Elections and Eternity

Denise Hunnell

Election and Division

The juxtaposition of All Soul’s Day and Election Day should cause us to pause and ponder. The first is a feast designed to remind us that we are not created merely for this temporal existence but for eternity. We pray for the dead because we know their souls live on. Election Day, on the other hand, is a day wholly focused on the worldly concerns of the here and now.

Yet the two are not unrelated. How we conduct ourselves in our earthly existence will define the soul that is laid bare on Judgment Day.

A couple of years ago I heard the journalist Mara Liasson speak at my son’s college graduation. She lamented the stark polarization of today’s political environment.

In a bygone era politicians could debate vigorously on the floors of the House or the Senate and later embrace warmly over drinks at a local pub. Today the venom and vitriol of political debate have poisoned the well of social interactions for both politicians and ordinary citizens. Ms. Liasson offered no explanation for the change but wistfully urged the graduates to seek common ground and resist such divisiveness.

I share some of Ms. Liasson’s sentiments. I too have watched the devolution of politics where, today, supporters of almost any issue spend less time offering reasoned arguments for their positions and more time demonizing their opponents.

This is a wholly unproductive approach to civic life; but it is understandable if one looks at the cultural changes over the last few decades. Perhaps by understanding the roots of our polarization we can overcome it.

Anarchy of Virtue

In the good old days that Ms. Liasson and I remember, both sides of the aisle were looking at similar goals. The disagreement was over how to reach those goals.

Everyone wanted strong families, good schools, a healthy population, and a robust economy. If you asked someone of any political stripe to define these endpoints, you would get similar answers. There was a general cultural consensus about the difference between good and evil or right and wrong.

In contrast, today our culture suffers from an anarchy of virtue. What does it mean to have strong families? We cannot even agree on the definition of a family. What does it mean to be healthy?

Conditions like homosexuality and transgenderism that were once universally viewed as disorders are now celebrated by many as healthy variants of normal. Destroying a functioning reproductive system is viewed as preventive medicine. Killing an unborn child is the equivalent of eradicating a parasite.

What is education? Schools devote as much or more time to indoctrinating children in progressive social ideologies as they do to training minds for rigorous analytical thinking. A centrally controlled economy and government dependency is valued as equal to thriving private businesses and self-sufficiency. Self-gratification is as noble as self-sacrifice.

As Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI famously declared, “We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.”

In his book The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis summarizes the goals of the Devil as first, to undermine faith; and secondly, to prevent the formation of virtue. How better to do this than to confuse the definition of virtue? Therefore, for those who reject moral relativism, any cooperation with those who reject an objective standard of virtue can look like a pact with the Devil.

On the other hand, to those who cannot fathom a fixed standard for moral behavior, those who declare some behaviors as universally wrong are dangerous fanatics. Giving them any credibility risks an unjust imposition of narrow values on the population as a whole. The result is the stark political polarization we see today.

Voting Catholic

So where does this leave the faithful Catholic?

First, as we enter the voting booth, it is important to remember that political victories and defeats are important only insofar as they contribute to eternal victories. There is no Catholic political party. One can look at Republicans, Democrats, the Tea Party, the Green Party, Marxists, Communists, Socialists, or any other political ideology; none perfectly comport to Catholic teaching. Some, however, accommodate Catholic principles far better than others.

As we look at the slate of candidates and issues, the question that must guide our decisions is which of these candidates will best build up the Kingdom of God. Who will best enable the salvation of souls? Who will promote virtue? We err if we vote in order to increase our own earthly power and prestige. Jesus said, “What profit is there for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?” (Mt 8:36) Jesus was not referring merely to our mortal life, but to the eternal life of our souls.

Secondly, political victories or defeats have no effect on the veracity of our faith. We have a duty to participate in civic life and vote in a manner that supports the propagation of the faith.

Living and practicing our faith is much more challenging if those who are hostile to our faith win elections. But electoral failures do not excuse us from our mandate to evangelize. Jesus did not say, “Go and make disciples of all the nations whose governments like you.” We are called to proclaim the truth of the Gospel no matter which political party is in power.

Finally, building the Kingdom of God does not mean vanquishing our ideological opponents but converting them. We boldly speak the truth not to condemn but to open hearts. Heaven does not rejoice over the recalcitrant sinner who receives his just punishment but over the prodigal son who repents and returns.

We must swallow our pride and answer snark, insults, and abuse with compassion, mercy, and love. The political activism of the faithful Catholic is not about winning the war of sound bites. It is about winning the salvation of souls.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest

19 thoughts on “Elections and Eternity”

  1. Pingback: Time For Catholics to Leave the Democrats? - Catholic Stand : Catholic Stand

  2. I share some of Ms. Liasson’s sentiments. I too have watched the devolution of politics where, today, supporters of almost any issue spend less time offering reasoned arguments for their positions and more time demonizing their opponents.

    VS.

    Conditions like homosexuality and transgenderism that were once universally viewed as disorders are now celebrated by many as healthy variants of normal. Destroying a functioning reproductive system is viewed as preventive medicine. Killing an unborn child is the equivalent of eradicating a parasite.

    What is education? Schools devote as much or more time to indoctrinating children in progressive social ideologies as they do to training minds for rigorous analytical thinking. A centrally controlled economy and government dependency is valued as equal to thriving private businesses and self-sufficiency. Self-gratification is as noble as self-sacrifice.

    I wonder if the author sees herself as part of the problem of demonizing the opposition. For goodness sake, flat out accusing them of being tools of the Devil.

    1. Odd. I edited this post; I’ve read it several times. Nowhere in it can I find the words “tools of the Devil”, or anything equivalent to such a demonization. Certainly Dr. Hunnell makes clear her disagreement with these things. But she hasn’t mocked or slandered their proponents; she hasn’t called them “evil”, “twisted”, “sick” or any of the other pejoratives you can regularly find on Twitter or other social media in what ordinarily passes for political discussion. There is a difference between disagreement and demonization, Andre. If you can’t see it, it doesn’t follow that the difference isn’t real.

    2. Anthony, the insinuation is clear. Preceding the comments I quote we find:

      In contrast, today our culture suffers from an anarchy of virtue. What does it mean to have strong families? We cannot even agree on the definition of a family. What does it mean to be healthy?

      and following those I quote we have:

      In his book The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis summarizes the goals of the Devil as first, to undermine faith; and secondly, to prevent the formation of virtue.

      As for calling people sick or twisted, I’m not sure how else to take her comments regarding LGBT, etc.

      There is a difference between disagreement and demonization.

      Agreed, which is why it was so saddening to see somebody that began by decrying demonization at the expense of reasoned discourse engage in the former while forsaking the latter. I mean honestly, name me one prominent/popular politician in the US you could argue is in favor of a centrally planned economy.

    3. I find it interesting you can quote passages where you find your insinuations, but you can’t articulate what those insinuations are, and how (or even who) they demonize. Her comment regarding LGBT can be taken as she stated it: that once there was agreement that they were disorders, and now there isn’t. Do you believe that people with psychological disorders are inherently evil, sick and unfit for human society, that their intrinsic worth is inherently diminished? That’s not what we believe; that’s not what the Church teaches.

      I’ll give you the overstatement on the centrally-planned economy. For the rest — you’re building a straw man, and not a very convincing one at that.

    4. I find it interesting you can quote passages where you find your insinuations, but you can’t articulate what those insinuations are, and how (or even who) they demonize.

      Yes, and I find it interesting that it’s necessary to spell this out, but I’ll be charitable.

      We are told that today’s culture suffers from a lack of, or confusion concerning virtue. Then we are given several examples of this (lgbt rights, birth control, abortion), all of which are, unsurprisingly, caricatures of progressive causes. Then we are told that one of the goals of the devil is to undermine/prevent virtue. I’m sorry, but intended or not, I find the insinuation clear. As for who is being targeted…well I thought we were adults here.

      Her comment regarding LGBT can be taken as she stated it: that once there was agreement that they were disorders, and now there isn’t.

      Sure, it *can* be taken as simply pointing out a lack of agreement. Again, please, let’s not play dumb here. She’s comparing the good-old days, where everyone had the same goals and knew good from bad. Back when we knew that homosexuality was wrong, unlike today where progressive are doing the devil’s work of obscuring virtue, and teaching our kids that homosexuality is ok.

      Do you believe that people with psychological disorders are inherently evil, sick and unfit for human society, that their intrinsic worth is inherently diminished?

      It doesn’t matter what I think – though for the record I would agree that people with psychological disorders are ‘sick’, to some extent. This doesn’t change the fact that the author implies homosexuality is sick and twisted (ie. disordered).

      I’ll give you the overstatement on the centrally-planned economy. For the rest — you’re building a straw man, and not a very convincing one at that.

      I’ll take your concession, and give one in return – the author doesn’t so much ‘flat out accuse’ anyone of being a tool of the devil as she does imply it (intentionally or not).

      As for the straw man accusation, that’s rich. Birth control “destroys” the reproductive system? Schools spend most of their time indoctrinating kids on progressive social issues? Self-gratification >= self-sacrifice (an especially odd charge to level against social progressives)? And please, again, find me one prominent/popular politician that would either include anything resembling abortion = getting rid of a parasite in their campaign, or support any legislation that come close to this idea.

    5. All you’ve managed to spell out is your willingness to project personal attacks into the slightest signs of disagreement, or even into bald statements of fact. Sorry, there’s no hidden message for you to “decode”. And your tactic in opposition to the “straw man” charge is to … engage in a tu quoque? Pull an incendiary statement out of thin air and insist I find some politician who would willingly sink his/her campaign by saying it out loud — as if failing the test would prove the demonization? And this: “Self-gratification >= self-sacrifice (an especially odd charge to level against social progressives)?” It certainly is an odd charge … precisely because you pulled it out of the same hat from which you produced the rest of your “demonizations”. I’m done.

    6. “And your tactic in opposition to the “straw man” charge is to … engage in a tu quoque?”

      Actually, the beginning of my last reply, I thought, did a pretty good job of addressing the straw man charge in general, though I did feel the need to underline the hypocrisy again later.

      “Pull an incendiary statement out of thin air and insist I find some politician who would willingly sink his/her campaign by saying it out loud — as if failing the test would prove the demonization?”

      My good man, if you’re referring to the abortion = parasites reference…I don’t know what to tell you, it’s in the OP. You’ll also notice that I don’t limit my call for evidence to public statements, I included “support[ing] any legislation that come [sic] close to this idea”. If no evidence can be found to support this supposed position…what test does that fail?

      “And this: “Self-gratification >= self-sacrifice (an especially odd charge to level against social progressives)? It certainly is an odd charge … precisely because you pulled it out of the same hat from which you produced the rest of your “demonizations”.

      I’m not sure I understand your point. Is it an odd charge because you think I’m pulling the self-gratification / self-sacrifice reference out of thin air, or because I thought this was being leveled at social progressives? I can assure you the former is in the OP. If you mean the latter, well, then I do apologize if this was the solitary charge being leveled at conservatives in this piece.

      “I’m done.”

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVznerpOkTI

  3. You prefaced your comments with the term “faithful Catholics.” What about all the Catholics who claim to be Catholic yet vote for pro-abortion candidates, support active homosexuality and gay marriage, and favor a distributive tax system which leads only to dependence on Big Brother and all but eliminates the dignity of work and self-worth? Where is the US magisterium on righting these errors in teaching? They are nowhere to be heard! As it has ever been since the 1960s. So the beat goes on…

  4. In his book The Screwtape Letters, Lewis summarizes the goals of the Devil as first, to undermine faith;
    You can not undermine faith – ” Faith is a knowledge within the heart, beyond the reach of proof.”
    Khalil Gibran

  5. Pingback: U. S. ELECTION SPECIAL - BigPulpit.com

  6. Elections are about personal and group power as well as a healthy dose of corporate money…I will vote for whomever panders to the issues most important to me: a refusal to tamper with Social Security and Medicare, Medicaid; a refusal to acknowledge that corporations are people; a refusal to tamper with special education (IDEA, FAPE, etc); a refusal to compromise on disability advocacy; a refusal to backtrack on SNAP programs and Section 8 programs …all the other issues are fluff or already decided by SCOTUS or state law.

    1. So you vote for your worldly self interests and everyone else plus Eternity be damned, so to speak? Q.E.D.

  7. The problem is that one side sees this life as the only one we will ever have and the other sees it as nothing compared to the eternity that awaits us in heaven or hell.

    This earth might be the only home we will ever have or it might just be a temporary setting where pain and pleasure are just momentary and nothing compared to what awaits us, good or bad.

    It is very difficult for these groups to see eye to eye on anything. What is needed is for us to determine which group is right and then live our lives and set our policies accordingly. Trying to take the rights of both sides into consideration is like playing to a tie in soccer, which they say is like kissing your sister. We are not getting the most bang for our buck trying to appease both sides. One side is very, very right and the other is very, very wrong.

    1. Your dilemma is as old as time. Perhaps the most succinct address to this was put forth in the 17th century by Pascal’s Wager. There are really only four possibilities: (1) You believe in God and live accordingly and God really does exist. (2) You believe in God and live accordingly and God does not exist. (3) You do not believe in God and live accordingly but God does exist (4) You do not believe in God and live accordingly and God actually does not exist. The only possibility that has a significant negative outcome is to deny God exists when He actually does exist. So from a purely probability viewpoint, you hedge your bets to live as if God exists.

    2. I don’t fit any of those. I am 99% positive that God does not exist but I try to live as if he does. If everyone simultaneously came to the realization that all gods are imaginary, including the god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims, I think we would all be in trouble. I think that removing the promise of heaven and the threat of hell would wreak havoc on society because this carrot and stick is controlling the behavior of believers, many of whom would probably run amok if they knew there is no divine justice. It is better that they don’t know.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.