As I recall when this was a Big Topic, there were quite a few orthodox Catholics who consciensciously could not vote for Kerry for obvious reasons of pro-choice alignment and public scandal, but also could not vote for Bush for any number of reasons, including that he was not completely pro-life as advertised. Of course, since he tries to moderate his views he seeks to appease, leading to relativistic interpretations of what “pro-life” means.
Therefore, many felt the only way to deal with the five non-negotiables was to vote third party, for a candidate who is an extreme longshot by even the most faithfuls’ views, because they felt they could not negotiate on non-negotiables. Makes a lot of sense to me, but of course if it threw the election to Kerry then we’d all be crowing about how it was These Peoples’ Fault.
As a test of our improving our unity as a happy Catholic family (rather than a dysfunctional one), may I offer the above thought model as a justification for us to refrain from either claiming either side is more or less faithful to Catholicism, or any other ways to judge ourselves, unless we do so to place ourselves below our enemies in order to unleash the power of the Word and the Spirit to exalt us above them, triumphing in love, service, and example.
To serve means to wash their feet.
Given all that, it becomes a matter of a tradeoff between spiritual faith and worldly practicality, because even though we are called to love the one and hate the other, we must be experts at both so we can succeeed in a complex world that has both a real part and an imaginary part. One with physical evidence and one with faith as evidence.
I always wished I could be in debate, but not to the extent that I ever signed up for it. Once a zillion years ago in about fourth grade I wowed the class by running a program for our weekly classroom debates, so instead of debating (which I was deathly afraid of because conflict terrified me – I was total pacivist) I would be the Guy With Last Week’s Results every Monday.
Anyway, I began to see that they would assign Pro and Con to the debate, pretty much regardless or even intentionally against that person’s personal beliefs. Isn’t it funny how when you take the opposite role, you are able to conjure words that suddenly promote your opposition rather than your own view? Working against your view of the truth?
Anyway this is the idea why I jump back and forth on topics, and seem to alienate people I guess. I try looking from both sides, and typically either side has feelings of “differentness” or “separation” from each other. This causes anger, resentment, curiosity, learning, condemning, praising, joining, separating, allying, demarcating, and other emotions, feelings, and thought processes which impede pure speech without subtle messages that corrupt it.
Intellectually we know we are united in the Eucharist but we don’t feel united to each other because we compare the seriousness of each other’s sins like a bunch of kids pointing out each others’ zits.
Now that I have come off like the pompous oaf many think I am, I know we don’t want to insult each other or misrepresent each others’ views or motives. To guess at them is OK, but then either find out by being straightforward and interested in learning or keep in mind You May Be Wrong about your ability to read anothers’ mind.
Alan
