Why is the Church Political? Freedom
This is the third and final in a series taken from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s essay, “Theology and Church Politics” published in a 1987 book Church Ecumenism and Politics: New Endeavors in Ecclesiology. In it he explains what theology is, what the relation of theology is to the Church, and what the relation of the Church is to education and politics.
The first article dealt with the fundamental claim to reason itself, why the atheistic view does not work and the Christian view must. The second article dealt with the ordered relationship of the Church and the University, how the Church must guide the search for truth. These are important concepts in our times. Some have asked whether the Church is partisan and what role she should play in the politics of civil society. Cardinal Ratzinger answered. Knowing how to explain this is a powerful tool for evangelization.
First, Church and Theology
Politics, rightly understood, is the practice of government or administration, so there is a political relationship between the Church and theology. The Church governs theology, but it is not a relationship concerned with Ecclesial powers which would be an “outright contradiction of the Church’s true nature.” The Church is not the “party headquarters where party ideology is reviewed in terms of a strategy for gaining power.”
The Church is the environment where reason seeks meaning. The Magisterium’s governing action is to warn theology against paths that lead to abstraction even as she respects the individual’s responsibility to inquire within the environment of faith. There is a duality, a productive functional relationship, a legitimate freedom.
Can this Freedom Fail?
It can fail if 1) if ecclesiastical authority deprives theology, and all bodies of knowledge beneath it, of its independence and asks merely for proof of what the Magisterium sets forth; or 2) if theology, and again all bodies of knowledge beneath it, disconnect from the Church community, viewing her as only an organization of officials lacking in spiritual content.
“Whenever one of the two voices – that of ecclesiastical authority or that of theology – loses its independence, the other side also loses its essential content.”
What does the relationship look like in practical terms? It is judicial. The ecclesiastical official, the bishop, does not participate positively in the selection of faculty and chair members, or in ordering what is taught and studied in a university, but he does have the negative power of veto. This is the model for true freedom, and this positive-negative relationship is also carried into society.
What does the political relationship of the Church with society look like?
It looks like separation of Church and State, a political doctrine inaugurated by Christ himself. “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” (Mt 22:21) This command, unappreciated today, was a paradigm changer in the time of Christ. Then the realm of politics was considered sacred. The state in antiquity believed governments had divine rule because they were doing the will of whatever god they worshipped. The state imposed religion in every sense of the word.
Christ’s teaching “cut in two” this notion and that is why the Greco-Roman state saw Christianity as an attack on its very foundation, imposed the death penalty on Christians, and produced so many martyrs in early Christianity. If Christ’s teaching was true, then the State had to admit it did not have ultimate authority. This dualism – this separation of Church and State – came from God Himself. Christ is the Truth that sets man free.
This is, thus, the source of the Western basis for freedom. The ascendancy of the Catholic Church has been the most liberating event in all of human history, even though it took a lot of time for mankind to understand it and humanity still needs to be taught this. If Church and State are separate, then the State must point beyond itself to another community for moral authority.
The Church is this second community, a judicial one, and she does understand herself to be the final moral authority, still today and always with every right — a duty even — to assert that role. The Church also recognizes that she does not mete out civil punishments, because she is not the State. The Church warns of spiritual punishment. Thus each community, Church and State, has a limited radius of activity, mutually committed to freedom, consistent with the natural relationship between University and Church.
True Freedom Requires Church Authority
Only where this duality exists is there really freedom in academics or civil governments. Otherwise there is no genuine search for truth and coercion is used to uphold party dictates. If the State abolishes the Church as a publicly relevant authority, there is no freedom because the State becomes the sole basis for morality, and if the state is the sole basis for morality, then the State takes the place of God, a regression to the oppression Christianity liberates man from. When the men in power dictate truth and morality, then the State becomes the totality, is totalitarian. Let that sink in.
Christ, the Logos, the Word, is the origin of free thought, inaugurated civil freedom, and abolished totalitarianism of State. Yes, all of that.
Why Do You Need to Know This?
There is much dialogue to be had about these facts; stating these truths today is almost certain to bring ridicule on the evangelizer because they are shocking and counter-cultural. Pope Paul VI emphasized in the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi (8 December 1975) the urgency of evangelization even so. “It would be useful if every Christian and every evangelizer were to pray about the following thought…can we gain salvation, if through negligence, fear, shame – what St. Paul called ‘shrinking from the Gospel’ – or as a result of false ideas, we fail to preach it?”
Too often we cower from asserting the primacy of the Logos, and the natural political relationship of the Church to the University and State because they seem like such counter-cultural concepts. A reassessment of our understanding of these relationships will improve our practice and approach to fulfilling the New Evangelization, and aid the Church in fulfilling her rightful role among mankind – to draw all people to salvation.
Category: Doctrine, Ecumenism, Secularism, Theology
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Comments (96)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Sites That Link to this Post
- Why is the Church Political? Freedom | cathlick.com | November 16, 2012
I’ve long thought that a good separation of church and state would look something like this: the church has the pulpits, and the state has the police, the army, the courts, the jails, and the government. In other words, all the political power the church really has is persuasive. It seems, though, that in recent times, we are even losing our pulpits, as any poin of view that is espoused from a pulpit (if unacceptable to the current cultural zeitgeist) is immediately dismissed in the secular world as “religious nonsense”.
Melissa, Yes, it seems so. Maybe that power will be revived.
When you mix religion with your politics, you find yourself with strange bedfellows. Ann Coulter would be one, Mitt Romney would be another
Isn’t ménage à trois scheduled for a vote in Massachusetts?
Mjeck,
If you think your religion is just something fashionable, I guess. If you believe it to be true, then it guides every aspect of your life. But what’s the point of believing in something you don’t really think is true?
Howard,
I don’t know what you are saying
Stacy,
If you take your religion seriously, then you can’t take Ann Coulter or Mitt Romney seriously.
Mjeck, my comment could be taken several ways, as could yours.
Howard,
I’ll take your comment to mean that you are still quite curious about what other people do in their private bedroom
Mjeck, that could be an interpretation.
Do you mean that Romney’s Mormonism and Coulter’s political commentary make them strange? Do you mean that Stacey is not strange but you find those two strange? Do you mean that all three of them are strange? Do you mean, I think I’ll just offer an old quote and update it to sound learned? Do you mean that religious people and political people cannot understand each other, and each will consider the other strange? Do you mean that political commentators are strange and Presidential candidates are strange?
Howard,
I mean that it’s strange to follow the teachings of Jesus, then follow Mitt Romney and Ann Coulter; they seem to be dichotomous in nature and attitude.
Please elaborate.
Howard,
For example: You’re a Catholic who voted for a Mormon; because you hate the other guy; who was offering free health care; something Jesus did regularly;
It’s a strange, truncated morality.
You’re a Catholic who voted for a Mormon; because you hate the other guy; who was offering free health care; something Jesus did and preached regularly;”
Please explain how you conclude “because you hate the other guy” and explain why it is wrong to vote for a Mormon.
Please provide the citation where Jesus offered free governmental health care. You can’t be referring to his healing! Now that would be strange!
Howard,
It sounds like you’re more serious about being a Fox News/Ann Coulter fan, than being Catholic.
Mitt received only 1/3rd the vote. That should be explanation enough.
Mjeck, you are ducking my questions.
Romney out voted B.O. 58% – 42% among weekly Mass attending Catholics – those closer to the Church.
The popular vote was about 1% for B.O. We are a very divided people.
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/
Where do you get 1/3? The electoral college is not a measure of sentiment.
You made the statements. Please support you answers.
Howard,
I’m not ducking any more than you. You aren’t considering what I am saying: Mixing religion and politics is untenable.
You would never have Mass with a Mormon.
I am afraid I just don’t understand you. I’m not much for just taking orders. So I’ll say goodnight. Maybe someone else can interpret you for me. I’ll check back tomorrow.
BTW, what I meant (admittedly cryptic) was: without Christianity in our politics stranger bedfellows have appeared and I anticipate even more strangeness to come.
That’s ok, Howard. I think you’re a good guy. Have a good night
Mjeck, it occurred to me that I left you with an incomplete response. Not responding according to my personal mission. The main reason I am on the internet in this way is to try and pay the debt to my Church for the beauty it has given me.
“You would never have Mass with a Mormon”
When people have an understanding of Catholicism from non-Catholics or think they understand Her on their own, these kinds of impressions will result.
Mr. Romney would be welcome at Mass with me. I have brought non-Catholics to Mass and have attended myself before I came into the Church. I think I know my priest well enough to say that he would even hear his confession. As long as it was understood that he was not Catholic. Father would say he would be helping a man ask for forgiveness from Jesus Christ. Anyone who has heard Fr. Benedict Grochel speak, probably has heard his story of hearing the confession of Jews in N.Y.C. with a perfect understanding between them. Catechumens (students) attend confession and Mass before they are brought into the Church with baptism.
In the past it was custom for non-Catholics to leave at the consecration but I don’t think that is the case anymore. To take communion would not be proper and would be disrespectful to us as there would not be the same understanding of that sacrament.
We would be there to praise God, for no other reason.
Goodnight again.
Howard,
The only Catholic President I can think of was Kennedy. Before Kennedy was elected, he adamantly stated his firm belief in the separation of Church and State. He also promised that he would not take any orders from the Pope. So what has changed since then?
Billy Graham spent his career at the pulpit preaching on the evils of the Mormon Cult. Yet, Billy Graham endorsed Romney! Just before endorsing Romney, he had to remove his references to Mormonism from his website. Do you find this perplexing or hypocritical?
On one hand, you seem to completely recognize the separation of church and state, by making a clear delineation between Jesus healing people and socialized health care. And yet, at the same time, you state that your beliefs in Catholicism are extremely important, yet Romney’s religion (which is similar to yours in name only), is completely irrelevant!
When you mix your politics with your religion, I have no idea where your values are.
Mjeck,
In any society there must be authorities. In our society, we can vote for the lawmakers and Catholic teaching instructs us in these matters to form our consciences. People are free to interpret the best candidate quite widely.
Some Catholics voted for Romney because he is a better candidate, a better leader, than Obama. Some felt he had the stronger pro-life position, fairer approaches to taxation, more honest and intelligent solutions for the economy, respect for marriage, family, and religious freedom.
Some Catholics voted for Obama because they felt he was the better candidate. I personally disagreed with their weighting of some issues over others, but we are free to make those decisions as long as no one was voting for Obama because he supports abortion, infanticide, disregarding the meaning of marriage, unjust taxation, or limiting religious freedom. Some felt like his government takeover of healthcare was a good thing. I could not get past those issues. I honestly believe there was a lot of ignorance and naïveté among those voters.
Some Catholics voted third party because they could not in good conscience vote for either man. I felt like that was as good as staying home.
My vote was in no way a compromise of my faith, but guided by it. I want a just society for my children to grow up in and I will work to achieve that end.
Mjeck, I remember Kennedy well. I saw him in person and was a great admirer. He was not however as great a man personally as his brother-in-law Sargent Shriver. As one of the first Peace Corps volunteers I had an opportunity to met and talked with him. I can’t say I knew him except by reputation. Shriver was a daily Mass attendee even while traveling according to a son.
Some of the great leaps of social action that had been languishing during and after the war, took off under Shriver with the aid of Kennedy and Johnson and sometimes outside of government. Peace Corps, Job Corps, Head Start, EOC, Vista, Foster Grandparents, Legal Services, Special Olympics, The Great Society. He was also a vice-presidential candidate under George McGovern and a primary presidential candidate. Kennedy may have invented the political idea that your religion can be separated from your politics, but, that was obviously campaign nonsense. Not untrue but meant to address a fear of direct control by the Vatican. As Stacy has pointed out, the Pope does not give orders, he gives guidance. To be fair, if Romney is to be faulted for his Mormonism then Harry Reid should also be faulted for the same reason. Any disagreement with Mormonism by the Church is theological not personal.
I wrote the above before Mass today. At Mass in his homily, Father mentioned good Protestants that he knows, has theological differences with, but and can see God working in them.
Through all of this, I was never very political. I always voted for the man seldom until recently along party lines. The Democratic party of today is being run by a totally different kind of person. People that have decided to eliminate God from American life. That is very dangerous.
Stacy,
Thanks for your response.
From what I’m understanding, you’re saying that you can be a perfectly good Catholic and still vote for Obama or Romney.
Sounds good to me.
Although, I came to a completely opposite conclusion from you, with regards to Romney and the naivety of his followers. It’s just that my faith led me to a completely different conclusion.
But what I’m understanding, this is neither here nor there, with regards to Catholicism; you can still disagree and have a strong opinion either way and still be a good Catholic.
It would seem to me that there is at least some type of separation between religion and politics – Maybe with regards to absolutes.
Howard,
You have an interesting history, I enjoyed reading your experiences. Thank-you for sharing.
I don’t like Romney because he’s a terrible human being; which has nothing to do with his Mormonism. What I find ironic is that you opened with a joke about menage a tois in Massachusetts, yet voted for a guy with a deep history of polygramy. I hope the irony wasn’t lost on you.
I disagree with your view of the democratic party. The only thing they’ve removed is the religious rhetoric.
I watched the Republican Primaries in its entirety, and every single candidate said that God told them to run. Puh-lease!!! The Republican party is in shambles.
Mjeck, The election is over and comparisons of the 2 candidates is useless. There is no irony except streaching the claim in applying guilt by a very remote association. I don’t think Mr. Romney was ever a polygamist! As I also said, you must apply the same guilt to Mr. Reid. I think Romney is still on his first wife, an admirable record that at least half of the married country can’t match. The church gave that up when they negotiated for statehood for Utah way back before he was born. What you see now are splinter groups. I have worked for, where I live, and with Mormons in Salt Lake City and Sacramento and have only encountered anything of a religious nature when the subject came up for some reason during breaks. I can think of 2 times only.
As far as the party goes, you must have missed the backtracking and conflict over God at the Dem convention. I provide the abc story instead of the Fox story for your benefit.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/democrats-rapidly-revise-platform-include-god/story?id=17164108
Religious liberty is dying in American my friend, and along with it our freedom and the American character. I am not sure that the Republicans will not join the Dems in the future.
For the record, I have been a registered Independent for many years. Every election just makes me think back to high school and voting for King and Queen of the prom. We havn’t grown up yet.
Howard,
Yes I remember the Democratic “God” Kerfuffle. From what I remember, they took it out, then Obama called and told them to put it back in. They were required to have a “Yea” or “Nay” vote and the Nay’s won; but they put it back in anyway.
From what I understand, America’s government is based on the Spartans. The only difference being one president and not two.
Mjeck,
The Church did not tell anyone who to vote for, although pastors and bishops strongly reminded us that we are to vote to uphold “non-negotiable” principles.
There is a separation of Church and State, the Church would not dictate who to elect, but the Church would advise and warn as certain laws are passed.
Stacy,
I assume you mean abortion. Here are some articles I’ve been saving, in hopes that when you find the time, you would consider them. They make the issue complicated for me.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html
http://io9.com/5958187/what-happens-to-women-denied-abortions-this-is-the-first-scientific-study-to-find-out?
Mjeck, interesting but no wonder you get no clarity from these sources. You could consider the source. An online place that also reports on “Is horny goat weed extract really a sexual stimulant?” or “Man in coma uses his thoughts to tell doctors, ‘I’m not in pain’” or “First trailer for The Host is sexy Body Snatchers”. I found myself questioning the conclusions.
I had seen the Irish Times story. She died of blood poisoning. You have brought a similar question in the past. An explanation that would make sense to you would take much more of an explanation of Catholicism and Christianity that I am capable of in comments. Stacy is the capable one here. She has the ability to articulate and reason skillfully a complicated subject – with truthfulness. Consider the source. Understanding does not automatically mean agreement.
“Yes I remember the Democratic “God” Kerfuffle. From what I remember,
they took it out,
then Obama called and told them to put it back in.
They were required to have a “Yea” or “Nay” vote and the Nay’s won; but they put it back in anyway.”
You have just described how our present administration works!
Hey Howard, thanks! I moved this down below since it gets hard to reply within the comment after a while.
I remember the God vote at the Democratic Convention. Thought it was one of the most revealing events in this election. On one hand, it was unbelievable, on the other — totally what they asked for, more government telling them what to do.
“If the State abolishes the Church as a publicly relevant authority…”
I don’t know what you mean by this? Can you expand on that, giving us an example perhaps of what such an action by the state would look like?
rt,
I can give you a whole list of examples.
Capital punishment is a good one. John Paul II was the first to talk about how the prisons are secure enough that killing is not necessary to defend the public. Yet, the State in most nations does not accept this urging and kills prisoners anyway.
From the Catechism:
Stacy, that’s an example of the State not implementing Church doctrine as policy, but is that what you mean? That when State policy must always abide by the doctrine of the Catholic Church?
I suspect that’s not what you mean, and in that case I still don’t know what you intend by the phrase, ““If the State abolishes the Church as a publicly relevant authority…”
rt,
That’s a great question by the way. I’m glad you pushed for an example.
It is an example of the State not heeding the moral guidance of the Church. The Church does not insist on implementation, but on guiding. It’s not a blind partisan effort to ask the State to abide by the party line, but rather the Church is offering guidance for the dignity and respect of mankind and God that is necessary for just societies. The State ought to seek the community beyond itself for such guidance.
However, the State can also abolish the the Church as a publicly relevant authority…
“Publicly relevant authority” means the State ought to recognize it, but the Church does not impose it. Hopefully you can see in this example that when the State does chose to ignore the Church’s guidance, the citizens are less free.
Thanks, Stacy, that gets me partway there. All that I’m clear of is “abolish.” You’ve made it clear you don’t intend it to mean the state merely differing from the Church’s guidance, so what do you mean by “abolish”?
Abolish means to put an end to, do away with (an institution, custom, or practice); to eradicate, destroy (something prevalent); to annul or make void. (From the OED)
So then you’re thinking of extreme situations, as in Communist countries, especially Asian communism.
The statement is absolute. The United States, supposedly the pinnacle of the free world, still puts prisoners to death when it is not necessary to protect the public.
I’m afraid I’m confused: so the government, in not taking the Church’s guidance on the death penalty, has abolished the Church as a publicly relevant authority?
In that example, yes. There are many other such examples, and the more the State abolishes the Church as a publicly relevant authority, the greater the amount of injustices against freedom.
It’s like refusing to listen to a wise and loving mother.
So the freest nation would be one that did whatever the Church said?
rt,
You could have re-read the article.
If the State abolishes the Church as a publicly relevant authority…
…there is no freedom because the State becomes the sole basis for morality, and if the state is the sole basis for morality, then the State takes the place of God, a regression to the oppression Christianity liberates man from. When the men in power dictate truth and morality, then the State becomes the totality, is totalitarian.
If people would only listen and consider the full logical extensions of the teaching, they wouldn’t be so shocked. Again, it’s like refusing to listen to a wise and loving mother.
This is a very good point. The State compels by force.
Perhaps a good example is smoking. The Church says stay away from addiction because it makes you unfree. It doesn’t say “Never smoke.”
The State says “Smoking is bad and I will make you pay for it. Here is a tax that you must pay which is 56.6% of the cost of a pack of cigs.”
BINGO!
Howard,
Fine, here is the original study: https://apha.confex.com/apha/140am/webprogram/Session36974.html
I thought you’d appreciate the summary, but you’re welcome to criticize the original publication.
The blood poisoning was completely unrelated to the dead baby in her belly? She must have stepped on a rusty tack earlier in the day…
I would prefer that the D’s kept “God” completely out of the platform, and I hope that four years from now, is the right time to completely remove God.
When you have a guy like Newt Gingrich professing to be a man of God, you really can’t take any “God Pandering” from the right (or left) seriously.
Mjeck, you misunderstand me. The story lead with stept….. something and I looked it up. Not an attempted diversion.
This essay is about God and politics so I will try and stay on subject – not easy.
“right time to completely remove God”
You have said in the past that you married into a family of faith that you are satisfied with, I think Christian. You have also mentioned “my faith” in a comment here, I assume Christian.
Please give me the justification in scripture from God, Jesus or His Apostles that could lead you to a conclusion that God should (must, can, could) be removed from anywhere.
Howard,
I am Christian/Serbian Orthodox; Orthodoxy has made zero changes since the 1st Century.
I believe that Politics and Religion should remain completely separate. Too many snake oil men use religion in politics to motivate the masses.
I use my faith to guide me.
Mjeck,
Except in this case if the doctors had been informed of Catholic teaching, they would have tried to save the mother.
It is precisely BECAUSE they kept God out of it that they did the wrong thing.
“I believe that Politics and Religion should remain completely separate”
My question was about God not religion. What is your answer?
Genesis 3 would be one reference.
Howard,
If you’re going to be absolute on the matter of God being in Politics, then I’m going to remind you that Mitt believes that God is a 6ft man that lives on the planet Kolob.
Why are you hitched with a Satanic Cult?
Mjeck, as you probably know, both of our religions don’t consider Mormons Christians. I am not talking to Mitt or Harry Reid. I am talking to you.
Please answer my question.
Howard,
I don’t exactly know what the question is.
Why don’t I want God in politics?
I thought I answered it. Snake Oil men and separation of Church and State. If you don’t want the State in your Church, then that works both ways…Church out of state.
What is the question?
Mjeck, I don’t think my question is that difficult to understand. You said clearly – REMOVE GOD.
Please give me the justification that I asked for
Howard,
Why should the D’s remove God from their platform?
Because of the history of God NOT being in politics or the formation of America. “In God we Trust” is only a very recent addition… the 50′s I believe.
Government is voted upon by the will of the people. When everyone is going to Church, the State is going to reflect that. If people are not going to Church, that is the Churches problem; not the people and not the State.
Does that answer your question?
No, that just tells me where YOU think God should be. I want you to tell me where God thinks He should be.
Look back 8 comments.
Howard,
“Please give me the justification in scripture from God, Jesus or His Apostles that could lead you to a conclusion that God should (must, can, could) be removed from anywhere.”
This question????
I don’t see anywhere in the Bible that is shows how to run a government. …Unless you enjoy Oligarchy’s of the OT. Paul says to submit to Authority and to have civil obedience.
Jesus is about my personal spiritual journey. It’s not about Government for me.
Again Howard, if you’re going to be absolute, than it’s unconscionable that you voted for a Mormon.
Mjeck,
I’m bringing this one down, since it’s a new discussion, sort of.
“Here are some articles I’ve been saving, in hopes that when you find the time, you would consider them. They make the issue complicated for me.”
No need to save them. Go ahead and ask any time. You haven’t been waiting long on the first one, it only broke in the news last week, but yes, it was all over the Catholic blogoshere.
“http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html”
The doctors were not following Irish law or Catholic teaching. Some people blamed it on poor catechism, poor medical instruction, poor legislative knowledge, but as you can imagine, the pro-abortion lobbies also held this poor woman’s death up as a reason to legalize killing children in the womb even more.
“http://io9.com/5958187/what-happens-to-women-denied-abortions-this-is-the-first-scientific-study-to-find-out?”
I can give you as much analysis as you want on this one. I approach these human behavior studies with much caution as I am well-aware of the ways the data can be manipulated, and when all they put forth is a “Special Model” without the methodology in depth, it’s scientific code-word for dishonesty.
At any rate, the principal researcher is on the faculty at the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health (code word for pro-abortion), and the study was funded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, also a pro-abortion group.
Shocker! They conclude that abortion is saving grace for women!!!
You’ll never find any such study, I’ve been looking for years, that ever concludes that abortion is harmful. Never. Ever. Go ahead. Look for it.
The basic premise is flawed, Mjeck. A woman is turned away from abortion, and she suffers as a result, costing people more money, etc. But why start with abortion? Could it be that the woman’s lifestyle that led her to become “unexpectedly pregnant” (because, you know, sex just happens unexpectedly too) already had her on that journey of dependency? You’ll notice too, these studies rarely focus on how to actually help women in such dire situations, they just presume the abortion will fix everything, even if they do not say so in those exact words (they use many more, to make it sound real professional).
Get the drift?
Stacy,
Yes, I get the drift.
I think the study is saying that when a woman has an unwanted baby, and refused an abortion, she finds herself in a worse situation than before. An abortion could save her from that worse situation; but never the less, she is in that worse situation.
What I think you’re saying, is that she’s in that worse situation, because she made bad life choices. She should have listened to God; but never the less, she belongs there because she made bad choices in life.
Do you have an alternative, other than an abortion, to bring her out of her bad situation? Or is that just how the cookie crumbles?
If a baby is born into a bad situation, I assume that it will find itself in a similar bad situation as an adult.
What would your protocol be for the Irish Woman?
Mjeck,
Studies like that also do not ask women the same question ten years later. I doubt many woman who have raised a child for ten years will say, “Oh yeah, but I’d have been better off killing the kid.”
Abortion advocates fail to take into account the healing power of love. They don’t tell you that woman find real strength in loving and raising their children, not killing them, and in finding ways to improve their lives. Women are not cattle, they can learn to take responsibility for their lives and do better. Motherhood can have a profound impact on a woman’s motivation.
What hinders that is people telling her that she has no other choices, that she has to be dependent like a failure, that she can sleep with anyone who pays her attention and feel better about herself. So much of our cultural message is a dangerous lie. Why do people spread such messages? Often so the ones in power can stay in power by urging the weaker to stay dependent.
As for babies being born in bad situations and staying in bad situations, it depends. If the child is viewed as a gift, the mother will stop at nothing to care for him or her and raise herself up in the process. If the child is viewed as a commodity like our culture says they are, the mother has little reason to care for it after birth if she had the option to kill it before birth, and was denied. You tell me — what’s better for our society?
Look up national child abuse and child poverty statistics (I can get them later maybe). Those numbers are difficult to get, but ever since abortion became legal in the US those numbers have gone up every time they were measured, by multiples. Pro-life people predicted that long, long ago. If children can be wanted or unwanted, they can be mistreated. If single motherhood becomes the norm, children will live in poverty.
—–
Protocol for the Irish woman? Induce labor and deliver the child. The intent of induction is to save the life of the mother, and if the baby dies because it cannot live outside the womb, that is unfortunate but unintended. Look up Principle of Double Effect. It is a complicated case to be sure, but even Irish law does not prohibit this. The doctors should have known better — especially if they are Catholic.
Stacy,
I think you’ve gone a little off track from social statistics and into sentient. That’s fine; I find social problems are very complicated, and sometimes without solution. Perhaps abortion will continue for several more hundreds of years before a better solution is raised for humanity.
I have met several women that want nothing to do with children. In fact, even hostile to being around them.
I think what you’re saying about the irish woman is that it was a complete screw up by the Dr’s, and should never have happened. However, I don’t understand the difference between induced labor and induced abortion; perhaps in terminology only
Mjeck,
Social problems are complicated because we are fallen, we are all sinners. There will always be sin. We cannot ever expect abortion to end, we can pray, like so many others do, for the conversion of souls. It is a terrible mortal sin. The solution is available the same for everyone, repentance, penance, accepting forgiveness, accepting grace.
You are right to notice a fine line in induction and abortion, but that line is everything.
To induce to save the mother, knowing the child will die, is still not directly killing the child. In this case, the cervix was fully open, the fluids gone, all that was left was for the child who was dying already to exit the womb. The mother should have been able to still hold the child, to parent it for a short time, to love him or her, and to say good-bye. The child dies in the arms of the mother. It is tragic, but there is healing, there is dignity, there is respect for life.
With abortion, the mother is unconscious (maybe), and instead of birthing the child, sharp instruments are used to invade the womb and rip the child apart limb by limb, crushing the skull at the end to more easily remove it since it is the largest part of the body. They suck out the brains. The dismembered body is discarded as medical waste, and the mother has no closure, she wakens to an empty womb.
There is a vast difference in the human dignity of the two approaches.
Stacy,
You wrote previously about dignity in the death of babies, and if all things being equal, I would agree. I didn’t comment because I didn’t think it was my place, because I can only ever sympathize.
I wish that human rights and human dignity was Humanities number one goal in life. In that respect, I will agree that we are fallen. God has provided enough on earth for all, and it’s our selfishness that needs to be overcome.
Howard,
“Mjeck, so your understanding of the Bible is that God does not desire to be present in you and the electorate or an influence when you make political decisions.”
Not at all.
Voting for Obama is the most Christian decision you can make. Mitt Romney is a terrible human being.
Trying to find the right thread can be hard.
Mjeck, so your understanding of the Bible is that God does not desire to be present in you and the electorate or an influence when you make political decisions.
Howard,
You can see above for my answer.
Mjeck, so you believe God should guide us. Then why would you be against proclaiming that everywhere? Are we not commanded to proclaim Him?
You mean like how every Republican Candidate spouted off God? His name really got dragged through the mud
I would rather judge a person by his works, not by what he professes…and no, I disagree about openly talking about God.
If you have God, it should be apparent, you shouldn’t be sounding off like a banging gong. You’re own contentment and peace should be enough…let God decide when you need to speak about him and when you just need to lend a helping hand
“Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade others.”
2Corr,11
I do not believe that Orthodoxy condones abortion?
That is 2 Corr 5:11
Howard,
Yes… persuade others. I’m trying to persuade you… how did I do?
Orthodoxy is the same on abortion as Catholics. I won’t ever be involved in an abortion, so I’m allowed to feel/think that the issue is more complicated than the church is willing to openly discuss.
It was good to talk with you, Howard. I gotta go, I work at a greenhouse. Have a great day!
While you are watering the flowers, give some thought as to why you offer conclusions as argument.
Why Howard, are you only comfortable with conclusions from Fox News? …Howard the Independent …who happens to always vote Republican.
I wasn’t offering an argument, I was offering a statement about your strange bedfellow Mitt Romney.
Mjeck, you give me a chuckle.
Lets take for example:
“Orthodoxy is the same on abortion as Catholics. I won’t ever be involved in an abortion,…”
I presume you then mean that it is a sin. For everyone, not just the Orthodox.
“…than the church is willing to openly discuss.”
Seems to be a conclusion that you offer to support others taking part in abortions. Do you mean that it is not a sin for them? What exactly is your church not discussing and why?
Howard,
It is not my place to condemn people for their sins, when I am not in their shoes.
If you or the Church really want to help persuade people against abortion, then offer them a healthy alternative for a better future. Offer to help them out of their worse situation: health care, housing, education… but you’d never do that, because that would be socialism! And socialism is evil.
The church is not discussing a real, practical alternative for these women.
“It is not my place to condemn people for their sins, when I am not in their shoes.”
We are told not to condemn. I don’t have the power to condemn anyway. We are told to inform and spread God’s word. We are also told to defend the helpless. God has defined sin, not me.
“You also condemn homosexuals. You say it’s a learned behavior.”
I don’t remember ever giving reasons for that behavior or condemning. Disapproval is not the same as condemnation.
There have been over time many pregnancy help clinics built as near abortion facilities as can be. Every sidewalk counselor can help a pregnant woman at this time of her life. It has become a very positive helping experience.
Now, what is your church not discussing and why?
Howard,
The Church is not discussing why it’s not working with the people.
Mjeck, I don’t know about Orthodoxy but to say the Catholic Church is not involved in social welfare is to say that snow is not white.
Good time for me to sign off.
I’m confused on two things:
1. How is it seperated if the government needs church authority to guide it?
2. Why is it we are not truly free without church authority? But you think government authority is bad and takes away our freedom? Either we are free or we are not. But if you truly want freedom then there should be no authority.
I am grateful that the pastor of our church rejects the idea that Catholicism and politics go hand in hand. Every four years or so it seems that some bishop or priest gets media attention claiming that voting for a pro-choice candidate is sinful. I get frustrated because the pro-choice candidates that become the defacto choice for a good Catholic supports aggressive war policies, the death penalty, gun rights, abandoning the government’s role in helping the underprivileged etc.
I end up voting for the pro-choice candidate even though I abhor abortion because to let a women choose still allows for the hand of God in her decision. That is not to say that God ‘allows’ abortion in some cases only that perhaps women hear the Holy Spirit sometimes and choose life. There is no such chance as it relates to the death penalty or bombing Baghdad or unfunding programs that help the poor.
Maybe that makes me the kind of Catholic that can’t receive the Eucharist in South Carolina but I suspect that a forgiving God will welcome all of us one day despite our sincere and deeply felt differences.
“aggressive war policies, the death penalty, gun rights, abandoning the government’s role in helping the underprivileged”
>> All of which are not intrinsically evil. There exists a just war, there exists a right to gun ownership (and other forms of self defense against unjust aggression), a legitimate difference in prudent discernment of the correct government role in helping the underprivileged.
Abortion, on the other hand, is *intrinsically evil*.
It is this distinction which has led to the shipwreck of your Catholic Faith, and your substitution of a lie for the truth:
“a forgiving God will welcome all of us one day despite our sincere and deeply felt differences”
No.
A forgiving God will welcome only those who have remained faithful to His Church, and have rejected the lying falsehoods of Her enemies within and without.
The rest will go to Hell.
Rick you’re back.
I appreciate your taking the time to respond. Although your argument seems to hint at the idea that something intrinsically evil is somehow worse than something that is just evil, I’m not sure the distinction is as powerful as you claim. The existence of a just war does not make an unjust war any less evil. Likewise, that a handgun can offer protection does not make it any less deadly and inherently evil when it is in the hand of a psychopath. My point is that what you have written is that it is the distinction between intrinsically evil and sometimes evil that has led to the shipwreck of my Catholic faith and thus dooms me to Hell.
I do feel the shipwreck you mention and it saddens me but I think its source is in my selfishness. If I focus on compassion and kindness and love and forgiveness, I feel the presence of the Holy Spirit and it gives me hope.
It seems odd to thank you for your post since in it you damn me to hell, but all things considered, I do appreciate your opinion and remain steadfast in my own. Abortion is evil. The best way to end it is to help people solve whatever makes them want to do such a sad and awful thing.
“Something intrinsically evil is somehow worse than something that is just evil”
Gracie, they are the same thing. I think the problem lies with your understanding of intrinsic. It is;”Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent.”
An intrinsically evil act can be thought of as the devil himself. It can never be committed or judged to be OK because a good can never be the result, even if you think so. Killing an innocent human being can never be a proper cure for a problem.
“Abortion is evil. The best way to end it is to help people solve whatever makes them want to do such a sad and awful thing.”
We know what evil is, we are expected to not commit ALL evil acts. Any method that does not condone or facilitate abortion along with helping people to understand and to cope is the only way. We do those who need us the most no good if we encourage or allow them to commit this crime against an innocent.
Gracie,
“I am grateful that the pastor of our church rejects the idea that Catholicism and politics go hand in hand.”
You missed the point. Catholicism absolutely can comment on politics.
“I get frustrated because the pro-choice candidates that become the defacto choice for a good Catholic supports aggressive war policies, the death penalty, gun rights, abandoning the government’s role in helping the underprivileged etc.”
Rick covered most of that, but no party that I know of in the U.S. even remotely supports abandoning the underprivileged. The only party I might hang that on is the Democrat party because they seem to support policies that keep people dependent on them so they can stay in power. Half the nation is on government assistance. I reject the idea that half of Americans are underprivileged.
Thanks for your comments, Stacy. I see your point that Catholicism can be about politics but I think it is weakened in moral standing when it does so. For instance, if the Church supports candidates that live up to some but not all of the Church’s teachings, we are in the position of supporting candidates or parties that avow morally bankrupt Government activity. Why not say, instead, that candidate A is wrong on abortion but right on the death penalty while candidate B is wrong on guns, war, and helping the poor but he is right about abortion? Let the voter draw conclusions.
The alternative – ignoring the failings of conservative politicians- and supporting them because of their stand on abortion cheapens the Church’s good name because we all can see what the Church is ignoring.
I really do love to read your articles and I appreciate your efforts but you lost me with the dependent people idea. Half the nation is on government assistance because many of them receive social security (which they paid into for their entire careers)or medicare because they are old. My grandmother is on social security so she is bought and paid for by the democrats? Try telling her that! Or how about the kids who receive a discount lunch at school? They’re political tools?
Why not help people who need it and support a government that shows compassion and kindness to people who are unfortunate? Does our faith direct us to turn our backs to people who need help so they learn to be less dependent? I don’t think so.
I give money to beggars and panhandlers when I see them because that might be Jesus sitting there. I know it might seem silly, but I don’t want to face Jesus one day and ask when did I not help him only to hear, ‘you remember, when you lectured me about being less dependent.’
I hope you’re not offended by my post. I really do think you’re awesome and I appreciate your words.
Gracie,
I think there’s just some miscommunication. Let me try again.
“I am grateful that the pastor of our church rejects the idea that Catholicism and politics go hand in hand.”
I read that as a accusation that someone said they should go hand in hand. I certainly did not, and neither did the documents I referenced. The USCCB does offer guidance, but the Church does not endorse candidates.
“Every four years or so it seems that some bishop or priest gets media attention claiming that voting for a pro-choice candidate is sinful.”
If you vote for them because they are pro-choice, it is sinful cooperation with evil.
“I get frustrated because the pro-choice candidates that become the defacto choice for a good Catholic supports aggressive war policies, the death penalty, gun rights, abandoning the government’s role in helping the underprivileged etc.”
I take it that you are referring to Mitt Romney, but that summary is ambiguous. If you are talking about conservatives in general, it’s just wrong. There’s nothing wrong with supporting gun rights. There’s nothing wrong with having a war policy, we have to do that. There’s nothing wrong with advocating that government checks don’t help people very much.
“There is no such chance as it relates to the death penalty or bombing Baghdad or unfunding programs that help the poor.”
I have no idea what you mean by this, honestly. You make it sound like conservatives are picking people off the street and killing them. Regarding your comment about unfunding programs that help the poor, that’s almost malicious. No conservative supports abandoning the poor. Do you realize that out of every dollar taken from a citizen, only 20-30 cents gets to the person receiving government aid? Do you realize that standing in line and being handed a check is not real help? All that breeds is dependency so the people in power can stay in power.
—–
“Why not say, instead, that candidate A is wrong on abortion but right on the death penalty while candidate B is wrong on guns, war, and helping the poor but he is right about abortion? Let the voter draw conclusions.”
That is what the Church does. Have you seen the USCCB voter guide? In individual dioceses too I’ve seen guides that give the candidate’s positions so the voter can decide. Ultimately it is up to the voter to be informed and not to spread false accusations about other people.
“My grandmother is on social security so she is bought and paid for by the democrats?”
A portion are on Social Security and Medicare. Those people paid into a (bankrupt) system and are getting back what they are due. I was talking about housing aid, food stamps, unemployment benefits, Medicaid, and welfare. I’ve worked with people on welfare in very liberal states, and the attitude was shocking. I was there to help teach math and science so young mothers could get their GED and pursue jobs. We helped with all of that. All many of them wanted to do was talk on their cell phones (which were nicer than mine) and find ways to work they system so they could get their checks. We spent more money on Christmas presents one year for those women’s children than our own because no one in the charity group I worked with could afford to buy extra gifts. We bought gifts for every single child. A couple of the mothers got mad because we didn’t give them “what they ordered.” Tell me — how are programs promoting that behavior helping anyone? Some of those women were third generation welfare recipients.
I grew up in Texas where being on welfare was a last resort, and if you were on it, you had to be, and you understood that your obligation was to work hard to get off of it because that money you received was taken from your fellow citizens.
“Why not help people who need it and support a government that shows compassion and kindness to people who are unfortunate? Does our faith direct us to turn our backs to people who need help so they learn to be less dependent? I don’t think so.”
If you are accusing me and my family of that, yes, I’m offended. Governments do not “show compassion and kindness,” they are incapable of such things; people do that.
I’m not in disagreement with you as a Catholic. I agree that each person should be free to make decisions about candidates. I disagree with you on those decisions, that’s all. It’s wrong to characterize people as un-compassionate and un-kind when they aren’t.
Your article and the responses have been great and I appreciate that good people can see things very differently than I do. Maybe part of the problem for me is that I simplify things and tend to see most clearly when I focus on the basics of an issue. War is, in simple terms, people killing each other in the name of governments. Sounds like a bad thing. Handguns are designed and used to kill people. No one hunts deer with a .45. Handguns are weapons of human destruction. Again, evil. All the rationalizing and justifying aside, advocating the elimination or reduction of government programs that help underprivileged people doesn’t sound like it is kind or considerate. Maybe not downright evil but an argument could be made.
Awhile back kids used to wear WWJD wristbands to remind them to think like Jesus. In my heart, I believe that if He were here today he wouldn’t be about fine-tuning war policy or quibbling over the finer points of gun control. He might ask us to throw the first stone at a selfish welfare queen but only if we are without sin.
What might Saint Francis of Assisi say to those who would politicize the Holy Church or pass judgment on the poor for not being appropriately ashamed of their condition or having a bad attitude about the help they receive?
And while I march around fussing about getting the Supreme Court to overturn some law that relates to the unborn, why am I not giving my coat to that homeless drunk or making a difference? Maybe there’s too much politics and not enough action these days.
As for conservatives being caring and compassionate…I just don’t see it. There is a coldness and a ‘I got mine; you get yours’ attitude that bothers me. I don’t fit in with people who cheer when a candidate says he’s going to get tough on this or that. Maybe that’s just my take on it.
Sorry if my last post offended you. I’m just joining in on the conversation. I can quit if you want.
Gracie,
If there’s one thing I insist on here is open discussion. Don’t quit, I don’t want you to. I appreciate it Gracie. I know you are sincere.
What offends me is that (to make it personal for us, but not necessarily directed at you) we are conservative, and don’t like false accusations. It’s not unloving to be tough sometimes, I do it with our children all the time. They need to be pushed. There’s nothing unloving about expecting people to be all they can be.
There are people devoted to protecting our freedom as citizens of the country. Evil?
There are people giving and giving to charity, who are conservative. Evil?
There are people carrying handguns because they want to be able to protect themselves. Evil?
There are people who oppose rewarding sloth and vice. Evil?
There are people who do both, fight for just laws AND give their coats away. Evil?
That’s all.
Gracie, don’t quit. Without you some of us would only be agreeing with each other and the conversation would not be as stimulating!
“And while I march around fussing about getting the Supreme Court to overturn some law that relates to the unborn, why am I not giving my coat to that homeless drunk.”
Fussing is a funny way to put it. Do you know that I am not giving my coat or more?
Some actions are judged by the Church using it’s knowledge of scriptures, etc to tell us that they can never be performed no matter what the reason – those are the intrinsically evil ones. Others are those that you can judge to be evil or not evil. The DEGREE and EFFECT of each evil must be evaluated when comparing evils. If we have only two evils to consider, you may decide that not feeding the poor, or in reality the length to which our government feeds the poor, is an evil greater than abortion. But, the reason you say this can be evaluated. If a poor person starves to death (rare today in the U.S. largely due to religious charitable organizations) is the loss of a baby’s life just compensation to feed a starving person. And, is that kind of compensation necessary anyway to feed that person. A war you judge to be evil must be considered against the massive number of deaths happening daily through abortion.
Stats in 2008. 1,210,000 that is 1.21 million deaths by abortion occurred in the U.S.
Our Church in the Catechism says:
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,”77 “by the very commission of the offense,”78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society. (1463)
http://tinyurl.com/ak5tv7n
Howard and Stacy,
So, by comparing various things that are evil (abortion, unjust war, lack of compassion, handguns etc.) we arrive at the conclusion that abortion is intrinsically evil so it outweighs the other evils. This determination allows us to say, for instance, that a politician who supports the proliferation of handguns is acceptable as long as he verbally commits to ending abortion through government action.
Two problems. The first is that since no politician operates in a vacuum, he can verbally commit to ending legal abortion, do nothing about it and actively work to pass conceal and carry laws and so on. We are somehow justified in supporting this guy even though the net result is more evil in the world.
The second problem is that buying into the lesser of two evils fallacy is that it allows us to abandon many of the beliefs we know to be part of the Lord’s teaching. Candidate A is pro-life which relates to 1.2 million evil and sin-soaked deaths therefore we don’t have to worry about his policies on anything else that is less evil like war-mongering, the death penalty and the proliferation of man-killing handguns or machine guns. Besides, any of these could be ‘just’ so they fall into the not-intrinsic category and there you go, all is well. I vote for a man who doesn’t care about using the strength of the government to help others or get reasonable on gun control or stop fighting all these complex and pointless wars. He said the right thing on abortion.
They have been saying the right thing on abortion since before I was born. How’s that working out for us?
So I guess it all ties in to what Stacy asks in her reply. Is someone evil who gives generously to charity but supports mean-spirited or unchristian ideas like weaponization of our society, military incursion for political gain, executions, or turning our government away from helping the poor? I have been thinking on it for a couple of weeks and I think the answer is uncomfortable for all of us involved in the discussion:
If a good person participates in politics, she can, in good faith support politicians who stand for some things she disagrees with if the net effect of their role in government is to move the government toward being good and just and not away from it.
As for the Church’s role in politics, I think leaving unto Caesar what is Caesar’s is a good starting point.
Gracie!!! You’re back! Thank you.
OK, to reply to you Gracie,
It seems (correct me if I’m wrong) we all agree that Catholics can disagree on politics. I feel like I’m putting needles in my eyes when I say it, but I did read the USCCB’s forming citizen conscience guide to mean that faithful Catholics can support Obama as long as they are not supporting him because he support abortion. I understand that much. As much as I’d like to scream NOOO to anyone who supports that man, I do realize that good people may support him for good reasons.
I also am painfully aware that conservative candidates are far, far, far from perfect.
Now to be fair, Gracie, you sort of reworded my question there didn’t you? I have a different perspective than you and it is informed by my VERY opinionated husband. He has strong opinions and for good reasons. I do listen to him. I’ve changed his mind on some things, but he’s greatly influenced my thinking on many others.
It’s in that spirit that I love politics. I love the discussion, understanding as you wisely said that we are discussing things of this world, of Caesar’s, and that they will never be perfect like the Kingdom of Heaven. We are people trying to do the right thing.
I don’t like the vices that politics brings out in people, myself included.
So back to my husband and the way you misworded my question. He was born in Cuba, and his family found freedom in this country. He served in the military, worked hard and made a life for himself, one he could not have made in Cuba. He sees weapons, war, helping the poor differently from people who only opine about those things from comfort (not that you are Gracie, but plenty of people do and it is frustrating).
My husband is not evil. He put himself in danger to protect innocent people who will never show him one ounce of gratitude. He does believe that a nation needs to be able to defend itself, he believes an individual has the right to defend himself, he believes there is nothing evil about expecting your fellow man to be all he can be. Different views, Gracie.
Does that make any sense? Can you see where someone like him might be coming from? (He’s against the death penalty, by the way.)
Gracie, your motives are GOOD and your intentions are GOOD. Your struggle with balancing good and evil as do we all.
A huge part of this question is “what is an intrinsic evil”?
I can not speak for the Church but I try and understand what it teaches. When we go to the Church for an answer, as all good Catholics do, we find this understanding from the catechism:
II. Good Acts and Evil Acts
1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts – such as fornication – that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.
1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
All of this tells us that there are 3 parts to an act. When all 3 are good then we have good for sure. When any one is not good then we have an evil act. In an intrinsic evil, the object is not good and the intention does not excuse the act. In the case of abortion, the death of an innocent.
This DOES NOT address the DEGREE of evil. Murder may be considered worse than adultery for example. War is not intrinsically evil because it may be self defensive. If a war cannot be justified, then it is EVIL and must be compared against other evils no matter how they are decided.
There is a continuing aspect to the abortion evil. Since abortion justifies the death of the most vulnerable and the most innocent of us all, since the death is used as a cure for an adult’s problems, since this kind of death legally and morally takes away from God the determination of what is of value and what is not and gives that to man, we need to be very careful how we support it. Even if we consider it a lesser of evils.
Gracie and Howard,
I just read the Pope’s article in the Financial Times. I’m copying it here, compliments of Whispers in the Loggia:
A time for Christians to engage with the world
“Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God,” was the response of Jesus when asked about paying taxes. His questioners, of course, were laying a trap for him. They wanted to force him to take sides in the highly-charged political debate about Roman rule in the land of Israel. Yet there was more at stake here: if Jesus really was the long-awaited Messiah, then surely he would oppose the Roman overlords. So the question was calculated to expose him either as a threat to the regime, or a fraud.
Jesus’ answer deftly moves the argument to a higher plane, gently cautioning against both the politicization of religion and the deification of temporal power, along with the relentless pursuit of wealth. His audience needed to be reminded that the Messiah was not Caesar, and Caesar was not God. The kingdom that Jesus came to establish was of an altogether higher order. As he told Pontius Pilate, “My kingship is not of this world.”
The Christmas stories in the New Testament are intended to convey a similar message. Jesus was born during a “census of the whole world” taken by Caesar Augustus, the Emperor renowned for bringing the Pax Romana to all the lands under Roman rule. Yet this infant, born in an obscure and far-flung corner of the Empire, was to offer the world a far greater peace, truly universal in scope and transcending all limitations of space and time.
Jesus is presented to us as King David’s heir, but the liberation he brought to his people was not about holding hostile armies at bay; it was about conquering sin and death forever.
The birth of Christ challenges us to reassess our priorities, our values, our very way of life. While Christmas is undoubtedly a time of great joy, it is also an occasion for deep reflection, even an examination of conscience. At the end of a year that has meant economic hardship for many, what can we learn from the humility, the poverty, the simplicity of the crib scene?
Christmas can be the time in which we learn to read the Gospel, to get to know Jesus not only as the Child in the manger, but as the one in whom we recognize God made Man.
It is in the Gospel that Christians find inspiration for their daily lives and their involvement in worldly affairs – be it in the Houses of Parliament or the Stock Exchange. Christians shouldn’t shun the world; they should engage with it. But their involvement in politics and economics should transcend every form of ideology.
Christians fight poverty out of a recognition of the supreme dignity of every human being, created in God’s image and destined for eternal life. Christians work for more equitable sharing of the earth’s resources out of a belief that, as stewards of God’s creation, we have a duty to care for the weakest and most vulnerable. Christians oppose greed and exploitation out of a conviction that generosity and selfless love, as taught and lived by Jesus of Nazareth, are the way that leads to fullness of life. Christian belief in the transcendent destiny of every human being gives urgency to the task of promoting peace and justice for all.
Because these goals are shared by so many, much fruitful cooperation is possible between Christians and others. Yet Christians render to Caesar only what belongs to Caesar, not what belongs to God. Christians have at times throughout history been unable to comply with demands made by Caesar. From the Emperor cult of ancient Rome to the totalitarian regimes of the last century, Caesar has tried to take the place of God. When Christians refuse to bow down before the false gods proposed today, it is not because of an antiquated world-view. Rather, it is because they are free from the constraints of ideology and inspired by such a noble vision of human destiny that they cannot collude with anything that undermines it.
In Italy, many crib scenes feature the ruins of ancient Roman buildings in the background. This shows that the birth of the child Jesus marks the end of the old order, the pagan world, in which Caesar’s claims went virtually unchallenged. Now there is a new king, who relies not on the force of arms, but on the power of love. He brings hope to all those who, like himself, live on the margins of society. He brings hope to all who are vulnerable to the changing fortunes of a precarious world. From the manger, Christ calls us to live as citizens of his heavenly kingdom, a kingdom that all people of good will can help to build here on earth.
“….they are free from the constraints of ideology and inspired by such a noble vision of human destiny that they cannot collude with anything that undermines it.”
I like that part. You may then guess that my favorite Saint is Thomas Moore.
When I read or hear someone using this quote it is usually to support a view that the Church should be “out of the picture” in society because government is the highest authority we should have allegiance to.
I always am thinking, “Yes, Caesar gets a coin but he BELONGS to God”.
Actually, it’s a little more colorful than that.