We have a right and a duty to vote. We are "called to respect human authority and obey those who govern society." To act against our conscience would be like disobeying God.

However, our conscience could be wrong, so we must teach our conscience to correctly judge good and evil. Our consciences have some negotiable, wiggle room when judging social policy, such as immigration, universal healthcare, just war, affordable housing, and the death penalty.

Judgments that are non-negotiable and "instrinsically evil" are "elective abortion, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, the destruction of embryonic human beings in stem cell research, human cloning, same-sex `marriage,' production and use of pornography, and racial discrimination.'

We cannot be indifferent to intrinsic evil, and we would commit intrinsic evil if we were to vote for a candidate who takes a permissive stance on the non-negotiable issues when there is a "morally-acceptable alternative."

If there is no alternative, it is better that we vote for a candidate "who is not totally acceptable in order to defeat one who poses a greater threat to human life and dignity."

The bishops finish their article by reminding people that they aren't telling people which candidates to vote for, but are merely telling them how to inform their consciences.

It sounds to me that the good bishops have spent too much time in close quarters splitting hairs with lawyers or adolescent teenagers trying to get their story straight. But I suppose that they would say that using deceptive campaign tactics in order to avoid losing nonprofit status falls into the class of "prudential judgments" with wiggle room.