A friend recently wrote, expressing a worry that his parish priest sometimes takes up political issues too quickly and too freely.
My friend is by no means a quietist. He’s a First Things sort of fellow, very committed to the significance of faith in the public square. One can’t read the Sermon on the Mount and think otherwise.
But the specifics of electoral politics are a messy business, and it’s often a long way from the principles of Catholic social teaching to the specifics of political choices.
Even the politics of the pro-life cause isn’t always clear. The imperative to protect innocent life translates pretty directly into opposition to our current legal arrangements, which permit abortions. But what will move us forward? Here political judgment comes into play, which is a species of prudence. Should I vote for a pro-life Democrat on the theory that a lasting pro-life consensus will require bipartisan cooperation? Or is the next Supreme Court appointment so decisive that I ought to vote for the Republican candidate?
These difficult questions are all the more pressing when it comes to economic justice. Raise the minimum wage? Yes, it seems like a clear case of expressing a preferential option for the poor, but as some point out the effect may be to reduce the number of jobs for the poor. Bottom line: further isolation from the culture of work that is also an important social value, much championed by Pope John Paul II. What, therefore, is the “Catholic” way to vote?
In view of these ambiguities, about which men and women of faith and of good will can disagree, there is a danger when we theologize our political judgments. It threatens the unity of the church by turning prudential judgments about how to implement Catholic social doctrine into defining issues.
This doesn’t mean that anything goes. Obviously, one cannot claim to be in accord with the magisterium of the Church will asserting the women have a right to abort the children in their wombs. And one cannot affirm social Darwinism or Ayn Rand’s view of the natural right of the rich to dominate the poor and imagine oneself in accord with Catholic teaching. The clerical vocation is to teach the principles that must norm and leaven civic life—some available to reason; others stemming from the Gospel. But the distance from moral principles to political parties should induce caution.
October 26th, 2010 | 8:09 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Objectivism News, Marcel Duda. Marcel Duda said: Priests and <b>Politics</b> » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog http://goo.gl/fb/YbCk4 [...]
October 27th, 2010 | 12:31 am
A very good probe into a very sticky issue.
IMHO, what is needed is teaching and reflection on the underlying principles etc of today’s political, social and economic issues.
For example in the coming election there seems to e two fundamental issues with very real theological implications: the economy and the role of the state in various aspects of American life.
99% of bishops and priests do not have sufficient knowledge academically etc of either subject. However, that does not mean that they have nothing to say or that they can say nothing. What they can do is slowly involve ‘their constituencies’ with the ‘theological’ issues at play and reflect with the laity on how best to respond to this or that issue.
To be clear, the teaching is not negotiable, but certainly the application etc [as Mr Reno has stated] is far more open for discussion. While it is true that a Catholic needs to always hold to the respect for each human life from the moment of conception through natural death [we all do as human beings-but here I am emphasizing Catholic responsibilities] how best to do this as Mr Reno has pointed out is more open for discussion.
Another great need for Catholics is to rediscover our own roots both as Catholics and Americans. Certainly what gave rise to America as a nation, can be found within the unique vision called Western civilization which is actually a synthesis of Judaeo-Christianity and Graeco-Roman classical thought and imagination. Our American roots are not to be just found in the Graeco-Roman world-we are watching those in our own time tirelessly attempting to do so. No, we are Judaeo-Christian and Graeco-Roman, both-and not either/or.
As Mr George Weigle has written, our first Catholic leaders, bishops, clergy, religious and laity understood this and worked to inculcate this within the first generations of Catholics after the American Revolution. We need to recapture this vision.
Just take a look at the Carrol’s from Maryland-a signer of the Declaration of Independence, another was signer of the Constitution and still another became the First Catholic Bishop of a diocese that incorporated all thirteen original states and the whole ‘Northwest Territory’ and very soon, the Louisiana Purchase. He was the first bishop and that thanks in no small part to Benjamin Franklin and John Adams petitioning the pope at the time!
October 27th, 2010 | 5:15 pm
R.R. Reno seems to have no qualms about implementing his religous beliefs onto others via the government. Would he complain about Muslims trying to do the same?
Also, he tells an untruth regarding Ayn Rand’s views.
October 30th, 2010 | 1:09 pm
The author is right that Ayn Rand’s views are incompatible with Catholicism. But when there are so many facts available to demonstrate this conflict, it’s odd that he chooses a falsehood. Ayn Rand held that there is a “natural right of the rich to dominate the poor”? Ridiculous.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact