Catholics in Public Life—Revisited

 

The recent legislation in New York opening the door to legally sanctioned unions of same-sex couples (by fiat of positive law) raises the question about whether those Catholic public officials of New York who supported the new law in some fashion acted in conformity with the Church’s teachings on Catholics in public life. It may be that those public officials who voted for this proposal or who signed it into law did not consider what the Church asks of her members who are public officials and engaged in actions which conflict with the Church’s teachings.

And what are those teachings regarding this matter. Well, both Blessed John Paul II and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith have set them out clearly. I have recently addressed the importance about values in the exercise of the state’s authority [HERE], so I shall not replicate that discussion here. But what needs to be considered today is the essential question regarding what the Church expects of her members who exercise public responsibilities in formulating the laws by which society is governed.

Here is what the Church asks of them:

First of all Catholics—regardless of whether they hold public office or not—are obliged to pursue the common good as the Church defines it.

Second, if there is law already made that conflicts with the Church’s teachings, then Catholics have the responsibility of registering their disagreement with it and, then, doing what they can to enact restrictions to limit the extent of the mischief that has been or may be generated by the original law especially when there is an effort to amend or renew funding for such a law. This assumes that it would not be possible to repeal such a law upon its being revisited by those whose office it is to re-examine the legislation.

However, this was not the case in New York since the legislation of New York had until a few days ago only permitted the union of one man and one woman, not two men or two women. What did the Church’s teachings mandate in this context?

Catholics—especially those whose responsibility it is to make law—have the duty as a member of the Body of Christ to (1) express opposition clearly and publicly to proposals that would acknowledge homosexual unions, and, then, (2) do what is necessary to defeat the proposal by voting against it and by encouraging others to do the same not only on the grounds of faith but also on the foundation of objective reason.

For those Catholics who believe, perhaps quite earnestly, that the recent legislation of New York redefining marriage “feels good” need to re-examine why they think this and why they believe it is consistent with the teachings of their Church. To believe that the cause of equality has been protected or that fairness and civil rights are enhanced are false foundations for supporting the new definition of marriage. When these arguments are made by Catholics in support of the new law defining marriage, they demonstrate by word and deed that they know not who they are when the claim the moniker Catholic.

On a more technical legal issue, it is interesting to note that the legislation contains a provision that if any element of the act is declared invalid as a result of the judicial process, the entire act will be invalid. This may well suggest that public officials who supported the legislation in some form may not be so confident about that which they undertook in seeking its passage.

 

RJA sj