First of all, I wish to thank in great abundance my Mirror of Justice friends who have been contributing to the thread on Catholics and the upcoming election. I shall not speak about any party or any group’s efforts to capture the “Catholic vote.” But, it does appear that many Catholics in the United States find themselves in conflict over their faith and their role in public life. While some of us are trained in the law, we all have a role in its development. The principal objective of this posting is to identify and examine the relationship between Catholic faith and the duties of each Catholic in public life, as either office holder or citizen.
I contend here that there is nothing in the civil law and associated regulations to preclude the Catholic office holder or citizen from adhering to the teachings of the Church in the exercise of one’s respective public duties. Each Catholic retains the obligation to be faithful to the Church’s teachings if he or she is to be an effective, contributing Christian member of the commonwealth. This means that the Catholic who exercises a role in American democracy simultaneously participates in the exercise of discipleship by applying in this world the substance and content of communion with Jesus Christ and other disciples. I have addressed this subject matter in greater detail elsewhere. But I would like to offer a more concise presentation that could be of assistance to others as we approach the November election.
In the first place, we need to take stock of the fact that through our baptism and the exercise of the faith, we are disciples of Jesus Christ. This element of my discussion is rooted in the story of Cleopas and his friend—two disciples who, on their way to the village of Emmaus, encounter the resurrected Jesus. Something prevents them from recognizing Jesus until they dine together and Jesus, after having said the blessing, breaks bread with them and, in doing so, shares communion with them. When Jesus quickly disappears from their sight, they then recognize who he is, and they are energized with the breaking of the bread and communion with Jesus to continue his work mindful that the “repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all the nations.” By being in communion with the Lord, they are restored to active and vibrant discipleship and respond to the call to serve in his name. Without the communion with Jesus, they seemed to have no direction in their lives but were “downcast.” They needed him to do the work they were called to do, and with him they were fortified to labor in his name. Through their communion with Jesus, they maintained right relation with God and with their neighbor. Being in communion with God, His Son, and the Church is essential to anyone’s discipleship regardless of whether one lived in the time of Jesus in Palestine or in the United States at the present time. We are fortified in the Lord calling us, “Come, follow me!” And, this is the challenge the Second Vatican Council placed to all faithful.
In a powerful voice, the Council challenged us to remember what Jesus taught: “As long as you did it for one of these least of my brethren, you did it for me.” The Church and its members have a duty to combat whatever is “opposed to life itself” by identifying murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, willful self-destruction, or anything else which “violates the integrity of the human person.”
Catholics are citizens of two cities who are called to discharge civic responsibilities with the exercise of a Christian conscience inspired by the Gospel. Nevertheless, we are often reminded of the address given by Governor Mario Cuomo at Notre Dame University in September of 1984 entitled “Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor’s Perspective” in which he raised and addressed the question of the relationship of his Catholic faith and his politics—are they separate or related? For prudential and other reasons, the Governor counseled against imposing views based on Catholic teachings on others which these citizens find unacceptable. He spoke of the “American-Catholic tradition of political realism” in which the Church has avoided settling into a “moral fundamentalism” mandating “total acceptance of its views.” But that is not what the disciple is called to do. The disciple, as John Paul II judiciously explained, proposes to the community rather than imposes upon it. And one cannot propose unless one is willing to speak, even against the grain.
It is through reasoned discourse that the genuine contribution of the disciple can be made for the betterment and benefit of all rather than just some of humanity. It is the example of a way of life that is suitable for making the propositions consistent with God’s truth contained in the Church’s teachings. And, it is these teachings and the authority upon which they are based that serve as an antidote to the cynical and sinister in this world that God has given His disciples as one of our two cities.
Thus, we are reminded that while the harvest is plentiful, the laborers may be few. God needs laborers to follow His son, for the harvest is great, but the workers seem to be few in number. As Pope John Paul II kept reiterating in his post-Synodal apostolic exhortation, Christfideles Laici, “you go into my vineyard, too.” The rest is up to us: do we accept the challenging invitation or not? Instilled with the mission of discipleship, we are called to be God’s conscious instruments in a world often plagued with exaggerated autonomy that ignores both the neighbor and God and sees only the isolated self. By remaining in contact with the Church and her teachings, we become a light to the world illuminating the minds and spirit of those who might otherwise be overwhelmed by the darkness of evil. In this regard, we need to take account of what John Paul II stated in his last World Day of Peace message issued in 2005, by recalling the words of St. Paul, “do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” This is a noteworthy appeal to the disciple who labors in the fields of law and politics.
When considering particular challenging topics that today’s disciple must confront, we turn to St. Paul who reminds us about the duties of citizenship and how discipleship and citizenship are designed to be complementary rather than separate and independent of one another. But Paul also cautions that the civil authority also must be mindful of its duties and properly exercise its power for it is supposed to be an instrument of God as well. Citizens as disciples and the political, social, and economic structures in which they live and work are all responsible for being the keepers of our brothers and sisters whoever they may be.
Civic duty—be it of the office holder or citizen—is compatible with, not contrary to, discipleship. The two are not mutually exclusive but, for the Catholic, inextricably related. The disciple must be as wise as a serpent and as innocent as a dove and recognize that some will reject the role of the disciple-citizen. For when Church authorities and citizens speak out on issues from the Catholic persona, they might be challenged, albeit on dubious grounds, that this “preaching” is prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. But, do these same critics, especially when they have access to mass media outlets that welcome their strongly secularist or other views, exercise similar restraint? It often appears that the result is dependent on who is doing the preaching and whose Gospel is being preached. Whatsoever you do to the least of your brothers and sisters, that which you do unto me. It is a well-formed Christian conscience [see my earlier posting HERE] that richly contributes to the public debate by adding alternatives that reflect genuine pluralism and diversity and is not subjugated by the monolithic view of a culture that is antagonistic to the religious viewpoint—not by “imposing” but by “proposing.”
If one assumes the title of disciple, does not one also assume certain risks that go along with the vocation? In answering this question, we need only recall the names of all those disciples in the Roman canon who were martyred for their beliefs and the exercise of their conscience. There are indeed risks of proclaiming the truth, the Good News that some treat as unwelcome, but there is the moral obligation not to give into bullying or pressure, subtle or otherwise. Sound prudential judgment may dictate when this obligation is exercised in a public fashion, but it does not mandate avoidance of the obligation in perpetuity.
Disciples of today, be they the electors or the holders of office, shoulder duties in the name of God and His Son. There are occasions when these disciples need not fear the decisions they take in the public square so long as those decisions sufficiently coincide with the views of the secular components of society; however, there may be occasions when the situation is otherwise. It is clear that if the disciple, be that person office holder or exerciser of the franchise, may not be able to eliminate that which is evil entirely. That is understandable, but the disciple has the continuing obligation to ensure that the evil in this world that is of human manufacture at least be reduced if it cannot be eliminated at present.
Those who consider themselves good citizens and good disciples seem to be neither when it comes to some of today’s difficult issues such as euthanasia, abortion, same-sex marriage, or certain kinds of stem cell research requiring the creation and inevitable destruction of human embryos. They may assert: “I cannot legislate morality” or “I cannot impose my religious views on others who do not share my faith” as Governor Cuomo opined. It may seem odd that when the matter under debate involves some aspects of civil rights or criminal legislation addressing, for example, sexual assault or welfare reform or increasing medical benefits for the underinsured or uninsured or the protection of civil rights, the reservations toward the religious perspective tend to be silent. But why do they surface when the matter involves the conscious destruction of human life—the most precious right of all, for without it, all others wither? When these events take place and chill the words of deeds of the disciple in contemporary life, we find ourselves on the decline and must ask: why we did not do something to stop the spread of evil.
Being silent with regard to the vital issues confronting the human family is not always golden. The exercise of silence can be prudent and sometimes offers a useful delay to consider the best manner of addressing a grave problem. But, when all is said and done, silence is rarely a solution to difficult problems that must ultimately be addressed. It can be, in some of today’s political debate, a form of weakness and fearfulness or cooperation (material or formal) in perpetrating and continuing evil. That is why the disciple of today must be willing to embrace the exhortation of John Paul II—“Be not afraid!”
The fact that a source of the citizen’s truth may be the teachings of the Church does not disqualify the Church from teaching that which may be used by the citizen nor the citizen from using that which the Church teaches regarding the moral issues affecting law and politics. The Church does not interfere with the State’s proper function, but it does retain and must exercise its proper role to provide instruction on moral truth that can be appropriated and used by the citizen in his or her participation in the exercise of self-determination of the democratic process.
It would be problematic to insist that the citizen must observe an unnatural dichotomy in his or her life insulating the spiritual and moral from the public and the political. In this context the Johannine text of Jesus farewell: “I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit...” Those who would insist on defeating this participation by the disciple-citizen would deny legitimate and authentic pluralism and would impose a regime of intolerant secularism.
As I suggested earlier, we are citizens of two cities. Each of us is one person who holds and exercises various duties through this dual citizenship—we are the branches who remain tied to Christ, but we also exist and act in the temporal world. This fact should not deter us from embracing what Thomas More said when he declared his allegiance to both sovereigns, but to God first. Let us not be afraid to declare our allegiance likewise regardless of what the Sirens of the present age beckon us to do.
RJA sj
