Politics and the Church

[Joe_5859]

One common argument I have seen from people on opposite ends of the political spectrum is that the Church should “stay out of politics.” Of course, that generally only applies when the Church takes a position that differs from the person’s political views.

I do understand where this line of thinking is coming from. History has no shortage of examples of bad things happening when secular power and ecclesial power become too deeply intertwined.

That said, I find the suggestion to be unnecessary, unworkable, and dangerous.

First, the Church has a lot of things to say about moral issues that touch on political issues. But that’s not the motive. Abortion has turned into a heated political battle. But that doesn’t make the Church’s motives for speaking out against abortion primarily political. She is just upholding the same moral teaching she always had.

Second, such a suggestion – if followed – would severely handicap the Church’s proclamation of the Gospel. All someone would have to do to muzzle the Church into silence would be to proclaim that such-and-such a topic is too “political.” Does anyone really want to go there?

Third, it encourages that prevalent notion that individual Catholics have to check their faith at the door when it comes to public discourse. Such a Kennedian compartmentalization in practice means that we cannot publicly agree with Church teaching and are effectively silenced.

I’m not looking to establish a theocracy. But the idea that the Church can or should stay out of politics is not workable. Catholic teaching informs our worldview. That will necessarily inform our approach to politics. Trying to separate the two will only do violence to both.

Anyway, those are my random thoughts on the matter. Agree? Disagree? Other considerations?

 

[Ocean_of_Mercy]

Part of the Church’s mission on Earth is to build a better society. As Christians, we are called to be salt and light in the world, to live in it and transform it with the Gospel. The Church’s social teachings exhort us to be involved in all aspects of society to advance human dignity and wellbeing. So I think we can’t help but be keenly interested and involved in the political landscape when it affects human dignity and wellbeing.

 

[estesbob]

Excerpt from: ***DOCTRINAL NOTE *****on some questions regarding
**The Participation of Catholics in Political Life

By its interventions in this area, the Church’s Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends – as is its proper function – to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good. The social doctrine of the Church is not an intrusion into the government of individual countries. It is a question of the lay Catholic’s duty to be morally coherent, found within one’s conscience, which is one and indivisible. «There cannot be two parallel lives in their existence: on the one hand, the so-called ‘spiritual life’, with its values and demands; and on the other, the so-called ‘secular’ life, that is, life in a family, at work, in social responsibilities, in the responsibilities of public life and in culture. The branch, engrafted to the vine which is Christ, bears its fruit in every sphere of existence and activity. In fact, every area of the lay faithful’s lives, as different as they are, enters into the plan of God, who desires that these very areas be the ‘places in time’ where the love of Christ is revealed and realized for both the glory of the Father and service of others. Every activity, every situation, every precise responsibility – as, for example, skill and solidarity in work, love and dedication in the family and the education of children, service to society and public life and the promotion of truth in the area of culture – are the occasions ordained by providence for a ‘continuous exercise of faith, hope and charity’ (Apostolicam actuositatem, 4)».[25]* Living and acting in conformity with one’s own conscience on questions of politics is not slavish acceptance of positions alien to politics or some kind of confessionalism, but rather the way in which Christians offer their concrete contribution so that, through political life, society will become more just and more consistent with the dignity of the human person. *

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

 

[Joe_5859]

Excerpt from: ***DOCTRINAL NOTE *****on some questions regarding
**The Participation of Catholics in Political Life

By its interventions in this area, the Church’s Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends – as is its proper function – to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good. The social doctrine of the Church is not an intrusion into the government of individual countries. It is a question of the lay Catholic’s duty to be morally coherent, found within one’s conscience, which is one and indivisible. «There cannot be two parallel lives in their existence: on the one hand, the so-called ‘spiritual life’, with its values and demands; and on the other, the so-called ‘secular’ life, that is, life in a family, at work, in social responsibilities, in the responsibilities of public life and in culture. The branch, engrafted to the vine which is Christ, bears its fruit in every sphere of existence and activity. In fact, every area of the lay faithful’s lives, as different as they are, enters into the plan of God, who desires that these very areas be the ‘places in time’ where the love of Christ is revealed and realized for both the glory of the Father and service of others. Every activity, every situation, every precise responsibility – as, for example, skill and solidarity in work, love and dedication in the family and the education of children, service to society and public life and the promotion of truth in the area of culture – are the occasions ordained by providence for a ‘continuous exercise of faith, hope and charity’ (Apostolicam actuositatem, 4)».[25]* Living and acting in conformity with one’s own conscience on questions of politics is not slavish acceptance of positions alien to politics or some kind of confessionalism, but rather the way in which Christians offer their concrete contribution so that, through political life, society will become more just and more consistent with the dignity of the human person. *

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

I should have expected that the Church had already said it better than I ever could.

 

[estesbob]

I should have expected that the Church had already said it better than I ever could.

It is telling that when the church is promoting helping the poor or more humane immigration nobody complains about them getting involved in politics. It’s only when they get involved in the hot button issues of homosexuality and abortion that they are suddenly there told the butt out.

 

[Joe_5859]

It is telling that when the church is promoting helping the poor or more humane immigration nobody complains about them getting involved in politics. It’s only when they get involved in the hot button issues of homosexuality and abortion that they are suddenly there told the butt out.

Indeed. They thank the Church for Her support on points of agreement. But on points of disagreement, “separation of Church and State” gets tossed out there faster than you can blink.

 

[Mulligan2]

One common argument I have seen from people on opposite ends of the political spectrum is that the Church should “stay out of politics.” Of course, that generally only applies when the Church takes a position that differs from the person’s political views.

I do understand where this line of thinking is coming from. History has no shortage of examples of bad things happening when secular power and ecclesial power become too deeply intertwined.

That said, I find the suggestion to be unnecessary, unworkable, and dangerous.

First, the Church has a lot of things to say about moral issues that touch on political issues. But that’s not the motive. Abortion has turned into a heated political battle. But that doesn’t make the Church’s motives for speaking out against abortion primarily political. She is just upholding the same moral teaching she always had.

Second, such a suggestion – if followed – would severely handicap the Church’s proclamation of the Gospel. All someone would have to do to muzzle the Church into silence would be to proclaim that such-and-such a topic is too “political.” Does anyone really want to go there?

Third, it encourages that prevalent notion that individual Catholics have to check their faith at the door when it comes to public discourse. Such a Kennedian compartmentalization in practice means that we cannot publicly agree with Church teaching and are effectively silenced.

I’m not looking to establish a theocracy. But the idea that the Church can or should stay out of politics is not workable. Catholic teaching informs our worldview. That will necessarily inform our approach to politics. Trying to separate the two will only do violence to both.

Anyway, those are my random thoughts on the matter. Agree? Disagree? Other considerations?

Be aware of the axiom that “When the church gets involved in politics, don’t be surprised when politics gets involved in the church.” In fact, there are many posters on this forum who would define whether or not a person is a good Catholic (or a not-so-good Catholic) by their political positions.

 

[Ender]

One common argument I have seen from people on opposite ends of the political spectrum is that the Church should “stay out of politics.”

The problem with this statement is that it is sufficiently vague that valid arguments can be made to show how it is both true and untrue. With specificity comes clarity and I think the stronger argument can be made that the clergy (as opposed to “the church”) is too involved in politics.

That said, I find the suggestion to be unnecessary, unworkable, and dangerous.

Good, then we have something to debate.

First, the Church has a lot of things to say about moral issues that touch on political issues.

Again, this lack of precision doesn’t address the issue. I don’t think the church says things about moral issues, rather she discusses intentions and objectives but not particulars. That is, she will say we must feed the hungry - the objective - but does not address how we should do it - the means. Politics, however, is almost always about means rather than goals, therefore there is little guidance we should look for from the church in deciding which policies to support or oppose.

Second, such a suggestion – if followed – would severely handicap the Church’s proclamation of the Gospel. All someone would have to do to muzzle the Church into silence would be to proclaim that such-and-such a topic is too “political.”

There are acceptable and unacceptable ways to be “involved” in politics; this is where the vagueness of that phrase hinders the discussion. Calling for the public to recognize and address civil problems is central to the church’s mission, but calling for this or that program to be implemented is not only not part of her mission but is an intrusion into the mission of the laity. The clergy have their role and the laity have theirs.

Third, it encourages that prevalent notion that individual Catholics have to check their faith at the door when it comes to public discourse.

Again, this is not an all or nothing choice. The church has a role in society but it is different than the role of the laity.

I’m not looking to establish a theocracy. But the idea that the Church can or should stay out of politics is not workable. Catholic teaching informs our worldview. That will necessarily inform our approach to politics. Trying to separate the two will only do violence to both.

Perhaps the clearest way to discuss this is to take one or two specific political issues and address what we believe to be the proper role of the church in dealing with them. I think abortion and immigration might be good choices but feel free to pick whatever ones you believe you can make the strongest case for church involvement.

Ender

 

[sw85]

Be aware of the axiom that “When the church gets involved in politics, don’t be surprised when politics gets involved in the church.” In fact, there are many posters on this forum who would define whether or not a person is a good Catholic (or a not-so-good Catholic) by their political positions.

Well, insofar as “good Catholic” means “most fully instantiating the nature of Catholicism” – and since Catholicism in its fullest sense entails subscription to the teachings of the Church – and since those teachings include implications for the social order – I don’t really see how “good Catholicism” can be totally separated from “political positions.” Do you?

 

[estesbob]

Be aware of the axiom that “When the church gets involved in politics, don’t be surprised when politics gets involved in the church.” In fact, there are many posters on this forum who would define whether or not a person is a good Catholic (or a not-so-good Catholic) by their political positions.

Actually there are many posters in this forum who do question Catholics who believe they can support candidates who support morally reprehensible things like abortion and homosexual marriage. I’m one of those posters. I do not, however, ever comment on who is a “good” catholic and who is a “bad” Catholic, However I think we should always confront people who come into a Catholic forum and promote as licit things that are contrary to the teachings of the Church

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The problem with this statement is that it is sufficiently vague that valid arguments can be made to show how it is both true and untrue. With specificity comes clarity and I think the stronger argument can be made that the clergy (as opposed to “the church”) is too involved in politics.

Getting even more specific, let’s consider how the members of the clergy act in two roles. One is as representatives of the Church and her teachings, and the other is as members of the Church along with the laity, who can form their own opinions on methods and make those opinions known. I think the case you are referring to is when a member of the clergy uses his position to represent his opinion as being that of the Church, thus misleading some of the laity. Recognizing that many of the laity mistakenly believe that everything a priest says is official Church teaching, the clergy should take extra care to make the distinction. But these precautions need not prevent, for instance, a priest taking part in a march protesting migrant worker conditions, or a march to shut down an abortion clinic.

 

[Ender]

Getting even more specific, let’s consider how the members of the clergy act in two roles. One is as representatives of the Church and her teachings, and the other is as members of the Church along with the laity, who can form their own opinions on methods and make those opinions known. I think the case you are referring to is when a member of the clergy uses his position to represent his opinion as being that of the Church, thus misleading some of the laity.

The default implication whenever a member of the clergy speaks out on a political issue is that his position represents that of the church. He doesn’t have to represent his opinion as anything other than his for the assumption to be made that his is the moral position and opposition to it is…something less than moral.

Recognizing that many of the laity mistakenly believe that everything a priest says is official Church teaching, the clergy should take extra care to make the distinction. But these precautions need not prevent, for instance, a priest taking part in a march protesting migrant worker conditions, or a march to shut down an abortion clinic.

Both of your examples strike me as being appropriate areas for the involvement of the clergy. Protesting poor working conditions is not the same as offering suggestions for their improvement; I accept (in most cases) that it is appropriate to call attention to social problems and press for them to be addressed, so long as the call is not for this or that particular proposal. I understand this as stressing the ends - the role of the clergy - as opposed to the means - the role of the laity. Abortion is simpler: it involves an intrinsic evil, therefore the clergy is justified in opposing any means that empowers it.

Ender

 

[estesbob]

Getting even more specific, let’s consider how the members of the clergy act in two roles. One is as representatives of the Church and her teachings, and the other is as members of the Church along with the laity, who can form their own opinions on methods and make those opinions known. I think the case you are referring to is when a member of the clergy uses his position to represent his opinion as being that of the Church, thus misleading some of the laity. Recognizing that many of the laity mistakenly believe that everything a priest says is official Church teaching, the clergy should take extra care to make the distinction. But these precautions need not prevent, for instance, a priest taking part in a march protesting migrant worker conditions, or a march to shut down an abortion clinic.

Could you give us an example?