The earthly and religious aspects of politics

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.