DEMOCRACY, of course, is the best
form of government
because it allows the people to have a voice of how they ought to be
governed.
Yes, while the Church traditionally maintains that no form
of government is imposed on man by God, it somehow values the
democratic system precisely because “it ensures the participation of
citizens in making political choices, guarantees to the governed the
possibility both of electing and holding accountable those who govern
them, and of replacing them through peaceful means when appropriate.”
This was expressed explicitly in St. John Paul II’s 1991
encyclical “Centesimus annus” (46) that also went on to say that the
Church “cannot encourage the formation of narrow ruling groups which
usurp the power of the State for individual interests or for
ideological ends.”
As to the requirements for democracy to work properly, it
articulated the following conditions: “Authentic democracy is possible
only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception
of the human person.
“It requires that the necessary condition be present for
the advancement both of the individual through education and formation
in the true ideals, and of the ‘subjectivity’ of society through the
creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility.”
We need to go through these words slowly to understand
them well and discern the many practical implications they contain.
Nowadays, these implications are important because some sectors are
distorting the true face of democracy.
Among the more notorious misconceptions brought about by
the misreading of the implications of democracy is that democracy
should be completely devoid of any religious favoritism, or that
religion or God should have no part in it, or that because of the
so-called Church-state separation, democracy should avoid religious
issues and stand completely neutral..
Right from the beginning, such understanding of democracy
is already wrong, for how can it be democratic if the religious
sentiments of the people or of some people at least, are silenced,
when they feel that their religious beliefs should be respected in the
way they are governed?
Of course, in a democracy, those who have no religion, who
are non-believers, also have a voice and they deserve to be heard. But
we should not silence those who would like to voice out their
religious sentiments and beliefs when they feel these are relevant in
the way a society is government.
We have to understand democracy as a means not an end, a
forum or an arena where all the opinions, preferences, and even
beliefs and faiths of the people are given due attention hopefully in
civil dialogues and exchanges.
This implication of democracy is somehow highlighted these
days when a candidate, who is supposed to be Catholic, openly goes
against Catholic teaching on same-sex marriage because, according to
the candidate, in a democracy “we should not favor any religion.”
While it’s true that we should not favor any religion, we
expect candidates to be true and faithful to their religious beliefs
or, at least, their religious affiliation, and defend them in a
democratic way when issues touching on their beliefs come their way.
Democracy should not be an excuse for them to betray their
religious beliefs just because it may be the more practical,
convenient or popular thing to do. Such betrayal can only mean that
the candidate is only Catholic by name, or is one who claims that it
is also Catholic to betray one’s Catholic beliefs, an absurdity that
is somehow also gaining traction these days.
Of course, there can be other possible ways to describe
this phenomenon. One could be merely a coward not to stand up for his
faith, or he is simply Machiavellian willing to sacrifice some eternal
truths or the long-held sacred traditions of the people, etc, just to
pander on a passing popular sentiment and thereby gain power, wealth,
popularity.
Or one could simply be so blinded by some distorted sense
of loyalty to a candidate or to an ideology, etc., that he is willing
to go against his religion when certain aspects of that religion
become a contentious and unpopular part of a political issue.
In a democracy, every participant is expected to be clear
about his positions, his views and preferences, and enter into some
dialogue and exchange with civility, willing to listen to others,
including those with the opposite views, while articulating and
defending his in a civil manner.
Part of a healthy democracy is to be humble enough to
modify one’s position when more inputs get to be known, and to
graciously accept, at least for the meantime, a setback even if the
struggle to push undeniable religious truths continues.
because it allows the people to have a voice of how they ought to be
governed.
Yes, while the Church traditionally maintains that no form
of government is imposed on man by God, it somehow values the
democratic system precisely because “it ensures the participation of
citizens in making political choices, guarantees to the governed the
possibility both of electing and holding accountable those who govern
them, and of replacing them through peaceful means when appropriate.”
This was expressed explicitly in St. John Paul II’s 1991
encyclical “Centesimus annus” (46) that also went on to say that the
Church “cannot encourage the formation of narrow ruling groups which
usurp the power of the State for individual interests or for
ideological ends.”
As to the requirements for democracy to work properly, it
articulated the following conditions: “Authentic democracy is possible
only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception
of the human person.
“It requires that the necessary condition be present for
the advancement both of the individual through education and formation
in the true ideals, and of the ‘subjectivity’ of society through the
creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility.”
We need to go through these words slowly to understand
them well and discern the many practical implications they contain.
Nowadays, these implications are important because some sectors are
distorting the true face of democracy.
Among the more notorious misconceptions brought about by
the misreading of the implications of democracy is that democracy
should be completely devoid of any religious favoritism, or that
religion or God should have no part in it, or that because of the
so-called Church-state separation, democracy should avoid religious
issues and stand completely neutral..
Right from the beginning, such understanding of democracy
is already wrong, for how can it be democratic if the religious
sentiments of the people or of some people at least, are silenced,
when they feel that their religious beliefs should be respected in the
way they are governed?
Of course, in a democracy, those who have no religion, who
are non-believers, also have a voice and they deserve to be heard. But
we should not silence those who would like to voice out their
religious sentiments and beliefs when they feel these are relevant in
the way a society is government.
We have to understand democracy as a means not an end, a
forum or an arena where all the opinions, preferences, and even
beliefs and faiths of the people are given due attention hopefully in
civil dialogues and exchanges.
This implication of democracy is somehow highlighted these
days when a candidate, who is supposed to be Catholic, openly goes
against Catholic teaching on same-sex marriage because, according to
the candidate, in a democracy “we should not favor any religion.”
While it’s true that we should not favor any religion, we
expect candidates to be true and faithful to their religious beliefs
or, at least, their religious affiliation, and defend them in a
democratic way when issues touching on their beliefs come their way.
Democracy should not be an excuse for them to betray their
religious beliefs just because it may be the more practical,
convenient or popular thing to do. Such betrayal can only mean that
the candidate is only Catholic by name, or is one who claims that it
is also Catholic to betray one’s Catholic beliefs, an absurdity that
is somehow also gaining traction these days.
Of course, there can be other possible ways to describe
this phenomenon. One could be merely a coward not to stand up for his
faith, or he is simply Machiavellian willing to sacrifice some eternal
truths or the long-held sacred traditions of the people, etc, just to
pander on a passing popular sentiment and thereby gain power, wealth,
popularity.
Or one could simply be so blinded by some distorted sense
of loyalty to a candidate or to an ideology, etc., that he is willing
to go against his religion when certain aspects of that religion
become a contentious and unpopular part of a political issue.
In a democracy, every participant is expected to be clear
about his positions, his views and preferences, and enter into some
dialogue and exchange with civility, willing to listen to others,
including those with the opposite views, while articulating and
defending his in a civil manner.
Part of a healthy democracy is to be humble enough to
modify one’s position when more inputs get to be known, and to
graciously accept, at least for the meantime, a setback even if the
struggle to push undeniable religious truths continues.
No comments:
Post a Comment