as a strategic exception.

Evangelium Vitae offers no loophole for sacrificing the unborn in exchange for other political benefits.

A Hard but Necessary Question: Why Don’t Progressive Catholics Pressure Their Own Politicians?

This reality forces many Catholics, including me, to ask a simple question. If the Church forbids voting for or promoting intrinsically unjust laws—especially laws that allow abortion—why do some Catholics continue to vote for politicians who openly support, defend, and expand those laws?

I raised this same concern in a 2023 article titled A Plea to Progressive Catholics: You Have Power, Use It! In that piece, I urged progressive Catholics—who overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates—to use their substantial political influence to reshape their party’s platform. If progressive Catholics truly grieve over abortion, as they claim, then why don’t they pressure Democratic leaders—especially Catholic ones—to abandon their support for it?

Their refusal to apply that pressure raises troubling questions. When Catholics refuse even to attempt to move their own political allies away from abortion, they signal at least a willingness to tolerate abortion for the sake of other political goals. That posture mirrors the logic I described earlier: the logic of Molech—sacrificing the vulnerable to secure broader social benefits.

The implications seem unavoidable. When progressive Catholics stay silent toward pro-abortion politicians while demanding that others compromise life protections for the sake of “the common good,” they reveal either an implicit acceptance of abortion in certain circumstances or a willingness to tolerate it in exchange for policies they favor. Both positions contradict the clear teaching of Evangelium Vitae.

Moreover, if progressive Catholics want credibility on life issues, moral consistency demands that they press their own leaders to reject abortion outright. Anything less keeps the unborn on the bargaining table—and abandons the moral line the Church refuses to cross.

Final Thought: No Deal with Molech

In Catholic teaching, the unborn never belong on the bargaining table. We cannot sacrifice them symbolically, strategically, or politically. Scripture condemns the logic that trades innocent lives for security or advantage, and the Magisterium reinforces that same judgment with unmistakable force. Evangelium Vitae rejects every version of “acceptable loss,” no matter how compassionate or sophisticated the language that surrounds it.

Progressive Catholics face a choice. They can reject the political bargain that treats abortion as the price of achieving other goals—or they can continue supporting leaders who defend the legal killing of the unborn while insisting that this stance somehow advances the “common good.”

Until they break from that bargain, one question will remain unavoidable:

Do they truly oppose this injustice—or do they simply manage it?