OUR POLITICS, OUR CONSCIENCE

OCTOBER 22, 2006

Soon citizens will have the opportunity to go to the polls and exercise one of their most fundamental rights and fulfill one of their simplest yet most important duties as citizens of a democracy. Because our government is of, by, and for the people, we exercise governance over ourselves by exercising our right to vote.

Along with this right comes the responsibility to be attentive and intelligent in its use. To elect a candidate to public service should not be an “impulse buy” based on sentiment, nor an expression of blind allegiance to a political party. The differences among candidates for any public office are sometimes dramatic, not only among those of different political parties but also among those who adhere to the same party.

One thing they always have in common, however, is the awareness that they will not be elected if they espouse positions, or advocate programs or legislative initiatives, or hold values, which do not resonate with the mind and will of the people. This, as we know, presents a great temptation to candidates to tell the people what the straw polls indicate they want to hear. They often do so for the sheer sake of winning votes, whether or not they agree personally with what is popular at the moment to say. In fact, a politician can be so eager to win an election that he or she may be willing to compromise or suspend deep personal convictions. Are we not familiar with this? That is why we often hear a political candidate say words to the effect of, “I am personally opposed to… but I support…

The influence of voter surveys and straw polls on politics in our time strongly suggests that at election time, we should not be as concerned with what candidates are saying to us as we should be concerned with what we, the people, are saying to the candidates. In other words, we should be responsible enough to survey our social world and discover what is right or wrong, what it needs, and what should be our priorities.

To answer these questions wisely, we must search our soul and examine our conscience. Once we have properly informed ourselves of current realities and listened attentively to our conscience, we should be telling the political candidates what we want them to do if we elect them. Then we should elect the candidates who appear best fitted and committed to meet our expectations and to do what we have already determined will best serve the public good. Our politics should not be the politics of self-interest, but of the common good.

If democracy is the form of government that gives the people what they want, we should always be asking ourselves if what we want is right and good and just. This sort of examination of conscience is doubly significant when the electorate is as polarized as it has become in recent times. The only thing powerful enough to dissolve today’s divisions along political and ideological lines is to refocus on the fundamental truth of the dignity of every human person, without regard for the special interests, preferences, or claims of any particular group in society.

A refocus on the truth implies a conscious willingness to put an end to all manipulative rhetoric. To avoid using words to say some true things while hiding parts of the truth. It means doing away with slanted reporting and taking polls which word the questions in such a way as to get a desired result. It means an end to politicking on behalf of the rights one group, without consideration for the rights of others. It means not claiming we have a right to do something that is morally wrong. No one has a right to do what is wrong. It means recognizing that the will of the majority must always be circumscribed by the moral law. It means recognizing that the weakest and most vulnerable among us are part of who “we, the people” are, and are therefore our shared responsibility.

Before we can safely follow our conscience, we must take care that it has been properly formed. To follow our conscience does not mean to do what seems best at the moment, based on gut feeling. It means first confirming that our conscience is properly attuned to the truth. To be attuned to the truth, we must turn to the one who inscribed the moral law in our hearts: the Lord God. And we must allow the voice of God, speaking through religious authority, to influence us.

The Church does not seek to tell voters how to vote but offers a moral framework to guide their choices. The Church acknowledges that there is much room for disagreement regarding the best means available for achieving such social goods as economic justice, fair opportunity, and public safety. When the means proposed are in themselves wrong, however, there can never be personal approval or political support. This is the case with abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research, which are wrong in themselves because they mortally offend the first and highest right – the right to life – in the pursuit of rights or goods of a lower order. It is never morally permissible to do evil so that good may follow.

+Bishop Raymundo J. Peña

last updated 05-Jun-2008 9:48 sitemap