The Church and the Public Square

 

Over the past week or so several of my friends here at the Mirror of Justice have been posting thoughtful presentations regarding some of the hot button issues of the day (such as same-sex marriage) and the Church’s role or lack of it concerning public policies and the formulation of legal norms—be they statutory or constitutional—addressing these policies and laws.

It is clear that within the community of persons who identify themselves as Catholic there is a wide range of opinions about issues such as marriage; sexual orientation and gender identity; autonomy; and the rights and liberties of the individual person. To discuss and debate these issues is a very American thing. Of course robust disputations are not restricted to Americans or to lawyers since they often occur in other political and legal cultures around the world. However, in the United States, they often exercise a prominent role in public life. A number of us here at the Mirror of Justice have defended the right of the Church to participate in these deliberations. After all, she has a distinctive teaching role that often contributes to advancement of positions which many, if not most, people of good will share.

For example, when the Church, through her principal teachers (the bishops), enter discussions about economic reforms that advance the common good, immigration reforms that are designed to improve the legitimate interests of the sovereign state and the migrant person, or the promotion of racial equality, most folks applaud the involvement of the Church. However, when it comes to neuralgic subjects like “reproductive rights” or same-sex marriage, the scenario changes dramatically especially when members of the hierarchy who, in the proper exercise of the ecclesiastical responsibilities, take positions that conflict with some of the other participants in the political and legal debates. Some of these folks insist that the Church, through her bishops, is violating the “separation of church and state.”

But in fact, there is no such constitutional principle. The constitutional principles which do exist regarding religious matters prohibit an establishment of religion and protect the free exercise of religion. The latter includes the right of religious persons and groups, including the Catholic Church, to enter public life and express their views and seek the implementation of their proposals that advance the common good.

It is clear that Michael Bayly (blogger of The Wild Reed—Thoughts and Reflections from a Progressive, Gay, Catholic Perspective), the individual whose position on same-sex marriage conflicts with that of the Twin Cities archdiocese and whom Susan brought to our attention earlier today, has a right to advance his views.

But so does Archbishop Nienstedt.

In addition, the archbishop has a duty to do so which is in part based on his Profession of Faith and his taking the Oath of Fidelity. When a man is called to orders in the Catholic Church, he is obliged to make the profession and offer the oath. Whether every person called to orders in the Catholic Church does this with a sincere, personal commitment is a question I cannot answer. But it is evident that the archbishop has taken his profession and oath earnestly. So do I. This is a fact that others must take stock of as they enter the field of debate on the important issues of the day.

It does seem that in a number of influential circles, the Church and her teachers should not be permitted to engage others in the public square on matters that are of interest to society; however, it would be anathema if the members and representatives of these same circles were forbidden to enter the arguments of the day and express their views.

Should the Church and her perspectives be denied participation in any public debate on the vital issues involving the making and enforcing of law and the development of public policies, this great country, her institutions, and the right to participate in public life will be endangered. Then we as a political and legal society will be another step closer to a totalitarian regime that presents itself to the world as a democracy.

 

RJA sj