Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Faith, Democracy, and the Catholic Duty To Stay Involved

Opinion

Faith, Democracy, and the Catholic Duty To Stay Involved

Christian cross necklace on American flag.

Getty Images/Stock Photo

The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.

We asked Angeles Ponpa, a graduate student at Northwestern Medill in the Politics, Policy, and Foreign Affairs specialization, and a Fulcrum summer intern, to share her thoughts on what democracy means to her and her perspective on its current health.


Here’s her insight on the topic.

"Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God." This verse from Matthew 22:21 has long echoed in Catholic political thought. Once a response to a Pharisaical trap about taxation, it is now often invoked by religious leaders urging the faithful to take civic responsibility seriously, not despite their faith but because of it.

I did not always understand this balance. I grew up the child of undocumented immigrants who came to the United States from Michoacán, Mexico, as teenagers fleeing poverty. Their legal status was never justified in my eyes, but it taught me that politics was not abstract. It was personal. I watched political debates over immigration in the early 2000s shape how families like mine were treated. It made me pay attention.

That early curiosity led me to the high school debate club, then to campus activism in college, and eventually to a career in politics. I worked on campaigns and later served in the Illinois State Senate. I believed I was contributing to something greater, a better public future. But over time, I began to feel I was living a double life.

Catholics, after all, are not strangers to political engagement, although they differ in their leanings. A 2024 Pew Research Center survey found that 52 percent of U.S. Catholics identify or lean Republican, while 44 percent identify or lean Democratic. It is a near-even split that reflects the diversity of the Church’s laity in political thought. Yet political affiliation alone cannot define Catholic civic responsibility, which must first be rooted in faith and moral conscience.

Working in Springfield, Illinois, brought that contradiction into focus. I was excited to begin my role, but quickly realized that being a legislative assistant often meant doing whatever was asked, organizing offices, running errands, or defending decisions that conflicted with my Catholic beliefs. The Eighth Commandment instructs Catholics not to bear false witness against their neighbor. Yet, I felt I was doing exactly that when justifying policies I knew were morally flawed but were labeled as good politics.

When budget season arrived, I found myself facilitating tens of thousands of dollars in taxpayer spending on mailers and office supplies while struggling to afford rent and working a second job. My conscience was unsettled.

At the same time, I began reconnecting deeply with my faith.

During the pandemic, Catholic voices on social media sparked something in me. Though I had grown up a "cultural Catholic," I had never opened the Bible. As I leaned into prayer and study, I sought out a spiritual director, Father Brendan, who helped me process the conflict between my beliefs and my work. He introduced me to A Man for All Seasons, a film about St. Thomas More, an English statesman who was executed for refusing to acknowledge King Henry VIII as the head of the Church of England. He remained loyal to the pope and was later canonized as a saint in the Catholic Church.

If you think you have gone through something difficult, there is likely a saint who has experienced a similar challenge. For me, that saint is Thomas More. His unwavering loyalty to the Church made him the patron saint of statesmen and politicians, and a model of moral integrity and conscience in public life.

As I was discerning the tension, Pope Francis gave this moral clarity: "A good Catholic meddles in politics, offering the best of himself, so that those who govern can govern." He emphasized that politics is "one of the highest forms of charity because it serves the common good," and that prayer and active participation are central.

I also found resonance in the experience of former Congressman Dan Lipinski, a devout Catholic who remained pro-life in a largely pro-choice party. He criticized partisanship as a "sectarian divide" and warned that "people are making their political party their religion," adding that he believed Catholics could help bridge that gap. He lost his seat in a 2020 primary in part because he refused to compromise on conscience, a reminder that moral consistency often comes at a cost.

Sen. Marco Rubio, also a practicing Catholic, has echoed similar struggles from the right. "Faith shapes my values. It influences the dignity of life, the importance of marriage, and the obligation to help those in need," he said during a 2015 presidential debate. Rubio has often spoken about how his faith informs his policy decisions and how that same faith draws skepticism in a political climate that frequently treats conviction as extremism. He continues to reference his faith publicly, including during his Senate confirmation hearing for Secretary of State five months ago.

Like Lipinski, he illustrates how Catholics in public life face pressure from both sides of the aisle when their values challenge the party line.

After months of discernment, I left the Senate and the political career I had worked so hard to build. I chose journalism instead, a field where I could still engage with public life but with truth, not spin, at the center.

This decision was mine alone, but it was informed by Catholic teaching. The Catechism is clear: "Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God" (CCC 2238), and "co-responsibility for the common good makes it morally obligatory to pay taxes, exercise the right to vote and to defend one's country" (CCC 2240).

Voting is not optional for Catholics. Civic participation is not just a right. It is a duty. Yet today, many young Catholics opt out. Some refuse to vote because they believe neither party reflects their values. Others, disillusioned by corruption or moral compromise, think political involvement is inherently dirty. But inaction is not a virtue. The Gospel calls us to be salt and light, to engage the world, not retreat from it.

Here is what should be happening: Catholics, especially young ones, need to renew their civic engagement in a way that resists polarization. We must form our conscience, speak out even against our own party, and participate consistently even when options are imperfect. Withdrawal is not moral purity. It is a failure of duty.

To be clear, the Church does not demand blind allegiance to any party or politician. Catholics are called to speak out when policies violate human dignity. But choosing not to vote or to disengage is a failure to contribute to the common good.

Much of this confusion stems from misreading "separation of church and state." That phrase is not in the Constitution. It came from Thomas Jefferson in a letter reassuring Baptists that the government would not interfere with their religious practice. The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion and prohibits the establishment of religion. It does not ask the faithful to leave their values at the door of public life.

The Church reaffirmed this in the Second Vatican Council's Dignitatis Humanae, which emphasized religious liberty and action under the Gospel Law. Catholics can and must participate in political life while remaining faithful to the Church's teachings.

In 1 Timothy 2:2, St. Paul urges prayers "for kings and all in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness." Every Sunday, we pray for our elected leaders and ask that they govern wisely. But prayer must be paired with action. Catholics are not passive observers. We are citizens.

In a moment of polarization and despair, opting out may feel easier. However, democracy depends on those willing to participate. My choice to leave politics was an act of conscience. But my continued engagement through journalism is my way of staying in the arena and encouraging others to do the same.

Please help the Fulcrum in its mission of nurturing the next generation of journalists by donating HERE!

.


Read More

The Reward — Angela and James: An American Dynasty

Ring–Fitzgerald Homestead, Will County (1987). A house still true to its original form, carrying forward the Rings’ steadiness, aspiration, and good citizenship across five generations.

Photo courtesy by Patrick Fitzgerald.

The Reward — Angela and James: An American Dynasty

They got an early start; the morning light came on fast. The Ring siblings were headed to the Joliet depot with young Angela in tow — the same depot where Lincoln’s funeral train had passed in silence thirty years earlier. Now they were bound for the White City, forty miles northeast. The Columbian Exposition was a turning point for both Angela and America. Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show, pitched just outside the fairgrounds, rivaled the Exhibition itself.

One photograph captured it all. Taken in a fairground photo booth, the Ring siblings stood in their summer clothes, huddled around eleven-year-old Angela. Their faces were bright and open — a single moment preserved in time. Determined to outshine the 1889 Paris Exhibition and its Eiffel Tower, Chicago answered with George Ferris’s great wheel. At night, the city glowed, outlined in electric white light.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Knicks and the Practice of Us

Jalen Brunson #11 of the New York Knicks celebrates with the Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy during the New York Knicks Championship ticker tape parade and victory rally celebrating winning the 2026 NBA Finals on June 18, 2026 in New York City.

(Photo by Angelina Katsanis/Getty Images)

The Knicks and the Practice of Us

I didn’t grow up anywhere near Madison Square Garden. My childhood unfolded in the Midwest, far from New York’s tangled boroughs and yellow cabs. My father brought the city with him, tucked in the vowels of his accent and the teams he rooted for. He was a Jersey boy at first. Then, a reluctant Midwesterner. Geography, though, never truly loosened its grip. In our house, sports allegiance wasn’t a choice. It was inherited—an expectation passed like a family recipe. Or a story retold until it blurs into fact.

For my father, and then for me, the Knicks were never just a team. They were a test of endurance. Before I could distinguish a pick-and-roll from a triangle offense, I understood Knicks loyalty: you waited. You hoped in public, persisted when heartbreak was routine. Knicks fandom was boot camp for disappointment. The main skill was getting up after being knocked down.

Keep ReadingShow less
Reclaiming Patriotism: Between Nationalism and Pessimism

People gather over a giant Declaration of Independence

Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images.

Reclaiming Patriotism: Between Nationalism and Pessimism

As America approaches the 250th anniversary of its independence, I am more in the mood to protest than to celebrate. Does that make me unpatriotic? The answer depends on how we understand “patriotism.” For a nation that is founded in revolution, let’s affirm a deeper and more profound love of country, a civic patriotism celebrative of our larger ideals including pluralism, dissent, and a commitment to social change.

Two Types of Patriotism

Keep ReadingShow less
A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together
Political polarization
Polarization and the politics of love

A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together

As we face ever-growing partisan polarization in American society, the need for large-scale action becomes increasingly urgent. As James Coan and I have written about in the Fulcrum during my time at More Like US, there are approaches grounded in a significant body of social psychological research that can help address this rapidly growing problem, namely different variations of social contact theory, especially vicarious contact. Until recently, much of the research and thus much of the basis for our articles has been focused on applying social contact theory to other problems facing society: prejudice against members of the LGBTQ community, individuals with autism, and immigrant schoolchildren, among other examples.

It was therefore exciting when last fall I saw the publication of an article in Political Science Research and Methods titled "Content That's as Good as Contact?: Vicarious Intergroup Contact and the Promise of Depolarization at Scale." The study, conducted in 2022 in conjunction with YouGov, finally attempted to measure the effectiveness of indirect contact as a path to depolarization, primarily through the vicarious experience of productive political conversation. Encompassing over 2,000 participants gathered from a nationally representative sample recruited by YouGov’s online panel, the study looked to test affective polarization, measured attitudinally, and interest and investment in depolarization, measured behaviorally. To this end, the study tested multiple media interventions, namely a 50-minute Braver Angels documentary featuring a “Red-Blue” depolarization workshop; a 50-minute placebo nature documentary about wildebeest migration; a 5-minute version of the Braver Angels documentary; a second 5-minute version that emphasized partisan misperception correction; and a pure control group, with no treatment.

Keep ReadingShow less