RANT - COUNTER RANT: CATHOLICS BE QUIET

Last week a letter to the editor in the Akron Beacon Journal appeared that said (and I quote loosely) that the Catholic Church should stop telling people how to vote for it is not good for public discourse.  There are so many things wrong with the sentence I don’t even know where to begin. 

 

Here are just some of the things wrong with that sentence.  First, who is the Catholic Church?  Well, everyone who is Catholic.  Although it may feel otherwise at times, the “Church” is not clergy or the Vatican or nuns in a convent.  It includes them, but it is not them only.  The reason it may feel otherwise at times is because the “Church” is also a belief, Tradition, a set of philosophies, and a way of living.  When we forget that, leaders of this community (or servants of this community depending on how one sees it) call its adherers to remember basic tenants of their way of life.  If we stand for “A” and a candidate running for office stands for “B” at the destruction of “A”, it is incumbent on those who hold “A” to say, “Hey!  When you go to the polls, don’t forget ‘A’!”  To not do so would not only be irresponsible and negligent, it may lead to great harm for the people who live “A”.

 

And why is the Catholic Church so often singled out?  What if Union Workers thought a candidate was going to be good to the union?  There would be signs everywhere saying, “This candidate is endorsed by the Union!”  Why is it good for them to have said that and not a religious body?

 

Further, the Catholic Church does NOT tell people for whom to vote.  That would be a violation of our tax standing.  But it does weigh in heavily on issues, which one candidate or the other may hold or not hold.  How on earth can one avoid that?  But even so, there is the odd perception out there that there is some neutral way of living  - some mysterious base that is best for all people.  This is false.  There is no neutral way of being.  Every way of living, even those that try to purge religion from them entirely, comes with basic assumptions, philosophies, rules, and boundaries.  Catholic!  Do not be bullied into thinking you are forcing your way of living on others otherwise you are being acted upon in exactly the same way that your accusers are laying in you.  Your position, your way of seeing life, your vision for America is just as valid as any.

 

And as for not being good for public discourse: Since when is it better in the United States to silence a voice in order for there to be better discourse?  If someone were serious about public discourse they would eagerly invite a Catholic point of view into the conversation (and not a disgruntled Catholic who all too eagerly dumps Catholic teaching as being too Catholic.) 

 

To what other group is it possible to say they should stay out of public discourse on life in the United States?  What if the letter had said that a Jewish League should remain quiet at all times or that GLBT Community should not have an agenda nor tell people how to vote on issues?  What would be the point of them even existing?  There would be riots.

 

It is true that we may be the big kid on the block and we can’t wield our beliefs like a bludgeon, but neither are we to apologize for being the big kid or be pushed off the block on which we live we live too.

BECAUSE I THINK IT TRUE

In a discussion about being pro-life, a Catholic asked me recently, with sincerity, whether we have the right to force our religion on other people when working for national policy. The question was asked with genuine concern. It is easy to lose nerve in this political climate and to think that we are trying to make the world Catholic.

Of course we have the right to do everything in our power to bring such ideas into law in our country. Don’t be cowed in the least in this regard. Are you not an American citizen? Do you not believe that what we teach we do not because it is Catholic but it is because we believe that it is the very best way that people and societies can live? That it would be healthiest for all? Of course. We do not want to make Mass attendance mandatory for everybody – but we want to stop what is destructive to the society in which we live and imbue our nation with all that is noble in mankind.

Those who would accuse Catholics of forcing their faith on others do so out of the mistaken idea that there is some sort of neutral or natural way of being. There is no such thing. Everybody worships at some altar whether it be in a sanctuary or at the altar of man or what have you. For some inane reason even Catholics are buying into the notion that being pro-life is a hard line Christian position. It is not. I would say that it is more pro-human that so called humanists.

Your position on such topics as life are just as valid as anyone’s in a democracy. They are not invalid because they also correspond to your beliefs.

SHOULD WOMEN HAVE REALLY BEEN GIVEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE?

Of course. Who would seriously think otherwise today? Or who would consider repealing the right to vote for those who at one time it was illegal? No one I dare say. Who can we keep from voting then? Felons? We can keep felons from voting without getting into too much political trouble from anybody. Illegal aliens. We can keep them from voting. Dead people! Yes, the dead. We can say that it is wrong for them to vote (unless you die in Chicago.) (Just kidding.)

Interestingly it is seems that many would lump people of faith with felons, illegal aliens and dead people. It is held by some that faith should not influence so called “public opinion.” Apparently the term public is being limited to some chosen enlightened. The separation of church and state has been, in some cases, extended to a separation of faith and state. A person of faith, who pays taxes, who are called upon to fight in wars, who are citizens in every way should not allow their beliefs to be part of the debate of public policy. This is proclaimed as if there is some self-evident and uniform basic humanistic principle that trumps all other opinions.

I can understand being upset with a person who votes without a grasp of the issues or with a sound reasoning for why they are voting as they are. It upsets me that people vote simply along party lines or to support a certain sex or heritage or because someone is good looking. Reckless voting is reckless voting.

But so often it is suggested that a stance should be discounted with the disingenuous declaration that the position comes from a faith tradition. This is said as if intelligent people could not or should not hold such a position. Why should a humanistic view automatically trump a faith-based view? Are persons with religious thoughts and agendas less a citizen? Are they not sincere in believing that what they hold dear is for the good of all just as a person with strictly humanistic views would?

To disregard a position out of hand by declaring it unworthy simply because to aligns itself with a belief in God is a dishonest means of debate and to pull such a trump card is inherently un-American and unites the user with the worst blemishes in our history.

(All right. Time to cool down. Here is a little comic relief for you.)