Skip to comments.Faith and Patriotism (Archbishop Chaput spells it out!)
Posted on 10/22/2004 5:53:12 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever
Denver The theologian Karl Barth once said, "To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world."
That saying comes to mind as the election approaches and I hear more lectures about how Roman Catholics must not "impose their beliefs on society" or warnings about the need for "the separation of church and state." These are two of the emptiest slogans in current American politics, intended to discourage serious debate. No one in mainstream American politics wants a theocracy. Nor does anyone doubt the importance of morality in public life. Therefore, we should recognize these slogans for what they are: frequently dishonest and ultimately dangerous sound bites.
Lawmaking inevitably involves some group imposing its beliefs on the rest of us. That's the nature of the democratic process. If we say that we "ought" to do something, we are making a moral judgment. When our legislators turn that judgment into law, somebody's ought becomes a "must" for the whole of society. This is not inherently dangerous; it's how pluralism works.
Democracy depends on people of conviction expressing their views, confidently and without embarrassment. This give-and-take is an American tradition, and religious believers play a vital role in it. We don't serve our country - in fact we weaken it intellectually - if we downplay our principles or fail to speak forcefully out of some misguided sense of good manners.
People who support permissive abortion laws have no qualms about imposing their views on society. Often working against popular opinion, they have tried to block any effort to change permissive abortion laws since the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. That's fair. That's their right. But why should the rules of engagement be different for citizens who oppose those laws?
Catholics have an obligation to work for the common good and the dignity of every person. We see abortion as a matter of civil rights and human dignity, not simply as a matter of religious teaching. We are doubly unfaithful - both to our religious convictions and to our democratic responsibilities - if we fail to support the right to life of the unborn child. Our duties to social justice by no means end there. But they do always begin there, because the right to life is foundational.
For Catholics to take a "pro-choice" view toward abortion contradicts our identity and makes us complicit in how the choice plays out. The "choice" in abortion always involves the choice to end the life of an unborn human being. For anyone who sees this fact clearly, neutrality, silence or private disapproval are not options. They are evils almost as grave as abortion itself. If religious believers do not advance their convictions about public morality in public debate, they are demonstrating not tolerance but cowardice.
The civil order has its own sphere of responsibility, and its own proper autonomy, apart from the church or any other religious community. But civil authorities are never exempt from moral engagement and criticism, either from the church or its members. The founders themselves realized this.
The founders sought to prevent the establishment of an official state church. Given America's history of anti-Catholic nativism, Catholics strongly support the Constitution's approach to religious freedom. But the Constitution does not, nor was it ever intended to, prohibit people or communities of faith from playing an active role in public life. Exiling religion from civic debate separates government from morality and citizens from their consciences. That road leads to politics without character, now a national epidemic.
Words are cheap. Actions matter. If we believe in the sanctity of life from conception to natural death, we need to prove that by our actions, including our political choices. Anything less leads to the corruption of our integrity. Patriotism, which is a virtue for people of all faiths, requires that we fight, ethically and nonviolently, for what we believe. Claiming that "we don't want to impose our beliefs on society" is not merely politically convenient; it is morally incoherent and irresponsible.
As James 2:17 reminds us, in a passage quoted in the final presidential debate, "Faith without works is dead." It is a valid point. People should act on what they claim to believe. Otherwise they are violating their own conscience, and lying to themselves and the rest of us.
Charles J. Chaput is the archbishop of Denver.
If only all of our shepherds were as strong.
Amen indeed! Secular humanists are all about imposing their beliefs on society. Their 'oughts' are automatically elevated to RIGHTS simply because they proclaim them as such. They have been extremely aggressive and vocal about that. I'm heartened and happy to the see the good Archbishop fighting back.
I beg to differ. It was defensive and wordy--and a lost opportunity to counter Dowd's bigoted anti-Catholic column.
While I agree with Bishop Chaput I find it confusing to hear the rest of his Brother Bishops who are broadcasting mixed and varied signals all across America .
When I was a Young Boy, the Catholic Church taught that the church was One , Holy, Catholic (Universal) and Apostolic.
No Longer does the Church speak as One, it seems each Bishop sets the rules his way. They have also given up the moral high ground and have lost any credibility they ever had.
This is the trouble we have to deal with and, remarkably, much like what Saint Paul had to rein in at the nascent stages of Catholicism - feuding churches, selfish leadership, and mixed messages.
There is plenty of credibility in the Church - it resides with those who are not out there promoting heresy and accomodating the Lavender Mafia.
Take heart. At some point, the moneychangers will be driven from the Temple. God will not be mocked.
> While I agree with Bishop Chaput I find it confusing to
> hear the rest of his Brother Bishops who are broadcasting
> mixed and varied signals all across America.
(*sigh*) Don't get me started...! :)
I know Archbishop Burke is needed more badly in St. Louis (where he can "whup-with-love" a greater number), but I really wish we could have him back, or get a few hundred more like him (and Bishop Sheridan) to relace the "gotta-be-free, gotta-be-me, I-love-the-rebellious-1960's-and-1970's" bishops scattered throughout out land.
Who cares about what Maureen Dowd wrote? Her audience does not even go to church. The shrillness of her column is the best indicator yet that the godless people know they are losing the debate and losing this election. The more they caricature George W. Bush and scoff at God, the more they turn off religious voters and get them fired up for this election.
May I also say, as a fairly new Christian, that this column spoke to me. I have become more radically pro-life as I have gotten older. I may just end up a Catholic before long. And I will certainly never vote for a pro-abortion candidsate again. I just moved to Pennsylvania, and I am not voting for Arlen Specter.
And the morality behind any piece of legislation derives from the moral philosophy of the legislators and their constituents.
The notion that only moral systems based on materialism are permitted to influence or direct legislation is unfair, silly and philosophically unsound.
You will be a welcome addition if your search brings you to Rome just as your increased militancy on abortion is appreciated by pro-lifers generally.
Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list
Right on the money.
Uhhhh--and priests. See my post of this evening on the Milwaukee priests' Association of limpwrists.
Materialism is a 'morality,' too--and for practical purposes, it is the morality of the Libertarians.
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.