Posts
This time around however, I was reminded of a principal that I set in my heart a long time ago; if you convince a man to change his mind against his will, he remains unconvinced and unchanged. Yet, my conversation was not like that since the friend I was talking to is someone I truly respect and love and even share my faith with. That was probably the reason why I was wondering how he can't see things the way I see them, and what I see as black and white, I think he sees grey and in all fairness, the vice versa. What is it then that causes two men with seemingly similar outlooks have such different conclusions? After reviewing our conversations, I could see a trend. Let me explain.
Being that we are both Catholic Christians, we tend to agree on the fundamentals like abortion is evil, helping the poor is good, gay marriage is a contradiction of natural law, we should protect our environment....etc. It's however how we allow these truths to affect our decisions in politics that seem to take us on different paths. To be more specific, my friend put it bluntly that he couldn't see himself supporting an evil party whose political agenda seem to be fundamentally against the poor in the light of Catholic social teaching that tells us to always prefer the poor. Well, I countered with a statement that I couldn't even dream of supporting a party whose political agenda seems to be hellbent on supporting abortion and homosexual marriage which is fundamentally against not only Catholic social teaching but moral and natural law. I wish we were talking about the same party, but unfortunately, we were talking about our two major political parties. You can tell where our conversation was heading. An hour later, he was still trying to convince me that the party that doesn't support abortion uses the issue as a political game to manipulate voters while doing nothing about it, and I tried to convince him that the political party that supports abortion uses the poor as political pawns to advance an agenda that will run all of us to doom and the fact that the poor could be helped just as much without their claiming exclusive right to do so. At the end of this conversation that continued electronically on email, we were both exhausted and back to where we began and quite frankly, I was wishing there was a political party that would embrace all the right issues and then it would make it so much easier for those who care to make the right choices when electing their leaders. But how could we come to such different conclusions while we share so much truth? Allow me.
Like a good Psychologist would tell you, listen to people and try to understand where they are coming from. Briefly, I will try to demonstrate how our backgrounds landed us where we found ourselves. My friend Johny (not real name to conceal identity) has expressed how growing up, his mother being poor received help from the government and went to school which helped her get a job that pays well and could support her family. He has also spent his life being compassionate to the poor and with all honesty, I think he's one of the most compassionate person I know. From this background, you can tell why he would be so passionate about anything that would seem to go against the poor. I on the other side, I grew up in a third world country where the government could care less about the poor, and from that, I learned that it was my job to care for my less fortunate neighbor since he had no one else to run to. On top of this, I was a victim of a tribal genocide where we were replaced from where I was born by violence and propaganda and we lost property and many lives were taken. This coupled with my first hand experience with a friend who almost killed her baby in an abortion makes me feel very strongly about the issue of life and makes me have such an urgency about protecting the unborn whom I think are the most helpless victims of murder by abortion. To be fair, my friend also feels strongly about the issue of life as I feel about helping the poor. So how then can you reconcile the differences?
Let me try to give an analogy using the hospital. In the hospital, there are different departments that deal with different issues and while they are all important, we would be misguided to believe that they all require the same urgency. When someone comes to the emergency room, it is a matter of life and death and requires a quick response. On the other hand, if it's not life threatening, while seeing the doctor is just as important, the urgent response may not be necessary and if a doctor had to choose between the emergency room patient and the other, the choice is clear and it doesn't mean they don't care about the patient who doesn't require emergency care.
Without further ado, let me therefore make my case. The ailments of our times all require attention, and choosing politicians who can address them requires wisdom. To me however, there are issues that are a matter of life and death and to not attend to them I believe would be a mistake that will prove deadly to all of us. The issues that require emergency care are the ones that the Church call Intrinsic evils like Abortion, Homosexuality, Embryonic stem cells, Euthanasia, Racism etc. This issues if neglected proves fatal physically like in the case of abortion where millions of unborn are killed, or promoting homosexual marriage where spiritual casualties will be rampant. Yes we can't neglect the other issues like what to do with the poor, or education, or environment...etc since neglecting them would eventually prove fatal like a neglected disease, but while they might be in therapy and we might need to change the form of treatment, we don't need to take them to the emergency room. I am of the opinion that if a doctor doesn't understand an emergency when he sees one and even treats an ailment that needs emergency care as if it wasn't an ailment at all, I would want to fire him if it was up to me. The same goes for those seeking leadership in political fields. Those who don't attend to these issues that need urgent attendance or even try to ignore them and say they are not bad at all should not be given the job of being our leaders. Maybe this is what I was trying to explain to my friend and whether I failed or succeeded, I won't know. I however think that I came understanding things a little better and having a different view. While maybe I was trying to say some issues didn't need attendance while those like abortions needed it, I have come to see that all issues need attention, but maybe not in the same urgency and degree of care.
During elections where everything may not be as black and white as we wish it to be, and while we strive to make moral choices or seemingly prudent choices, I believe if we apply this method, we will come off if not right, better than not. Hopefully my analogy of the hospital will serve to help you.
Let me conclude by saying that it is our duty as people who've been given the privilege to govern ourselves by choosing our leaders to educate ourselves and form our consciences so that we can apply our knowledge and with the help of God hopefully make the choices that are both moral and good. Should we neglect this duty of formation, we will have to face the consequences of other people's whims and desires which history has shown seldom comes to a happy conclusion. My prayer is that The all generous God will give us the wisdom we require to navigate this hard times, and the docility to allow Him to guide us and see us through. I also pray that he may give light to our leaders that they may seek Justice and truth in all that they do and have the courage to do what is morally good and just.
