Catholics in political positions

[carefullytread]

I recently came upon an old letter in the Atlantic Monthly from 1928 aimed at the first Catholic candidate for president in the United States. The author is arguing that a Catholic cannot devoutly follow Church teaching and the requirements of the secular Constitution. Here’s an extended excerpt with the meat of the argument, though if you have time, the whole letter is worth reading.

Furthermore, the doctrine of the Two Powers, in effect and theory, inevitable makes the Roman Catholic Church at times sovereign and paramount over the State. It is true that in theory the doctrine assigns to the secular State jurisdiction over secular matters and to the Roman Catholic Church jurisdiction over matters of faith and morals, each jurisdiction being exclusive of the other within undisputed lines. But the universal experience of mankind has demonstrated, and reason teaches, that many questions must arise between the State and the Roman Catholic Church in respect to which it is impossible to determine to the satisfaction of both in which jurisdiction the matter at issue lies.

Here arises the irrepressible conflict. Shall the State or the Roman Catholic Church determine? The Constitution of the United States clearly ordains that the State shall determine the question. The Roman Catholic Church demands for itself the sole right to determine it, and holds that within the limits of that claim it is superior to and supreme over the State. The Catholic Encyclopedia clearly so declares: “In case of direct contradiction, making it impossible for both jurisdictions to be exercised, the jurisdiction of the Church prevails and that of the State is excluded.” And Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus asserted: “To say in the case of conflicting laws enacted by the Two Powers, the civil law prevails, is error.”

Extreme as such a conclusion may appear, it is inevitable in Roman Catholic philosophy. That Church by the very theory of her existence cannot yield, because what she claims as her right and her truth she claims is hers by the “direct act of God”; in her theory, God himself directly forbids. The State cannot yield because of a great mass of citizens who are not Roman Catholics. By its constitutional law and in the nature of things, practices of religion in its opinion inconsistent with its peace and safety are unlawful; the law of its being—the law of necessity—forbids. If we could all concede the “divine and exclusive” claims of the Roman Catholic Church, conflict would be eliminated; but, as it is, there is a wide consensus of opinion that those claims are false in fact and in flat conflict with the very being and order of the State.

In our constitutional order this consensus is bulwarked on the doctrine of the Supreme Court of the United States that our religious liberty and our constitutional guaranties thereof are subject to the supreme qualification that religious “practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the State shall not be justified.” (Watson v. Jones 13 Wall. P. 579)

The Roman Catholic Church, of course, makes no claim, and never has made any claim, to jurisdiction over matters that in her opinion are solely secular and civil. She makes the claim obviously only when the matter in question is not, in her opinion, solely secular and civil. But as determination of jurisdiction, in a conflict with the State, rests solely in her sovereign discretion, no argument is needed to show that she may in theory and effect annihilate the rights of all who are not Roman Catholics, sweeping into the jurisdiction of a single religious society the most important interests of human well-being. The education of youth, the institution of marriage, the international relations of the State, and its domestic peace, as we shall proceed to show, are, in certain exigencies, wrested from the jurisdiction of the State, in which all citizens share, and confided to the jurisdiction of a single religious society in which all citizens cannot share, great numbers being excluded by the barriers of religious belief. Do you, sir, regard such claims as tolerable in a republic that calls itself free?

What are people’s opinions of this argument? In fact, most Catholic politicians ignore the bishops and behave just like, well, any other politician. But would a serious, devout Catholic president not be able to follow the Constitution?

 

[PaulfromIowa]

The Atlantic May 1927: “Catholic and Patriot: Governor Smith Replies”

theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1927/05/catholic-and-patriot-governor-smith-replies/376226/

 

[Petaro]

I will worry about it when you get rid of the clowns that are in the pipeline at the moment. It depends does it not on whether the individual considers that their election is for all citizens and thus must not allow their personal conscience as a Catholic decide their actions in their position of power, or believes that their decisions must be based on their informed conscience as a devout follower of Christ. Thus many American Catholics can ignore the great evil of abortion excusing their inaction on the rights of the people to be represented as a majority.

My personal opinion is that this strips a Catholic politician their right to the title of a Catholic politician and puts at risk their personal honour and integrity as well as endangering their immortal souls. It is upon their conscience in the final analysis, however they also scandalize many in their opinion of the Church.

Better not to enter the game if you are a person of honour of any religion. Too many compromises and hedging bets with the devil for a good night’s sleep. I for one would not wish to make a decision about initiating a nuclear war for example. Leave leadership of the lost to the lost.

 

[Genesis315]

What he says is true concerning the Church’s relationship with the state and it’s ability to pass judgment on political matters touching on morality and the salvation of souls (see CCC 2246). Likewise, he does describe the ideal: the unity of all in the faith and society living completely in accord with divine truth. We (especially the laity) are to work through evangelization to permeate the temporal sphere, including laws, with Christian doctrine (see CCC 898-899, 2105).

But what he neglects is the Church’s doctrine on toleration and the limits of the state’s power with regard to man’s conscience. While the Church cannot pretend that one religion is as good as another or that divine truth doesn’t matter, that doesn’t mean other religions cannot exist in the state as Pope Leo XIII explained much earlier than that article:
Leo XIII:

Nor is there any reason why any one should accuse the Church of being wanting in gentleness of action or largeness of view, or of being opposed to real and lawful liberty. The Church, indeed, deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion, but does not, on that account, condemn those rulers who, for the sake of securing some great good or of hindering some great evil, allow patiently custom or usage to be a kind of sanction for each kind of religion having its place in the State.

That principle would certainly apply in the US given its history and diverse population.

Finally, the state exists to serve the common good, but so long as the common good is not harmed, all people have the right to be free from state coercion to follow their conscience:

CCC:

2106 "Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits."34 This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it."35

2107 "If because of the circumstances of a particular people special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional organization of a state, the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom must be recognized and respected as well."36

2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,37 but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.38

2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a “public order” conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The “due limits” which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40

Note the last part–the limits and conception of the common good cannot be totally relativistic, but must take into account divine truth. But this actually preserves freedom. When the rule of law is subject only to the whims of human beings rather than being in accord with something greater, that is when we get oppression and tyranny, as history shows (see CCC 1740, 2244; Bl. Pius IX, Quanta Cura 4).

 

[Genesis315]

Just to add by my post above, here are a couple things from the 19th century that address these objections. The first one deals directly with the US while the second deals with England, but the argument is applicable to the US as well.


A discussion of the question, Is the Roman Catholic religion, in any or in all its principles or doctrines, inimical to civil or religious liberty? And of the question, Is the Presbyterian religion, in any or in all its principles or doctrines, inimical to civil or religious liberty? --a debate between the Archbishop of New York, John Hughes, and a Presbyterian minister, John Breckinridge.

The Vatican decrees in their bearing on civil allegiance by Cardinal Henry Edward Manning

 

[carefullytread]

But what he neglects is the Church’s doctrine on toleration and the limits of the state’s power with regard to man’s conscience. While the Church cannot pretend that one religion is as good as another or that divine truth doesn’t matter, that doesn’t mean other religions cannot exist in the state as Pope Leo XIII explained much earlier than that article:

In fact, he addresses this exact passage in the letter in the second to last paragraph to section I. His response is:

That is, there is not a lawful equality of other religious with that of the Roman Catholic Church, but that Church will allow state authorities for politic reasons—that is, by favor, but not by right—to tolerate other religious societies. We would ask, sir, whether such favors can be accepted in place of rights by those owning the name of freemen?
That principle would certainly apply in the US given its history and diverse population.

This is probably a semantic question and I don’t think any devout Catholic struggles with the question of religious liberty for others per se. He makes a lot of arguments, some not as interesting as others, but the one that stood out to me as the most pressing question for a devout Catholic is the one you address as the end of your post.

Note the last part–the limits and conception of the common good cannot be totally relativistic, but must take into account divine truth. But this actually preserves freedom. When the rule of law is subject only to the whims of human beings rather than being in accord with something greater, that is when we get oppression and tyranny, as history shows (see CCC 1740, 2244; Bl. Pius IX, Quanta Cura 4).

This is the part addressed by the section I quoted originally. He says the question of where the limits occur is answered differently by the laws of the United States and the Church. In the United States, the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court is what the laws are subject to, while for a devout Catholic, it is the Divine Truth as interpreted by the Church through her magisterium.

So the Church allows a devout Catholic to follow the secular laws up to a limit, but she decided that limit herself. Whereas the Supreme Court is the body that decides the limits of the law in the United States.

Again, I don’t think this is a practical question for Catholic politicians. JFK or Biden isn’t going to ignore the Supreme Court because of instructions from the Pope (maybe Santorum would?). But I’m curious to hear other opinions on whether a devout Catholic could honestly vow to obey the Constitution when it seems that in a case where it disagreed with the magisterium, she is required to follow the magisterium.

 

[carefullytread]

Just to add by my post above, here are a couple things from the 19th century that address these objections. The first one deals directly with the US while the second deals with England, but the argument is applicable to the US as well.


A discussion of the question, Is the Roman Catholic religion, in any or in all its principles or doctrines, inimical to civil or religious liberty? And of the question, Is the Presbyterian religion, in any or in all its principles or doctrines, inimical to civil or religious liberty? --a debate between the Archbishop of New York, John Hughes, and a Presbyterian minister, John Breckinridge.

The Vatican decrees in their bearing on civil allegiance by Cardinal Henry Edward Manning

I usually try to read links provided, but these are to whole books! I read a bit of the introduction to the second book, and I gathered from the Cardinal’s letters that he quotes that his argument is along the lines of “Yes, a Catholic’s civil obedience is limited, but so is that of every Christian (and maybe every person of conscience) and that limit is God’s limit. Moreover, his civil allegiance is not divided with an allegiance to Rome.”

Is that fair?

 

[Genesis315]

Sorry for the long books without warning–I should have said for further, very in depth reading!

I guess that’s what it boils down to–usually, it’s fine (moreso in the past when there was more of a consensus on morality), but sometimes a Catholic will have to obey God, rather than men (cf. Acts 5:29). But that would mean not just Catholics, but any Christian, any person of any religion–indeed, any person with any conscience or any conviction whatsoever could not hold a political position. Hmm, maybe that explains the quality of our politicians these days