Posted on 04/04/2014 8:58:37 AM PDT by Rashputin
| Does Inaction Politicize the Faith? | |
|
| By Kristina Johannes | |
| Friday, 04 April 2014 | |
|
I recently had lunch with a friend who is a revert to the Catholic faith. Now fervently Catholic, she has maintained the fiery and no nonsense evangelical spirit she picked up during her Protestant sojourn – one of the many reasons I enjoy spending time with her. We talked about the much-cited Canon 915, which states that, those “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” When I mentioned the concern of many bishops that withholding Holy Communion in these situations would politicize the Eucharist, a thought occurred to me. Ironically, perhaps in not enforcing 915, we might actually be doing just that and even more – we might be politicizing the faith itself.
How so? Most people understand politics as the art of furthering the common good. On the one hand, it’s not a straight-line activity, which means that it requires negotiation and compromise in order to achieve the most good possible in a particular situation owing to the many individuals and opinions involved. On the other hand, one can never legitimately compromise a principle. The principles by which one lives should never be affected by the negotiation involved in politics, even as a voter. These principles exist above the fray. These should and do remain sacrosanct in our hearts and minds as we navigate thorny situations where only a little good can be accomplished, such as when a vote may decrease abortions while not abolishing them.
People entering politics should be expected to articulate the principles upon which they intend to act. Once elected, even the most idealistic Catholic will soon realize the impossibility of perfectly formulating positive law in line with moral law in every circumstance. But at the same time, that person can certainly not abandon the principles of the moral law. These principles will provide the unwavering goals to which all efforts in a particular political situation are directed. Although it’s sometimes said you can’t legislate morality, you will try in vain to come up with a law that is not an attempt to legislate someone’s view of morality, even if just a teeny bit. As confirmed in Vatican II, the Church recognizes “the rightful autonomy of the political or civil sphere from that of religion and the Church – but not from that of morality.” Because of this the Church typically leaves political activity to the laity while providing clear guidance on moral principles. It’s the laity’s role, not the clergy’s, to sanctify the world by infusing the temporal order with Christian values to the extent possible. That’s why priests aren’t permitted to run for elective office. This does not mean imposing doctrines that can only be known through divine revelation, but simply drawing on the natural moral law accessible to every human heart to correctly order society. Everyone is subject to the dictates of this law by virtue of being a part of God’s creation. St. Paul pointed out that we all have this law written on our hearts. We can discern this law more or less clearly, depending on the condition of our consciences. As proof of this, one could point out that every civilization has had some form of the commandments incorporated into its laws (C. S. Lewis gives examples of what he calls the universal Tao, which testify to this transcultural morality, in an appendix to his great book The Abolition of Man). It just comes with being human. A bonus for Catholics is that the Catholic Church has meditated on these commandments for millennia in a variety of circumstances, which means that Catholics have a clearer idea of the natural moral law because of accumulated wisdom and experience. In recognizing the role that morality plays in politics, the Church is also recognizing that she cannot be silent when principles of the moral law are in dispute, especially so when her own children are involved. Morality is her business, even if political activity itself is not her role. Where moral principles are being flouted, she must speak up. When her own children are verbally abandoning those principles, she must render them every assistance at her disposal, no matter the walk of life. This assistance has a two-fold purpose: to recall the errant and to protect the innocent from scandal. As to scandal, the greater the ability to spread error, the more critical it is to act. To do otherwise is to abdicate the role given the Church by Christ Himself to shepherd His flock. If bishops hesitate to act because a situation is “political,” they are giving the public impression that the Church’s moral principles are also political, in and of themselves. Thus, it is very possible that in refusing to apply one of the possible remedies – Canon 915 – to deny Communion to Catholic politicians who obstinately continue to make statements that are antithetical to the moral law, the teaching of that law becomes subject to politics. And the broader upshot may very well be not just that certain hot-button moral positions appear mere policy preferences, but so does the Catholic faith.
|
I agree with the author here, ignoring the rules is in and of itself being political as the disgusting illustration of a "Catholic" school in Charlotte, NC apologizing for a speech made by a faithful Catholic Nun clearly illustrates. Had the school simply said, "This is a Catholic school and an accurate statement of Catholic Doctrine was presented", they would have been making a statement of Faith, not politics. As things went . . .
Please Note, this is an Ecumenical thread (http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/)
Ecumenical threads are closed to antagonism.
So for instance, even though it is a Catholic school, the parents demanded that the Church accommodate their political views rather than they submit to the church.
I am a Christian first. That does mean I are getting to the point I may not be a Republican. As a result, I know that many here and in the “real” world will say I am a traitor.
But I am a Christian. Christ had a crown of thorns, I don't expect a bed of roses.
I would disagree with the author that Catholics have a "clearer" idea of natural moral law simply because the basis for this for ALL Christians is God's law and values HE revealed in sacred Scripture. In my experience, it is Evangelical Protestants (percentage-wise) who more closely follow this intrinsic moral law in practice and that is really where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. If ALL Christians, Roman Catholic or otherwise, would listen to the Holy Spirit and heed God's word for how His children are to live in holiness and love, this world would be a far better place. There's no need to neglect the truth that God STILL allows Christians liberty in areas where He has not stipulated right or wrong, but that ALL things we do must be done through love and to reflect the righteousness of Christ with which He has imputed to us through faith.
As a Charlotte resident, I was quite surprised by the reaction of the parents as well as the students to the nun's speech. A newspaper article said that, because there are OPENLY gay and lesbian students who attend the school, the administrators should have been more sensitive to their "feelings". Sorry, but if parents KNOWINGLY send their kids to a Catholic school, it shouldn't be a surprise when Catholic Church representatives voice genuine moral views to them. However, if "religion" class is optional there, perhaps students should have been advised ahead of time and given the option to attend. The school accepts students who are not Catholic and takes their money. Sadly, this will always be the result when secularism is welcomed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
