Clanging symbols

There I was, heading home one weekend after a hard (snicker!) morning of babysitting the grandchildren. On the way, though, I spied something that gave me much more of a challenge.

A small car limped past me, slow enough that I could notice a couple of remarkable things. There was a tattered flag snapping in the highway-speed wind from a plastic flagpole. Old Glory’s honored edges were whipped into a fraying mess of red and white, and almost on the eve of Sept. 11, too. Inside the car, dangling from the rear-view mirror, was a string of wooden rosary beads.

We do love our symbols. Before you think I’m poking fun, consider that I have more than a few symbols and mementos around me as I write this at home, and indeed at work, too.

Symbols are OK … as long as we don’t forget how they connect. Otherwise they become dust-catchers or, like that beat-up flag, empty of meaning. Or a rosary that’s not used. On the other hand, symbols can encourage us or inflame us.

This is a time of symbols. Until November we’ll be dominated by a couple of symbolic beasts: elephant and donkey. Talk about encouraging or inflaming.

For some, the elephant is symbolizes a solid presence with a long memory of the way things were … and should be again. For others, it’s a lumbering and too-slow-to-adapt critter. The donkey, well, what’s defined as “stubborn” by some is “steadfast” for others. (And, despite the perceptions of many, a jackass is a different breed altogether.)

See what I mean about symbols being enflaming or encouraging? Or both? Catholics are hardly immune from the effects of either.

The other day I received two calls from readers castigating The Catholic New World for what they perceived as political positions in our most recent issue. The first accused us of campaigning for President Bush; the other demanded to know if we backed Kerry.

The first insisted that because we printed a comparison of the political stands of both major candidates regarding life issues of abortion and the death penalty we were “clearly” supporting the incumbent. Cancel her subscription, she demanded. But she calmed down—just a bit—when I pointed out another article which contrasted the candidates on housing, in which Kerry came out better.

The second believed we simply must be supporting Kerry because we reported the news that President Bush’s Catholic campaign strategist quit under a cloud of inappropriate personal behavior. We shouldn’t have mentioned Bush in the headline, she said, because “it’ll just give the Kerry people something to talk about.” Besides, she said, Jesus surely is on the side of the president.

Fact is, folks, as Cardinal George and the U.S. Bishops have repeatedly pointed out, Catholics can find no comfortable home in either party. It’s perhaps interesting that neither presidential candidate responded to a survey covering a full range of public policy issues requested by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. While abortion is certainly a major concern for Catholics, it’s not the only issue of importance.

Catholics should review the USCCB document Faithful Citizenship, available at www.usccb.org or www.archchicago.org.

The Catholic New World (and certainly not the archdiocese or the larger church) won’t be endorsing a candidate. Nor will letters to the editor be pointedly partisan. (Of course, that also will draw criticism from those who believe we should do both.) Rather, we hope to give readers an overview of where candidates stand on issue of importance to people, as Catholics and as citizens.

We also expect to print the results of a survey being prepared by the Illinois Catholic Conference on the Illinois senatorial race between Barack Obama and Alan Keyes. If the candidates respond, that is.

Symbols, no matter how poignant, must never replace reality.

Tom Sheridan
Editor and General Manager

OBSERVATIONS Archive

Top

---