Involvement in Politics

  • Thread starter Thread starter servant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

servant

Guest
Correct me if I am mistaken, but as far as i know, there is zero biblical evidence of Jesus taking part in politics. For example, in Matthew 22:15-22, He refused to get into a political debate when asked about taxes. In John 6:15, after Jesus feeds the five thousand, He retreats to a mountain because He knows the people would try to force Him to become king. If we are supposed to emulate Christ why do so many Catholics in the USA participate in and worry about politics?
 
Last edited:
The Catechism sections 2234 to 2243 make clear that, among other things, Catholics have certain duties as citizens to work and speak out for the common good, that citizens are “require[d] … to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community” (CCC 2238), and that they are "morally obligat[ed] " to pay taxes, vote and defend their respective countries (CCC 2240), and that in certain circumstances the Catholic must even refuse obedience to civil authorities when such obedience would go against an “upright conscience” (CCC 2242).
And these are just a few points from that section.

In view of these duties, requirements and obligations that the Church expects of Catholics, we don’t get to just disengage from the political process and go sit on a mountain. We are expected to be engaged and use our votes and our voices for the common good and in accordance with Catholic principles.

The reason Jesus appeared disengaged from politics is that people expected him to be a political Messiah (freeing the Jewish people from Rome) and he was establishing himself as something different. His mission in the short time he had was convey the message about God’s kingdom, not to deal with issues in man’s politics on earth. That however does not mean that we should all just turn our back on trying to make society more just, solving the problems of violence and poverty, working for peace, protecting our freedom to worship, standing up for the oppressed, etc. all of which involve politics.
 
The Roman Empire and the Pharisees rather frowned on political activity by Jewish persons. Jesus knew that he was going to be crucified but needed to delay that until his mission on earth was done.
 
Making clear distinctions between religion and politics is a modern phenomenon that did not exist in the ancient world.

Jesus, just like his predecessors, spoke about political subjects frequently, except it wouldn’t have been seen as “politics” so much as simply talking about life. He talked about issues related to temple life, about the Sabbath, about tithes, current events (such as natural disasters), and about relations with the Samaritans and the Romans, and he used parables involving labor wages, weddings, real estate investments, financial debt, kings & armies, and other subjects of life that were contemporary to his time and that were readily understood by his audience.

Catholics love the people of the world and desire their eternal happiness, especially the eternal happiness of great sinners. Part of that means being active in the world on all levels in order to create a noble & just society built upon the domestic church and a culture of life. However, not everybody is called to the same path in life. Some will be more withdrawn than others.
 
Last edited:
Remember he lived in a conquered territory that was a servant state to a great pagan empire. Ordinary people might be employed by that empire as a bureaucratic cog-- like the tax collectors-- and we all know how they were looked upon as traitors to their own people. Much of the population of his country was united by their common religion and heritage, and stood separate from their pagan conquerors.

So if you wanted to “live like Jesus”, you might think about moving to Tibet. Or Cypress. 😛 But that would really miss the point, right?

Why do you think the Declaration of Independence was such a big deal?
We hold these Truths to be self-evident: that all Men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with inherent and* [certain] inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness: that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, & to institute new government, laying it’s foundation on such principles, & organizing it’s powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness.
That was pretty revolutionary. Think of a list of the major democracies before the modern era, and you come up with ancient Athens. Think of a list of major republics before the modern era, and you might be lucky to come up with a minor city-state, or perhaps Cromwell’s England. Democracies have a lifespan of about 200 years, if you’re lucky, before they get corrupted into collapse… which was why our Constitution was written so carefully, to try and safeguard against problems that had historically collapsed democratic governments, and why the Founders chose the path of a democratic republic and not pure democracy. The point being, of course, that maybe half the countries in the world nowadays have a republican form of government, but until the US came along, government of the people/by the people/for the people (Gettysburg Address!) just wasn’t part of reality.

So, Jesus made it clear that we must live “in the world, but not be part of the world”. So we live where we live, right? And where we live, we have a civic duty. So we exercise that civic duty because it’s our… duty.
 
We also transform the world we live in by holding to the key elements of Jesus’ preaching. And what did he preach the most about? About the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is like this… The Kingdom of God is like that… And so if we live our lives, keeping the Kingdom and We Are All Children of God in mind, do you think that affects our life choices differently than, say, a nihilist?

Why do you think slavery disappeared? It was an ordinary part of economic life in the pagan world. You can look at your Greek, or your Roman, or your Egyptian, or your Babylonian texts, and you’re not going to find anyone surprised that slavery exists, or dreaming of a land of freedom. It was taken for granted. But it doesn’t coexist with the Christian perspective of “we are both Children of God and he is my Brother in Christ.” And so… it gradually disappears as Christianity exerts its influence.

So, Jesus said to not hide your light under a bushel basket. If we were supposed to hide in our houses and not act like Christians, do you think we’d be fulfilling our purpose? Our job is to live our lives in the world we live in. If we’re peasant serfs, we live our lives and perform our duties as peasant serfs while following Christ. If we’re King of Spain, we live our lives and perform our duties as King of Spain while following Christ. If we’re a senator or a judge, we live our lives and perform our duties as a senator or judge while following Christ. If we’re citizens of an oppressive regime, or a democratic republic, or a constitutional monarchy, or whatever-- we live our lives and perform our duties as they are.

Remember we’re going to be judged on “what we have done, and what we have failed to do.”
 
Scripture calls Jesus the King of kings and Lord of lords–meaning all other kings must obey him and govern according to His rule.

Because of this, the Church teaches that we are to ensure that “the divine law is inscribed in the life of the earthly city” (Gaudium et Spes 43) and infused “into the mentality, customs, laws, and structures of the community in which one lives” (Apostolicam Actuositatem 13).

The decisions of the secular authority are to be measured against the true religion. From the CCC:
CCC 2244 Every institution is inspired, at least implicitly, by a vision of man and his destiny, from which it derives the point of reference for its judgment, its hierarchy of values, its line of conduct. Most societies have formed their institutions in the recognition of a certain preeminence of man over things. Only the divinely revealed religion has clearly recognized man’s origin and destiny in God, the Creator and Redeemer. The Church invites political authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired truth about God and man:

Societies not recognizing this vision or rejecting it in the name of their independence from God are brought to seek their criteria and goal in themselves or to borrow them from some ideology. Since they do not admit that one can defend an objective criterion of good and evil, they arrogate to themselves an explicit or implicit totalitarian power over man and his destiny, as history shows.51
For more in depth reading, here is a papal encyclical on the Kingship of Christ over all creation:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_11121925_quas-primas.html
 
Last edited:
Making clear distinctions between religion and politics is a modern phenomenon that did not exist in the ancient world.
I agree that the things Jesus said were political or could be used political, but I have to disagree in this. Especially in the roman law system there was a clear difference between politics and religion. This difference is also known in the greak, egypt and chinese world in ancient times. Yes, there were “state priests” (priests who were paied by taxes for example) but there was no involve of priests in the senatory work for example. It simply hadn´t worked in a multi-religious system as the roman empire was.
 
Ultimately, faithful obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ as Supreme is unavoidably political.
 
Jesus will sit on a throne and command a kingdom. Thrones and kingdoms are manifestations of political power. The King of Kings will have political power but the fullness of his kingdom is yet to come.
When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. - New American Bible. (2011). (Revised Edition, Mt 25:31–34).
 
Jesus commands us to feed the sick, give aid to the weary, visit the sick and minister to the prisoners. I believe in doing all of that. What I don’t see ANYWHERE in the scriptures is Jesus commanding us to compel our brothers and sisters to do the same. When we vote to give away other people’s money (yes, it’s EASY to be generous with other people’s money), then we are just supporting theft under the color of law. To me, that is immoral.
 
On the contrary, retaining superfluous wealth rather than distributing to the poor is theft according to the Fathers of the Church. If it is a matter of justice, rather than gratuity, then it does not seem immoral for the public authority to execute this justice (executing justice is part of its job, after all). It would not be an injustice for the state to take away what we “have no right to retain” as St. Augustine says. St. Robert Bellarmine quotes many of the Fathers on this point in his work “The Art of Dying Well”:

St. Robert Bellarmine:
The passages from the Fathers are chiefly these: St. Basil, in his Sermon to the Rich, thus speaks: “And thou, art thou not a robber, because what thou hast received to be given away, thou supposest to be thy own?” And a little farther he continues: “Wherefore, as much as thou art able to give, so much dost thou injure the poor.” And St. Ambrose, in his 81st Sermon, says: “What injustice do I commit, if, whilst I do not steal the goods of others, I keep diligently what is my own? impudent word! Dost thou say thy own? What is this? It is no less a crime to steal than it is not to give to the poor out of thy abundance.” St. Jerome thus writes in his Epistle to Hedibias: “If you possess more than is necessary for your subsistence, give it away, and thus you will be a creditor.” St. John Chrysostom says in his 34th Homily to the people of Antioch: “Do you possess anything of your own? The interest of the poor is entrusted to you, whether the estate is yours by your own just labours, or you have acquired it by inheritance.” St. Augustine, in his Tract on the 147th Psalm: “Our superfluous wealth belongs to the poor; when it is not given to them, we possess what we have no right to retain.” St. Leo thus speaks: “Temporal goods are given to us by the liberality of God, and He will demand an account of them, for they were committed to us for disposal as well as possession.”

And St. Gregory, in the third part of his Pastoral Care: “Those are to be admonished, who, whilst they desire not the goods of others, do not distribute their own; that so they may carefully remember, that as the common origin of all men is from the earth, so also its produce is common to them all: in vain, then, they think themselves innocent, who appropriate to themselves the common gifts of God.” St. Bernard, in his Epistle to Henry, archbishop of Sens, saith: “It is ours, for the poor cry out for what you squander; you cruelly take away from us what you spend foolishly.” St. Thomas also writes: “The superfluous riches which many possess, by the natural law belong to the support of the poor”; and again: “The Lord requires us to give to the poor not only the tenth part, but all of our superfluous wealth.” In fine, the same author, in the fourth book of his “Sentences,” asserts that this is the common opinion of all theologians.
continued…
 
continued from above…

Private property exists for man to be able to carry out his duties in a manner consonant with his dignity, but the principle of the universal destination of goods–that the whole earth is for the sustenance of all men–remains a primordial principle (see CCC 2403 and surrounding paragraphs). As the Fathers say above, at a certain point the destitute man can claim a right to the property possessed by another.

That being said, much of what people object to as the state giving to the poor are public insurance programs of which we all have the potential to benefit, and therefore are justified as reasonable to levy a tax to support (the removal of risk and potential benefit is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of distributive justice and being conducive to the common good).
 
Yes, He didn’t! I am with on this one. 😁 against those demons who make me feel guilty and weak because I simply couldn’t handle taking past, present and future politics seriously without becoming close to insane. I had to shut this down to a minimum.

But many of the Saints were involved in politics and we they are life examples too, and because some of them did it we now have a patrimony that is more than just a prayer house and prayers at home. The size of old cathedrals and all that beauty (that is being cruelly demolished in some countries like France) would have never happened if members of the Church were not involved in politics.
Especially people who advocate the more glorious Liturgies and Masses should be involved in politics and get the money to make it happen.
Away from the politics the Church simply cannot hold all the richness of her tradition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top