Earlier today, the Holy Father met with British politicians, academics, business leaders, and members of the diplomatic corps at Westminster Hall—the site of the trial of St. Thomas More, the patron of those in political and state life. His address is here.
At the outset, the Pope acknowledged that this was no typical address given by a Roman Pontiff by indicating that he was “conscious of the privilege afforded me to speak to the British people and their representatives in Westminster Hall.” He quickly noted his appreciation of the contributions of the common law tradition and the vision of rights and responsibilities held by the state and the individual that include the separation of powers.
Not only was the setting historic, but so was the address. The first and only Briton he mentioned by name was Thomas More, and he focused on the “dilemma” faced by More and many others across human history: determining what is owed to Caesar and what is due God. In short, the address presented Pope Benedict’s—Peter’s—views on the authentic role of religious belief within public and political life.
In noting the role of moderation in the British manner, the Pope introduced the theme of virtue. Here when talking about “moderation,” he was raising the proper function of forbearance which enables the person exercising this virtue find the “genuine balance between the legitimate claims of government and the rights of those subject to it.” Forbearance is expected not only of the citizen but the state as well. This affords all the chance for succeeding in governing and participating in a pluralist society as Britain or the United States. Forbearance, moreover, arrests the appetite of anyone who chooses to assert more than should be asserted: in short, to find the crucial balance of when to claim the right that properly belongs to oneself and when to assume the responsibility that he or she also must shoulder if freedom of speech and of political affiliation, respect for the rule of law, and the equality of all citizens is to mean anything of enduring value. Here the Pope noted the valuable contribution of Catholic social thought—especially the notion of the common good—to the enterprise common to the res publica.
At this point, using Thomas More-at-trial-for-treason as the model, he probed the question of what is the common good. In essence, he explored the boundaries of where the state may not impose burdens on its citizens in the name of unity, national consensus, or something else. The state is not without assistance in charting this course because it has access to the great gift of civil discourse and the ethical conclusions to which genuine debate can lead in making the ordinary and the momentous decisions that affect the common good which must always take stock of the goods and the harms posed to the members of the polity. In his view, the formidable challenge to democracy is the circumstance where the only factor determining what are the “moral principles” that guide a people is simply “social consensus.” With that and nothing more, the treasure of democracy will be a fragile plaything easily manipulated by those who can form and un-form this consensus. As he asserted, “the ethical dimension of policy has far-reaching consequences that no government can afford to ignore.” Of course, the ability to appreciate and rely upon the natural moral law is an indispensable tool in identifying and relying upon the firm ethical principles that make nations and the international community just places.
In offering some concrete assistance to the British people—and anyone else listening—Benedict further stated:
The central question at issue, then, is this: where is the ethical foundation for political choices to be found? The Catholic tradition maintains that the objective norms governing right action are accessible to reason, prescinding from the content of revelation. According to this understanding, the role of religion in political debate is not so much to supply these norms, as if they could not be known by non-believers—still less to propose concrete political solutions, which would lie altogether outside the competence of religion—but rather to help purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles... Without the corrective supplied by religion, though, reason too can fall prey to distortions, as when it is manipulated by ideology, or applied in a partial way that fails to take full account of the dignity of the human person... This is why I would suggest that the world of reason and the world of faith—the world of secular rationality and the world of religious belief—need one another and should not be afraid to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good of our civilization. Religion, in other words, is not a problem for legislators to solve, but a vital contributor to the national conversation. In this light, I cannot but voice my concern at the increasing marginalization of religion, particularly of Christianity, that is taking place in some quarters, even in nations which place a great emphasis on tolerance.
Benedict had additional blunt words for those who, in the name of a “more perfect society, would advocate the silencing of the religious voice and perspective in public debate. Authentic religious freedom is the concern here. One example of his words: “there are those who argue—paradoxically with the intention of eliminating discrimination—that Christians in public roles should be required at times to act against their conscience. These are worrying signs of a failure to appreciate not only the rights of believers to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, but also the legitimate role of religion in the public square.”
These words have poignant meaning in the western democracies of Europe, the United States, and Canada today where conscience protection of many good citizens is being treated in cavalier fashion by the state and by those whose influence on the state is designed to further, at best, problematic agendae in the masquerade of “human rights.” The Holy Father was on the mark exhorting his listeners—wherever they may be—that the perspectives of faithful believers and their well-formed consciences are vital to the success of the genuine debates that reinforce democracy, the rule of law, and the common good that undergird both. Silencing the religious perspective or relegating it to the confines of the private place is the hallmark not of democracy but of the totalitarian state.
The Pope was pleased to note some particular instances in which the British polity has contributed nobly to the progress of solidarity for those in need. Moreover, he indirectly expressed his gratitude on the reestablishment of diplomatic relations with the Holy See. In concluding his address, Benedict invoked higher authority in saying that the “angels looking down on us from the magnificent ceiling of this ancient Hall remind us of the long tradition from which British Parliamentary democracy has evolved. They remind us that God is constantly watching over us to guide and protect us. And they summon us to acknowledge the vital contribution that religious belief has made and can continue to make to the life of the nation.”
I would encourage the members of our Mirror of Justice community to read the Holy Father’s address in full. It is a source of that authentic public spirit which can simultaneously further the City of Man and the City of God. Thomas More helped show the way, and Benedict is following in the path he trod.
RJA sj
Here's Walker Percy again, from an essay called "Why Are You Catholic?": "The reason I am a Catholic is that I believe that what the Catholic Church proposes is true." Works for me!
Here is former MOJ-er Prof. Bainbridge, responding to Sen. Gregg on the issue of promoting "social justice":
The Hill:
"My concern is that she would use the agency for the purpose of promoting social justice," [GOP Senator Judd] Gregg said [about Elizabeth Warren] on ABC's "Top Line" webcast.
Is social justice now a verboten subject in the new, post-Palin conservative movement? And, if so, why?
As a Catholic and Christian, do I not have a moral obligation to promote social justice? The Catechism treats social justice as part of the life in Christ. Pope John Paul II wrote that "peace is built on the foundation of justice." He situated "daily work and struggles for justice in the context of bearing witness to Christ the Saviour."
Granted, many progressive Catholics conflate the moral obligation to pursue social justice with the teachings of liberation theology. This is probably why people like Glenn Beck dismiss social justice as just a code word for a left-liberal political agenda. Granted also, Elizabeth Warren's politics probably overlap a lot with adherents of liberation theology.
As John Paul himself illustrated, however, it is possible to have a commitment to social justice without embracing the socialistic politics of liberation theology.
Conservative Catholic scholar Michael Novak powerfully addressed this point in his essay Social Justice: Not What You Think It Is. He quotes Pope Leo XIII, for example, as teaching that:
Therefore, let it be laid down in the first place that in civil society, the lowest cannot be made equal with the highest. Socialists, of course, agitate the contrary, but all struggling against nature is in vain. There are truly very great and very many natural differences among men. Neither the talents nor the skill nor the health nor the capacities of all are the same, and unequal fortune follows of itself upon necessary inequality in respect to these endowments.
Novak further explained that:
Friedrich Hayek wrote a really powerful little book called The Mirage of Social Justice, in which he picked up on the way the term "social justice" was being used in the first half of the 20th century. He said "social justice" had become a synonym for "progressive," and "progressive" in practice means socialist or heading toward socialism. Hayek well understood the Catholic lineage of social justice, how the term had first appeared in Catholic thought, until almost 100 years later it became dominant on the secular Left.
The Popes, Hayek noted, had described social justice as a virtue. Now, a virtue is a habit, a set of skills. Imagine a simple set of skills, such as driving a car. The social habit of association and cooperation for attending to public needs is an important, newly learned habit widely practiced, especially in America. Social justice is learning how to form small bands of brothers who are outside the family who, for certain purposes, volunteer to give time and effort to accomplishing something. If there are a lot of kids who aren't learning how to read, you volunteer for tutoring. ...
And that's what, in a word, social justice is--a virtue, a habit that people internalize and learn, a capacity. It's a capacity that has two sides: first, a capacity to organize with others to accomplish particular ends and, second, ends that are extra-familial. They're for the good of the neighborhood, or the village, or the town, or the state, or the country, or the world. To send money or clothes or to travel to other parts of the world in order to help out--that's what social justice is: the new order of the ages, Rerum Novarum.
Interestingly, Timothy Dalrymple argues that if we adopt Novak's definition "the Tea Party movement is in fact a social justice movement."
The great majority of those attending the rallies would tell you that the policies they advocate are for the common good of all, including the poor. On the conservative way of seeing things, the interests of the haves and the have-nots are not as easily divisible as Wallis portrays them. Much though it may strain the credulity of the trained progressive, Tea Partiers sincerely believe that taking more and more money away from society's most productive citizens, and thus disincentivizing productivity and diminishing the resources for private investment; spending more and more in Washington, and thus making economic decisions on political criteria and expanding a federal government that is rife with self-serving inefficiency and corruption; and giving more and more through government distribution, fostering a culture of dependency and vote-buying, is poisonous to our national character and economy and will adversely affect everyone, the poor most of all.
(HT: Joe Carter)
If Senator Gregg wants to worry that Warren will pursue a left-liberal political ideology that will negatively impact the economy, I'd probably agree. But his disdain for the concept of social justice is sadly misplaced.
