In March, I wrote about my meeting with George Hargreaves and A Christian strategy for the London Mayoral election. The election takes place tomorrow so this is a reminder to all you London Catholics (and other Christians) to get out and vote. As the Catechism teaches:2240. Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s countryand the second Vatican Council:
All citizens, therefore, should be mindful of the right and also the duty to use their free vote to further the common good. (Gaudium et Spes n.75)You will have received your booklet with photos of the ballot papers etc. For Mayor, you get a first and a second choice. You should be aware that there is a good Christian pro-life, pro-family candidate, Alan Craig is standing on a joint ticket for the Christian Party and the Christian People's Alliance.
Being realistic, it is unlikely that Alan Craig will be elected as Mayor. But it would be good for him to get a sizeable number of votes. If you feel that it is a straight fight between Ken 'n Boris, you can still vote for whichever of the two you prefer as your second choice without wasting your vote because if your first choice is not in the top two, your second choice vote is used.
In addition, it should also be possible to vote Alan Craig on as a London-wide member of the London Assembly and possibly some Christian party people in a few boroughs. So if you were just getting apathetic about the whole thing and were not going to be bothered with it, you now have a reason to walk down to the local school some time tomorrow and tick the various Christian boxes...
You can read more about the Christian campaign at The Christian Choice; of particular interest to many readers will be the news item ITV & BBC Censor London Mayoral Election Broadcast "in Fear of Radical Islam". Alan Craig also has a blog called Meet Alan Craig.
10 comments:
Exactly when did it become obligatory for Christians to vote? Any why (pray tell) is it obligatory for Christians to vote with a particular intent of promoting the common good? When did ward politics ("I vote for 'em because they got me a city job") become grave matter?
The late Fr. Ernest Fortin, A.A. did important work regarding the statements of "social teaching" found in the letters of US bishops. Fr. Ernest, whose own master was Augustine, would know better than I how deal with such seeming nonsense.
Isn't there an Englishman who can say with Waugh that he disapproves of the means by which his sovereign chooses her ministers?
A good friend of mine at Oxford used to say "I never vote - it only encourages them."
Presumably the obligation arose when the Sovereign opted to chose ministers by this means. One can still vote whilst disapproving of the process; and whilst I can see that the phrase "common good" can be misused, it does seem to be possible to say that the will of God is for the common good of humanity (which would be their salvation, of course). Perhaps we should vote with a more explicit intention of furthering the salvation of souls.
At any rate, I think it is a good idea to vote for a pro-life and pro-family candidate where there is one.
Aquinas argues repeatedly that the end of law is the Common Good, so in as much as we participate in the democratic system, we surely must do so by reference to the Common Good.
It is our duty as Christians to evanglise. This means not just telling people about the Church and trying to convert it also means using every means possible to promote christian principles and values. I am not a Londoner so I cannot vote but were I a Londoner I would feel it my duty to vote Alan Craig in the fight for against our secular society.
Pope Benedict spoke about this on his recent visit to the US. He urged people to reject the false dichotomy between faith and politics. He encouraged people to get involved and to allow faith to make a difference. Full text can be found if you search for Yankee Stadium Homily New York.
The choice is often dismal. None of the parties uphold the Sanctity of Human Life. But at least you do have a pro-life candidate for London. It can only be for the Common Good to go and put a tick by his name.
oops. i didn`t mean a tick, I meant a cross. (It`s just that a cross symbolizes a "no, wrong" and a tick says "yes", but then your ballot paper might be chucked away as spoilt..........Democracy is very complicated.)
People died to give us the vote, if you consciouses doesn't allow you to vote to the the poling booth and spoil the paper!
BTW Well said Tim
Fr Tim Finigan
I think much of the confusion (particularly that on the part of frb) is based on a confusion between the rulers and the ruled. No political system does away with the distinction, and the Church would be doing herself a grave disservice if she attempted to teach there was none.
Obligations to act on behalf of the common good, the teachings on just war, etc., are guides for rulers. They play precisely zero role in the formation of the ruled, whose obligations are to develop and practice the virtues in their own circumstances.
Done! It was easy - just a big X in the box for the Christian Party.
Obligations to act on behalf of the common good, the teachings on just war, etc., are guides for rulers. They play precisely zero role in the formation of the ruled, whose obligations are to develop and practice the virtues in their own circumstances.
But when the ruled have a role to play in the choice of their rulers, surely there is an obligation to take the common good into account.
Post a Comment