Anyone who is still wondering how to vote on November 8, and who sincerely wants to vote their conscience, need only listen to this extraordinary homily given by a priest who knows exactly who to vote for.

On October 2, 2016, the Very Reverend John Lankeit of the Diocese of Phoenix began his homily by warning the congregation that the devil is a divider who will use almost any tactic to separate Christians from Christ.

“He doesn’t typically come right out and say, ‘Deny Jesus Christ!’ because he knows that someone who loves Jesus would immediately reject the suggestion. So, he tends to use more subtle means and subtle words. . . .”

With that warning in place, he then turned his attention to something that is in the forefront of everyone’s minds – the 2016 presidential election.

“Let’s consider the intersection of the practice of our Catholic faith and the exercise of our civic duty, especially when it comes to voting. Let’s first acknowledge that there has never been a political party in the United States that is perfectly aligned with Catholic teaching on every issue.”

However, that doesn’t mean that we are free to vote for either major party, because one party can be much further from Catholic principles on the most important issues than the other party, he explained. As a result of that, we are often faced with the task of discerning which party and which policies are most in line with Catholic teaching, and which ones aren’t.

“So many issues are subject to the prudential judgment of Catholic voters. What does that mean? It means that Catholics can legitimately disagree, for example, on the best way to address issues such as racial injustice, education, the economy, immigration and healthcare and still remain in good standing in the Church.

“There are other issues, however, which touch on matters of intrinsic evil—actions that can never, at any time, under any circumstances be committed, promoted or even enabled by a faithful Catholic. But setting aside issues of intrinsic evil for now, let’s consider some of the more common issues for which Catholics can legitimately exercise prudential judgment.”

One such issue is Affirmative Action. This is a program that aims to eliminate perceived disadvantages that minorities can face when competing for jobs or admission to college. In our country, one party sees Affirmative Action as a means to bring justice and balance to our multi-racial society while the other party believes that it can result in denying jobs or seats in classrooms to qualified students just to fill a quota. One party sees affirmative action as a matter of justice while the other party sees it as injustice.

“But, suppose a candidate for president promoted a policy that would make it legal for someone to kill a black person if that black person created a hardship for them getting the education they desired. How many of you would be comfortable voting for that candidate?” Rev. Lankeit asked.

He turned to yet another issue that falls under the category of prudential judgment, which is immigration.

“One of the major political parties seeks to allow immigration with very little restriction. The other party is concerned that unrestricted immigration leads to, among other things, non-citizens taking jobs that could be worked by citizens. One party favors open borders—the other favors ‘law and order’,” Rev. Lankeit said.

“Now, suppose a candidate for president promoted a policy that would make it legal for someone to kill a Hispanic person if the presence of that Hispanic person made it more difficult to pursue one’s career of choice. How many of you would be comfortable voting for that candidate?”

He continued: “Thank God we don’t have a candidate from either party who says that they condone such policies. Nobody in their right mind would say such a thing—that we could kill blacks or Hispanics—or anyone else—just for the sake of protecting personal economic or educational interests.

“Nobody would say it, but, as you’ll see in a moment… There is a candidate, in this 2016 race for president, who along with that candidate’s political party does, in fact, sanction the killing of blacks and Hispanics in the situations previously described…under one…particular…condition: That the black person or the Hispanic person is still in his or her mother’s womb.

“Now, this candidate and party certainly won’t say it that way, not publicly anyway. Instead, they use words like ‘choice’ or ‘reproductive rights’ or ‘women’s health’ or other sanitized statements in order to cover up what abortion is and what abortion does.

“So let’s stop beating around the bush with regard to the current presidential race:

• Do you know which candidate and party in this election promotes abortion and even promises to expand its availability here at home as well as abroad?

• Do you know that this candidate and party intend to make you and me pay for other people’s abortions with our tax dollars—something that has always been illegal?

• Are you aware that this candidate and party, which until recently, said that abortion should be ‘safe, legal and rare’ no longer even bothers to say that it should be rare—but rather, that it must be available any time, any place, even up to the last moment that the fully formed, full-term baby remains in the womb?

Should any of his listeners not know which candidate he was referring to, “then you should not even consider voting until you do know!” he said. “Ignorance in this area is unacceptable, because ignorance in this area costs millions of babies their lives and jeopardizes the souls of many Catholics voters.”

However, if you DO know which candidate and which party aims to promote and expand abortion, and you still intend to enable them to continue their war on the unborn by voting for them, “then it is my duty as a priest to tell you that your soul will be in grave danger, especially if you present yourself for Holy Communion after casting such a vote with the full knowledge of what you’re doing.”

He then went on to give a startling statistic: “In the time since this homily started, at least 30 children have been deliberately executed in the womb in the United States—and that’s just the ones that are reported.”

Rev. Lankeit then quoted from Catholics in the Public Square, which was written by Bishop Thomas Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix: “We have a serious obligation to protect human life, and especially the lives of the most innocent and vulnerable among us. Whoever fails to do this, when otherwise able to do so, commits a serious sin of omission. They jeopardize their own spiritual wellbeing and they are a source of scandal for others. Should they be Catholics, they should not receive Holy Communion.”

“Now, I hope you realize that it takes a lot of courage for a priest to communicate such challenging words as these—reminding his people that some actions are so gravely sinful that they render a Catholic unworthy to receive Holy Communion until there is complete repentance,” the Reverend continued.

“A priest who is more concerned about the state of his people’s souls than they are themselves, deserves the esteem of his people for his willingness to speak such difficult truth to them with genuine love—to put the welfare of his people’s souls ahead of his own reputation, popularity or comfort. Such a priest should receive respect, admiration and support, rather than their resistance or criticism. So please pray for, thank and encourage the spiritual father that God has appointed for you and who loves you enough to tell you the truth.”

He added: “Because the priest who said these words is your bishop, and mine.”

Click here to read a transcript of the full homily.