I'll throw it out here now: I'm a devout Roman Catholic. I've read and studied and questioned my faith my entire life, and I've chosen this path through reason and rational thought, and even challenged myself to live as an atheist for a few months to see if it could apply and I just couldn't do it. I know it's the truth, for me, and part of demonstrating my faith and love entails being open to hearing and trying on other viewpoints and being respectful to those that hold them even if I disagree. Rising above the conflict with cool heads promotes real progress between varied peoples.
One thing I find funny though, and am a bit at odds with in the Catholic community, is that many priests and practitioners will try to influence people to vote a certain way. I am not knocking the church itself, because the Popes have made it very clear that they do not influence state politics anywhere in the world, they just inform moral opinion, which of course people use to discern their votes. There's a significant difference there, and I like that and respect the church for it... at the international level. However, once you get down to the locality of bishops and below, some of those clergy have been known to take it upon themselves to explicitly say "Vote against Amendment #34" or whatever, which to me is wrong. The church at the higher levels absolutely believes in separation of church vs. state, and even Jesus told us to give to Caesar what is Caesar's.
I think what people forget to consider in that separation is the role of each. Yes, the church is doing its role by informing our moral opinions. But that's also because those of us who hear the church's teaching are more often than not, part of the church. We fall under its jurisdiction, which is wonderful in building community across the country and around the world. The voice and law of Catholicism reaches us across seas and domains of leadership, it affects the man in the desert, and the woman on the island, and the children in the snow. As the Universal church, its reach is everywhere. That's really cool. And it can inform our morality everywhere. Cool, cool. And the beauty of freedom of religion, which is law nearly everywhere now, is that we choose to fall under the reach of the church no matter where we are geographically. That's amazing.
But the state's jurisdiction is drawn in the dirt. Atheists, Protestants, Buddhists, and Catholics, are all Americans, and for the most part, it's hard for us to change that fact. And the laws we vote into action affect all of us, often times against our will, within that jurisdiction. That's why we're trying democracy, so that at least most of us had a voice. Granted, part of authority, even like the church's, is that they have to make laws that not everyone agrees with, that's just a fact of life on earth. But thanks to the freedom of religion, if you disagree with the Catholic church, well then leave it! Become an Episcopalian or whatever works for you, no one's stopping you! Just change your mind, and you're out of their reach. But to escape the jurisdiction of the law of the state, you need to change your geography. That's way easier said than done.
Yeah, as Catholics we should totally let our morality and the church inform our opinions on our vote, but this concept is completely lost on a lot of people that how you vote - even if it's the right thing - does have a real affect on your neighbors who disagree with you. This can overlap with lots of other topics too like evangelization; I personally believe you can catch more flies with honey, and beating people over the head with your faith doesn't convert them. I also believe you can't force someone to love you because at that point you've broken the definition of love, which should be freely chosen, ergo free will was given to us by God, but that's digressing. My point is, no one in this country wants to vote thinking about their fellow man. They want their opinion to win in politics, rather than working as a team. They forget that they are as much American as they are Catholics.
I bring this up because after reading about Catholic Social Teaching and Natural Family Planning, I realized that politically, I am pretty moderate in the United States political theater (let's be honest, that's what it is), because I fall on both camps, yet really my Catholic background determines my "side" of every issue we vote on. I'm socially conservative, but fiscally liberal, and I think that suits Catholic teaching, but surprisingly does not suit the way certain priests have told me to vote.
It's true, I'm hardcore Catholic, by reasoned choice. I'm very pro-life, vehemently against both abortion and contraception. I'm in favor of charity work, making sure people are rightfully paid a living wage, enough to raise their family on and pay for a house, but not a lavish lifestyle. I believe marriage is a special sacrament between a man and a woman and they symbolize a deeper love that the Father has for all humans on earth because whether they agree to it or not, they are His children. I believe in forgiveness, love, and consideration of your neighbor. These are all informed by my Catholic morals, learned through years of philosophy within the church.
But I'm also an American, and not by choice, though I have a little pride in my position. I believe in freedom, democracy, concern for fellow man, justice, and the like. And when I consider all the things I just said about separation of church and state, and realizing how my actions affect those in my dual jurisdictions that I find myself in, I actually want to make some compromises. I think it's wrong to make abortion and contraception illegal across the board. I think they're abominations to human life, but the fact is not everyone in my state agrees with me, and those that disagree will take a lot of risks to their health and harm others on the way if they resorted to illegal methods to achieve their goals. I think it's wrong to deny gay couples the right to "be married" under the law of the state, because if one of them goes to the hospital, or dies and has to bequeath their belongings, that person, as a person who does love as Jesus loves in some ways, is best served being able to receive the company of their companion, and leave their legacy to that companion. That companion knows them best and is in the best position to help that person. Make no mistake, I see the "marriage" as a hollow, pale comparison to what I view marriage as, but as for rights under the law, it's simply unAmerican to deny them certain rights. I think it's wrong for CEOs to make over 400 times as much as their average worker's salary, while their own workforce has to negotiate which bill they won't pay that month, between their food, electricity, and mortgage.
That's why I'm writing this article. I think the two-party system is atrociously flawed in the fact that we only have two choices, between two candidates, to make all our decisions on all issues. I think it's especially wrong that priests - fallen humans like the rest of us who have their share of faults, and that's forgivable because we're all humans - might force people to vote for one party, because of a pet issue that the Catholic church is vehemently against. Do they seriously want us to vote a Republican into office because they think that person will be able to make abortion illegal entirely? Is that worth the cost of starving us all and denying 98% of the population affordable health care? It makes it very hard for a rational, moral person to vote for one party or the other, because they've taken every Catholic belief I have, and divvied them up between them, and I have to sell myself out either way. It used to be that any candidate had to strive toward political center to get the most votes, and cherry pick a few issues from the other party's traditional platform to support as a compromise. That left more variety of choices. But now I have to side with gluttons and spit on the poor to win the dignity of an unborn child. I have to join forces with people living in sin to promote a living wage. In the meanwhile, all we've done is cause the American population to fiercely divide and hate each other, and throw compromise to the wind, because it's about one party winning, not any coherent set of issues prevailing within our borders. It's great that we can all choose our religion, but there isn't much most of us can do about our geographic location. So why can't we work like neighbors?
A completely unrealistic solution I had was to have a government wherein we vote on our officials based on singular issues. A candidate would run as the pro-life vs. the pro-choice candidate, and that is the only issue that either of them can vote on. Yeah, I realize that we'd have to quintuple the size of congress, which is a sinking ship as it is, just so we could accommodate so many people into so many specialized committees - which is what we do already is assign arbitrary people to committees for special interest laws. My idea is really clunky, and I don't know how we'd do it logistically, but wouldn't it be nice to know that a candidate I voted for, would actually do the things I voted for them to do? I mean, I voted for Obama because he seemed like he'd be a great negotiator (which let's face it, he tried to be, and at the first sign of weakness, the GOP galvanized itself to brick-wall him at every turn since), and mostly because he cared about the middle class worker being able to live comfortably and afford a home. "The American Dream." I liked the idea of fixing a very greedy health care, pharmaceutical, and insurance system. I did not like the idea that he'd be promoting pro-choice or gay rights issues very much, and that's not why I voted for him, but... them's the breaks, and compromises have to be made. Because I did not elect him Pope. I elected him President.
So Catholics, tell me. Have you stopped to consider how short-sighted it is to always vote Republican? Do you let one pet issue inform your entire vote? Because any elected official makes more than one decision in a term, and on more than just your pet issue. Think hard, think about every issue separately, and think about all of us. Including that nice agnostic girl who babysits your children, she's been your best friend for a few years. You know, she's a good girl and she has to feed her kids too, and they need health care coverage. If want to evangelize her about the psychological dangers of abortion, go ahead, but let her agree with you on her own terms, don't force her to. You are not her parents. You are not her church. You ARE her geographical neighbor. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's if that's what she wants. Your God gave her free will, let her use it. You might have been told to admonish the sinner and spread the good news, but above all your instruction was to love your neighbor. You will catch more flies with honey, and the cream of good reasoning will boil to the top. Let God reach that person, through examples of your love if necessary. But using your vote to force your state to force your church upon her isn't doing you any favors for credibility for your beliefs in her mind. Voting a candidate into office based on one goal is narrow-minded and foolhardy. I don't care if you still want to vote GOP, that's your choice, I'll still love you, I just want to know that you really, really thought about it, and realized the repercussions. ALL of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment