Churches tread carefully during election seasons. Although the First Amendment protects the freedoms of religion and speech, religious leaders have to be verbally nuanced. To do otherwise risks an IRS review of not-for-profit status.

If that sounds like social service agency paranoia, refer back to Bishop David Malloy’s Sept. 23 column as he cited U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Chairman Martin Castro describing religious liberty as code for discrimination and intolerance.

Faith leaders can offer little specific direction from the pulpit other than to vote. Our tax laws effectively require religious teachers to offer moralistic generalities rather than calls to action as the exercise of religious freedom.

Illinois’ Catholic Bishops, however, have issued an important guide to voting that properly, if uncomfortably, places voting under the general rules of free will.

In varying degrees, elections regularly present candidates who are distrusted but, according to their respective supporters, are at least better than the alternatives. Yes, democracy can be messy.

Catholics regularly face dilemmas at the ballot box. Just as none of us is perfect, neither is any candidate or platform perfect. Even a quick reading of the major party platforms leads to the coining of a new description of political campaign — platipocrisy: the welding of platitudes with hypocrisy; with government by slogans, social media and sound bites.

When deciding for whom to vote, people of faith are confronted with making political compromises while maintaining religious fidelity. When examining issues and positions, shifting as they may be, we find that none of the three candidates with even a hint of a chance of winning, Democrat, Libertarian, or Republican (intentionally listed alphabetically) embraces Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, Islam, Hindu, Baha’i or any other kind of orthodoxy.

But Catholics must participate in the electoral process by voting, else we abandon any chance to influence public policy. Consider:

1 The competitive presidential candidates support abortion to some degree. There is no ideological or moral purity here. Voting for any one of them is a compromise for Catholic, Islamic and other pro-life, faith-based voters.

2 Opponents of capital punishment more likely favor abortion and assisted suicide.

3 Platforms idealize personal responsibility while encouraging less self-reliance.

4 Immigration changes are defined with 180-degree differences.

5 The elderly have their votes solicited but their dignity ignored or forgotten.

History is neither a perfect predictor nor reporter. Other than speech making and good lawyering, there was no pre-presidential greatness evident in Abraham Lincoln, and dashed expectations resulted from the scandal-ridden presidency of war hero U.S. Grant. The quirks and failings of Franklin Roosevelt were not reported by a friendly press, but the political resolve and flat, midwestern tone of Harry Truman’s voice were disparaged by ignorant yet all-knowing media when he succeeded FDR.

So we hold our noses, swallow hard and recognize that compromise is necessary to make government function. We stay vitally engaged in the process to claim our place in the debate over public policy and values.

We vote.