The earthly and
religious aspects of politics
By Fr. ROY CIMAGALA, roycimagala@gmail.com
November
7, 2010
THIS is an attempt to
make some crucial distinctions in this heady field of politics.
Hopefully the effort will pay off, especially where the need to
clearly delineate the different but complementary roles of the clergy
and the laity in politics is involved.
This issue has been
wallowing in the mire for quite some time, with even our educated
class clearly confused about it. Everytime they talk about separation
of Church and state, for example, most likely they are off course, as
they repeat old errors that seem hard to correct.
So this piece is not
political in the sense that it is partisan in political matters that,
given their autonomous character, are open to opinion. In that regard,
priests would do well to keep quiet and allow the play of opinions to
be directly handled by the laity.
If ever there is a
need for priests to comment in this aspect of politics, it has to be
made clear that their views are mere opinions. As such, they are not
binding in conscience, but obviously they may be given due
consideration by the people.
But this piece is
political in the sense that it considers politics an indispensable
part of our life, where the fullness of Christian life, the full play
of faith, hope and charity plus all the other virtues, are supposed to
be pursued.
Politics does not put
the Christian spiritual and moral standards in brackets. It's where
these ideals are put into action, in fact. But given it's nature and
character, its purpose and the varying ways it is lived in different
places and cultures, the clergy and the laity, while all involved in
it, play distinctive roles.
First of all, we have
to understand that politics is not exclusively an earthly affair, with
no spiritual, moral and therefore religious foundations. Since it is
an exercise of our freedom, it has spiritual and also supernatural
repercussions that need to be given due attention.
It is for the priests
to give primary concern for its spiritual and moral dimensions. These
dimensions basically refer to whether the political exercise, the
options involved, etc., conform to fundamental moral requirements of
good moral object, right intention and appropriate, moral
circumstances.
For as long as all the
political elements fulfill these requirements, there can be as many
choices, options, programs and projects as possible, with their own
advantages and disadvantages, strengths and weaknesses, and all of
them must be respected. It now belongs to each one to choose freely
what he thinks will work out best for all.
The moral object is in
the end about whether the option presented and to be chosen can be
said to be part of God's will, since it at least does not go against
his commandments. If not, then it has to be rejected right from the
start.
Thus, any political
option clearly violative of God's commandments, like an open
endorsement for contraception, sterilization, divorce, euthanasia,
institutionalized cheating and all forms of injustice, should be
rejected, obviously in a way that is charitable and fair.
Obviously, any
political platform that sets aside God and puts man, an ideology or,
worst of all, oneself as the ultimate source of wisdom, of good and
evil, of truth and falsehood – and we already have some traces of this
at present – should not be voted.
Aside from the moral
object of the political elements, we also have to consider the
intention and the circumstances which should be found to be all good
and appropriate.
Since we do not live
in a perfect society, and since everyone has the right to express his
ideas, there should always be a climate of freedom, respect, dialogue,
sportsmanship, etc.
Having said that, I
must admit I felt happy at the outcome of the midterm elections in the
US, because it's clear the majority of the American people are
rejecting a politics that tends to put God, his commandments and
Christian morality aside.
The issues involved
there, for sure, are not purely economic or social in nature, which is
what some American politicians are trying to project. But that is not
true. There are some serious spiritual and moral issues involved, and
it seems the American majority rejected the wrong positions.
We in the Philippines
need to be wary of these developments, since we tend to imitate or, at
least, now that we are highly globalized, it's likely we can be
influenced wrongly.
All of us, depending
on our possibilities, should take active but proper participation in
our country's political life.