Dear St. Rita Families,

Truth is the conformity of the mind with reality, according to St. Thomas Aquinas. So, if we are seeking truth – not only in the metaphysical sense, but also in the day-to-say sense – it is important for us to have an objective understanding of reality (which, you will recall, was created by God) in order to parse accurately the information we receive. Perhaps the most in-your-face situation at this moment is politics. In that realm we can ask, for example, when is an act taken against a member of another political party purely a partisan, political act? Or, when is withholding information in fact a lie? Anyone can hurl accusations of “Partisan Politics” or “Liar” against another – and this happens regularly. How, then, do I know what is true? 

            I don’t intend to look at individual cases while considering these questions – there is likely data inaccessible to us, and I don’t want to dive into politics as such. But, as human beings, we must recall not only that God has created us with a purpose for life that is beyond this life, but also that there is an objective standard of goodness for us, which can nevertheless be expressed in a multitude of different ways that can be difficult to read from the outside. The Baltimore Catechism (Volume 1, Question 6) is very clear about the reason God made us: “To know, love, and serve God in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.” In other words, all things that happen in this world must be considered in reference to God. All things that happen to me in this world, must be considered in reference to my relationship with Him.

This, of course, is all good, until we are faced with a situation that seeking God doesn’t seem to fix. Retaliation, vengeance, and hatred are all sins, and they are not permitted even in the face of egregious offenses. Likewise, the taking of an innocent human life (e.g. via abortion), can never be permitted, despite the very difficult circumstances of the mother. And the phrase “Love is love” is simply a misnomer that removes all meaning from interpersonal relationship and sex. But all of these situations and all similar situations, while in themselves difficult, can in fact be subordinated to and ordered towards our relationship with God. In this way, we become detached from the earthly desire, and we hold on to the will of God. There, in His will, we find peace.

With this in mind, political ends and goals fall by the wayside. It is not that they are unimportant, but it is that they are subordinated to something higher. If the political system exists so that we have freedom to seek God, then it makes no sense to offend God in seeking political goals. We would be contravening the very purpose of our pursuit. Likewise, we can say that any act that either lacks charity in itself or that seeks something contrary to God’s law is somehow defective, and thus contrary to the end of politics itself. Such acts tend toward partisanship, and they contribute to fighting for power, control, money, etc., rather than for the common good. This should be the standard by which we evaluate something as partisan or not. 

The second question above about lying also brings out some interesting points. There is an element of hiding in lying – consider Adam and Eve in the Garden after they sin. They hide from God out of fear and shame, because they don’t want to admit their sin. All lying is rooted in some kind of fear, whether it is fear of punishment like Adam and Eve, or whether it is fear of losing something else. Even sinister lies, used to gain power or to coerce in some way, are rooted in a fear of losing that thing which is held dear. And yet, everyone recognizes that not all of our personal information is meant to be on display for others to see. Note that even that recognition can have a certain root in fear: What happens if they find out? 

But the reality that some information ought not to be shared doesn’t only have to be fear-based. It can be rooted in charity also. God’s gift of clothing to Adam and Eve to cover their shame after the fall isn’t only so that they will not be used by others who see them. It is also to enable Adam and Eve not to be overcome by their own passions, so that they might grow in virtue and thus in charity. In other words, withholding vulnerable data is for the sake of being known better, later. And this can be true for both the speaker and the listener, since “TMI” can be damaging for both. 

A simple example: Someone asks, “How are you?” You are having a bad day, but don’t feel able to share that with your colleague or acquaintance, because you are not very close. So you say, “I’m fine, thanks. How are you?” There is nothing wrong with this exchange, because there is a level on which you are, in fact, fine. You are here, and you are going about your day. To say more indicates to your colleague that you are looking for some assistance with the difficulty of your day, and that is not, perhaps, true. To pursue that line of conversation could be damaging for the both of you. You will have to backpedal, and your colleague probably wasn’t even asking for all that detail, anyway. In other words, oversharing wasn’t in the interest of charity in your relationship with that person.

            It is more complicated when it comes to the kinds of information that the government shares with its people. Some information the government ought not to share, because it is sensitive and could lead to harm to the people the government is supposed to protect. Some information ought to be shared precisely for the good of the citizens. In no case should outright lies be told. The purpose of all of this is to ensure that the people of a given country can seek God in freedom. That which enables this pursuit should be shared, and that which does not, should not. To hide that which should be shared or to share that which should be hidden is to attempt to coerce in some way.

            A last point on truth. Your average news outlet accuses other news outlets (and political opponents) of spinning the truth, and it can be very difficult to sort through the mess and discover what is actually going on. In these cases, it is important to distinguish between what actually happened and the motives of a given individual. Sometimes both are bad. Often, it’s a mix. “Spin” is just an imputed motive and is often an accusation about the motives of another. Remember, there is no truth without charity, and there is no charity without truth. Truth is Himself a Person, and He cannot be separated from Charity. Charity, not shame, must be the guiding factor when truths are spoken or not spoken. Truth, not sentiment, must be the guiding factor when we seek to love another.

            None of this precludes us from being active in the political conversation and even taking very firm stands. If anything, it invites us to insert truth and charity into a milieu where there is a lot of misinformation, confusion, and vitriol. For this, the Lord reminds us, “In the world you will have trouble, but take courage, I have conquered the world” (Jn 16:33). 

In Christ,

Fr. Christensen