CWNews
DAILY NEWS BRIEF for JANUARY 23, 2003
©
Copyright 2003 Domus Enterprises
Bishop Tells Pro-Abortion California Gov. Not To Receive
Communion
…for
a Catholic to be pro-abortion is in very great error, puts his or her soul at
risk
SACRAMENTO,
California, Jan 23, 03 (CWNews.com) - The bishop of California's capital city
has announced that the state's pro-abortion Catholic governor should renounce
his pro-abortion views before presenting himself for Communion again.
Bishop
William Weigand made the announcement at a Mass on Wednesday, the 30th
anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that allowed abortion in
demand throughout the US. He said that Gov. Gray Davis should refrain from
receiving the Eucharist while he continues to hold pro-abortion views.
"As
your bishop, I have to say clearly that anyone -- politician or otherwise --
who thinks it is acceptable for a Catholic to be pro-abortion is in very great
error, puts his or her soul at risk, and is not in good standing with the
church," Bishop Weigand said. "Such a person should have the
integrity to acknowledge this and choose of his own volition to abstain from receiving
Holy Communion until he has a change of heart."
Bishop
Weigand later added that "in general, we do not refuse Communion to
anyone; we try to instruct people as to when it would not be appropriate."
A
spokesman for Davis said the bishop's pronouncement was "sad" and
added that the governor is "proud of the legislation he has signed giving
women the right to choose." He also criticized the bishop for
"telling the faithful how to practice their faith."
Bishop
Weigand said he was inspired by a confrontation before Christmas between Davis
and a priest who runs a home for disadvantaged children who told the governor
that he wasn't welcome. The bishop said he was also motivated by the recent
note from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that enumerated the
responsibilities of Catholics involved in politics.
According
to the governor's office, Davis and his wife are active Catholics who attend
Mass in Southern California.
Full
text from The Sacramento Bee follows :
Oppose
It or Stop Taking Holy Communion, Weigand Says
By
Pamela Martineau, Jennifer Garza and Christina Jewett
Sacramento
Bishop William K. Weigand, leader of 500,000 Catholics in Northern California,
called on Gov. Gray Davis on Wednesday to renounce his support of abortion
rights or stop taking Holy Communion.
Speaking
at a morning Mass on the 30th anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court
decision that legalized abortion, Weigand told congregants at the Cathedral of
the Blessed Sacrament that Davis should refrain from taking communion while he
continues to support abortion rights.
"As your bishop, I have to say clearly that anyone — politician or otherwise — who thinks it is acceptable for a Catholic to be pro-abortion is in very great error, puts his or her soul at risk, and is not in good standing with the church," Weigand said. "Such a person should have the integrity to acknowledge this and choose of his own volition to abstain from receiving Holy Communion until he has a change of heart."
Receiving
Holy Communion is one of the most sacred rites in the Catholic faith. Weigand
said afterward that "in general, we do not refuse communion to anyone; we
try to instruct people as to when it would not be appropriate."
Russ
Lopez, a spokesman for Davis, said the bishop was "trying to make an
example and that's sad. But Governor Davis has said repeatedly that he is proud
of the legislation he has signed giving women the right to choose. He will not
back down."
Lopez
criticized the bishop for "telling the faithful how to practice their
faith."
Lopez
said that Weigand's comments could alienate members of the Catholic Church who
support abortion rights. "There are a lot of Catholics who are pro-choice.
Does the bishop want all Catholics to stop receiving Holy Communion?"
asked Lopez. "Who's going to be left in church?"
Weigand
said Wednesday evening that he did not contact the Vatican before deciding to
publicly chastise the governor. He acknowledged that he was motivated by Davis'
response to a challenge by a Sacramento parish priest before Christmas, and by
a doctrine by Pope John Paul II criticizing politicians who say they are good
Catholics but support abortion rights.
Weigand's
homily quoted from the papal doctrine released in advance of the 30th
anniversary of Roe v. Wade. "Those who are directly involved in lawmaking
bodies have a grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human
life," he said.
The
cathedral is a short walk from the Capitol, where abortion-rights supporters held
a daylong conference. At UC Davis, students rallied in support of abortion
rights, while opponents shouted at them.
Demonstrators
on both sides of the issue spoke of a new urgency to the debate, saying the
election of George W. Bush to the presidency and a GOP majority in Congress
could swing the pendulum toward judicial appointments and laws that restrict
abortion. In Washington, thousands of anti-abortion activists marched to the
steps of the Supreme Court, where they called for the overturning of Roe v.
Wade.
At the morning Mass, Bp. Weigand
praised Monsignor Edward Kavanagh, who last month told Davis' staff that the
governor was not welcome to deliver gifts to St. Patrick's Orphanage. (The
children received their gifts from Davis at the Capitol.) Kavanagh asked Davis
to renounce his abortion-rights views before visiting.
The governor's response to Monsignor Edward Kavanagh was blunt: "I'm unapologetically pro-choice and I'm not changing my position."
Weigand
said Wednesday evening that the confrontation forced him to confront Davis.
"Ever
since the little incident last month, people have been asking questions. They
asked "how can a Catholic be in good standing and still hold that point of
view? I'm saying you can't be a Catholic in good standing and hold that point
of view. The governor's position is very public and contrary. ... You can't
have it both ways."
In
a press release Wednesday marking the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Davis administration
claimed credit for California being "the most pro-choice state in
America."
It
cited laws Davis signed that require HMOs to cover Food and Drug
Administration-approved methods of contraception, and that crack down on those
who threaten the safety of pro-choice clinics. He signed legislation last year
that ensures women will continue to have the right to an abortion, regardless
of whether the U.S. Supreme Court continues to uphold Roe v. Wade.
The
governor attended a Planned Parenthood event Wednesday in Los Angeles, issuing
a proclamation acknowledging Roe v. Wade. "During my entire career in
public service, I've supported a woman's reproductive freedom. When it comes to
a woman's right to choose, as long as I'm governor, California will not concede
one inch."
The
governor is an active Catholic. He and his wife, Sharon, attend Mass in
Southern California. The Davises, who were married originally in a civil
ceremony presided over by former state Supreme Court Chief Justice Rose Bird,
were married again in the late 1990s in the Catholic Church for their 15th
wedding anniversary. The ceremony recognized the marriage in the church's eyes
and allowed Davis to resume taking communion.
"He
goes to church and he says his prayers and that's good," said Weigand.
"But he's been aggressive on this issue, even boastful. I'm just trying to
clarify that he is not in line with the Catholic Church on an issue that the
Pope has said is the most important issue of our day."
(Martineau,
Garza and Jewett are staff writers for the Sacramento Bee, where this
story originally appeared.)
mailto:comments@FaithfulVoice.com
Title: Vatican Statement on Catholic Politicians'
Duties
Author:
Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith
Title: Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of
Catholics in Political Life
Publisher
& Date:Vatican, January 16, 2003
Includes: Identical text with no
graphics.
Description: This document repeats and
emphasizes some of the themes of 'Evangelium Vitae'. It specifically
underscores the obligation of Catholic politicians regarding issues that
involve the defense of human life, such as abortion, euthanasia, cloning and
fetal research.
The
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, having received the opinion of the
Pontifical Council for the Laity, has decided that it would be appropriate to
publish the present Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the
participation of Catholics in political life. This Note is directed to the
Bishops of the Catholic Church and, in a particular way, to Catholic
politicians and all lay members of the faithful called to participate in the
political life of democratic societies.
I.
A constant teaching
1.
The commitment of Christians in the world has found a variety of expressions in
the course of the past 2000 years. One such expression has been Christian
involvement in political life: Christians, as one Early Church writer stated,
«play their full role as citizens».1 Among the saints, the Church
venerates many men and women who served God through their generous commitment
to politics and government. Among these, Saint Thomas More, who was proclaimed
Patron of Statesmen and Politicians, gave witness by his martyrdom to
«the inalienable dignity of the human conscience».2 Though
subjected to various forms of psychological pressure, Saint Thomas More refused
to compromise, never forsaking the «constant fidelity to legitimate
authority and institutions» which distinguished him; he taught by his
life and his death that «man cannot be separated from God, nor politics
from morality».3
It
is commendable that in today's democratic societies, in a climate of true
freedom, everyone is made a participant in directing the body politic.4 Such
societies call for new and fuller forms of participation in public life by
Christian and non-Christian citizens alike. Indeed, all can contribute, by
voting in elections for lawmakers and government officials, and in other ways
as well, to the development of political solutions and legislative choices
which, in their opinion, will benefit the common good.5 The life of a democracy
could not be productive without the active, responsible and generous
involvement of everyone, «albeit in a diversity and complementarity of
forms, levels, tasks, and responsibilities».6
By
fulfilling their civic duties, «guided by a Christian conscience»,7
in conformity with its values, the lay faithful exercise their proper task of
infusing the temporal order with Christian values, all the while respecting the
nature and rightful autonomy of that order,8 and cooperating with other
citizens according to their particular competence and responsibility.9 The
consequence of this fundamental teaching of the Second Vatican Council is that
«the lay faithful are never to relinquish their participation in 'public
life', that is, in the many different economic, social, legislative,
administrative and cultural areas, which are intended to promote organically
and institutionally the common good».10 This would include the promotion
and defence of goods such as public order and peace, freedom and equality,
respect for human life and for the environment, justice and solidarity.
The
present Note does not seek to set out the entire teaching of the Church on this
matter, which is summarized in its essentials in the Catechism of the Catholic
Church, but intends only to recall some principles proper to the Christian
conscience, which inspire the social and political involvement of Catholics in
democratic societies.11 The emergence of ambiguities or questionable positions
in recent times, often because of the pressure of world events, has made it
necessary to clarify some important elements of Church teaching in this area.
II.
Central points in the current cultural and political debate
2.
Civil society today is undergoing a complex cultural process as the end of an
era brings with it a time of uncertainty in the face of something new. The
great strides made in our time give evidence of humanity's progress in
attaining conditions of life which are more in keeping with human dignity. The
growth in the sense of responsibility towards countries still on the path of
development is without doubt an important sign, illustrative of a greater
sensitivity to the common good. At the same time, however, one cannot close
one's eyes to the real dangers which certain tendencies in society are
promoting through legislation, nor can one ignore the effects this will have on
future generations.
A
kind of cultural relativism exists today, evident in the conceptualization and
defence of an ethical pluralism, which sanctions the decadence and
disintegration of reason and the principles of the natural moral law.
Furthermore, it is not unusual to hear the opinion expressed in the public
sphere that such ethical pluralism is the very condition for democracy.12 As a
result, citizens claim complete autonomy with regard to their moral choices,
and lawmakers maintain that they are respecting this freedom of choice by
enacting laws which ignore the principles of natural ethics and yield to
ephemeral cultural and moral trends,13 as if every possible outlook on life
were of equal value. At the same time, the value of tolerance is disingenuously
invoked when a large number of citizens, Catholics among them, are asked not to
base their contribution to society and political life — through the
legitimate means available to everyone in a democracy — on their particular
understanding of the human person and the common good. The history of the
twentieth century demonstrates that those citizens were right who recognized
the falsehood of relativism, and with it, the notion that there is no moral law
rooted in the nature of the human person, which must govern our understanding
of man, the common good and the state.
3.
Such relativism, of course, has nothing to do with the legitimate freedom of
Catholic citizens to choose among the various political opinions that are compatible
with faith and the natural moral law, and to select, according to their own
criteria, what best corresponds to the needs of the common good. Political
freedom is not — and cannot be — based upon the relativistic idea
that all conceptions of the human person's good have the same value and truth,
but rather, on the fact that politics are concerned with very concrete
realizations of the true human and social good in given historical, geographic,
economic, technological and cultural contexts. From the specificity of the task
at hand and the variety of circumstances, a plurality of morally acceptable
policies and solutions arises. It is not the Church's task to set forth
specific political solutions — and even less to propose a single solution
as the acceptable one — to temporal questions that God has left to the
free and responsible judgment of each person. It is, however, the Church's
right and duty to provide a moral judgment on temporal matters when this is
required by faith or the moral law.14 If Christians must «recognize the
legitimacy of differing points of view about the organization of worldly
affairs«,15 they are also called to reject, as injurious to democratic
life, a conception of pluralism that reflects moral relativism. Democracy must
be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles,
which are the underpinning of life in society.
On
the level of concrete political action, there can generally be a plurality of
political parties in which Catholics may exercise — especially through
legislative assemblies — their right and duty to contribute to the public
life of their country.16 This arises because of the contingent nature of
certain choices regarding the ordering of society, the variety of strategies
available for accomplishing or guaranteeing the same fundamental value, the
possibility of different interpretations of the basic principles of political
theory, and the technical complexity of many political problems. It should not
be confused, however, with an ambiguous pluralism in the choice of moral
principles or essential values. The legitimate plurality of temporal options is
at the origin of the commitment of Catholics to politics and relates directly
to Christian moral and social teaching. It is in the light of this teaching
that lay Catholics must assess their participation in political life so as to
be sure that it is marked by a coherent responsibility for temporal reality.
The
Church recognizes that while democracy is the best expression of the direct participation
of citizens in political choices, it succeeds only to the extent that it is
based on a correct understanding of the human person.17 Catholic involvement in
political life cannot compromise on this principle, for otherwise the witness
of the Christian faith in the world, as well as the unity and interior
coherence of the faithful, would be non-existent. The democratic structures on
which the modern state is based would be quite fragile were its foundation not
the centrality of the human person. It is respect for the person that makes
democratic participation possible. As the Second Vatican Council teaches, the
protection of «the rights of the person is, indeed, a necessary condition
for citizens, individually and collectively, to play an active part in public
life and administration».18
4.
The complex array of today's problems branches out from here, including some
never faced by past generations. Scientific progress has resulted in advances
that are unsettling for the consciences of men and women and call for solutions
that respect ethical principles in a coherent and fundamental way. At the same
time, legislative proposals are put forward which, heedless of the consequences
for the existence and future of human beings with regard to the formation of
culture and social behaviour, attack the very inviolability of human life.
Catholics, in this difficult situation, have the right and the duty to recall
society to a deeper understanding of human life and to the responsibility of
everyone in this regard. John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the
Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in
lawmaking bodies have a «grave and clear obligation to oppose» any
law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible
to promote such laws or to vote for them.19 As John Paul II has taught in his
Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae regarding the situation in which it is not
possible to overturn or completely repeal a law allowing abortion which is already
in force or coming up for a vote, «an elected official, whose absolute
personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support
proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its
negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public
morality».20
In
this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience
does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which
contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith
is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular
element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political
commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church's social doctrine does not
exhaust one's responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think
of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of
Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world
might be proclaimed and put into action.
When
political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of
exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more
evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable
ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence
of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is
the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with
the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate).
Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death.
In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the
rights of the human embryo. Analogously, the family needs to be safeguarded and
promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected
in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can
other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can
they receive legal recognition as such. The same is true for the freedom of
parents regarding the education of their children; it is an inalienable right
recognized also by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. In the same way,
one must consider society's protection of minors and freedom from modern forms
of slavery (drug abuse and prostitution, for example). In addition, there is
the right to religious freedom and the development of an economy that is at the
service of the human person and of the common good, with respect for social
justice, the principles of human solidarity and subsidiarity, according to
which «the rights of all individuals, families, and organizations and
their practical implementation must be acknowledged».21 Finally, the
question of peace must be mentioned. Certain pacifistic and ideological visions
tend at times to secularize the value of peace, while, in other cases, there is
the problem of summary ethical judgments which forget the complexity of the
issues involved. Peace is always «the work of justice and the effect of
charity».22 It demands the absolute and radical rejection of violence and
terrorism and requires a constant and vigilant commitment on the part of all
political leaders.
III.
Principles of Catholic doctrine on the autonomy of the temporal order and on
pluralism.
5.
While a plurality of methodologies reflective of different sensibilities and
cultures can be legitimate in approaching such questions, no Catholic can
appeal to the principle of pluralism or to the autonomy of lay involvement in
political life to support policies affecting the common good which compromise
or undermine fundamental ethical requirements. This is not a question of
«confessional values» per se, because such ethical precepts are
rooted in human nature itself and belong to the natural moral law. They do not
require from those who defend them the profession of the Christian faith,
although the Church's teaching confirms and defends them always and everywhere
as part of her service to the truth about man and about the common good of
civil society. Moreover, it cannot be denied that politics must refer to
principles of absolute value precisely because these are at the service of the
dignity of the human person and of true human progress.
6.
The appeal often made to «the rightful autonomy of the participation of
lay Catholics» in politics needs to be clarified. Promoting the common
good of society, according to one's conscience, has nothing to do with
«confessionalism» or religious intolerance. For Catholic moral
doctrine, the rightful autonomy of the political or civil sphere from that of
religion and the Church — but not from that of morality — is a
value that has been attained and recognized by the Catholic Church and belongs
to inheritance of contemporary civilization.23 John Paul II has warned many
times of the dangers which follow from confusion between the religious and
political spheres. «Extremely sensitive situations arise when a
specifically religious norm becomes or tends to become the law of a state
without due consideration for the distinction between the domains proper to
religion and to political society. In practice, the identification of religious
law with civil law can stifle religious freedom, even going so far as to
restrict or deny other inalienable human rights».24 All the faithful are
well aware that specifically religious activities (such as the profession of
faith, worship, administration of sacraments, theological doctrines, interchange
between religious authorities and the members of religions) are outside the
state's responsibility. The state must not interfere, nor in any way require or
prohibit these activities, except when it is a question of public order. The
recognition of civil and political rights, as well as the allocation of public
services may not be made dependent upon citizens' religious convictions or
activities.
The
right and duty of Catholics and all citizens to seek the truth with sincerity
and to promote and defend, by legitimate means, moral truths concerning
society, justice, freedom, respect for human life and the other rights of the
person, is something quite different. The fact that some of these truths may
also be taught by the Church does not lessen the political legitimacy or the
rightful «autonomy» of the contribution of those citizens who are
committed to them, irrespective of the role that reasoned inquiry or
confirmation by the Christian faith may have played in recognizing such truths.
Such «autonomy» refers first of all to the attitude of the person
who respects the truths that derive from natural knowledge regarding man's life
in society, even if such truths may also be taught by a specific religion,
because truth is one. It would be a mistake to confuse the proper autonomy
exercised by Catholics in political life with the claim of a principle that
prescinds from the moral and social teaching of the Church.
By
its interventions in this area, the Church's Magisterium does not wish to
exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics
regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends — as is its proper
function — to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful,
particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always
serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good. The
social doctrine of the Church is not an intrusion into the government of
individual countries. It is a question of the lay Catholic's duty to be morally
coherent, found within one's conscience, which is one and indivisible.
«There cannot be two parallel lives in their existence: on the one hand,
the so-called 'spiritual life', with its values and demands; and on the other,
the so-called 'secular' life, that is, life in a family, at work, in social
responsibilities, in the responsibilities of public life and in culture. The
branch, engrafted to the vine which is Christ, bears its fruit in every sphere
of existence and activity. In fact, every area of the lay faithful's lives, as
different as they are, enters into the plan of God, who desires that these very
areas be the 'places in time' where the love of Christ is revealed and realized
for both the glory of the Father and service of others. Every activity, every
situation, every precise responsibility — as, for example, skill and
solidarity in work, love and dedication in the family and the education of
children, service to society and public life and the promotion of truth in the
area of culture — are the occasions ordained by providence for a
'continuous exercise of faith, hope and charity' (Apostolicam actuositatem,
4)».25 Living and acting in conformity with one's own conscience on
questions of politics is not slavish acceptance of positions alien to politics
or some kind of confessionalism, but rather the way in which Christians offer
their concrete contribution so that, through political life, society will
become more just and more consistent with the dignity of the human person.
In
democratic societies, all proposals are freely discussed and examined. Those
who, on the basis of respect for individual conscience, would view the moral
duty of Christians to act according to their conscience as something that
disqualifies them from political life, denying the legitimacy of their
political involvement following from their convictions about the common good,
would be guilty of a form of intolerant secularism. Such a position would seek
to deny not only any engagement of Christianity in public or political life,
but even the possibility of natural ethics itself. Were this the case, the road
would be open to moral anarchy, which would be anything but legitimate
pluralism. The oppression of the weak by the strong would be the obvious
consequence. The marginalization of Christianity, moreover, would not bode well
for the future of society or for consensus among peoples; indeed, it would
threaten the very spiritual and cultural foundations of civilization.26
IV.
Considerations regarding particular aspects
7.
In recent years, there have been cases within some organizations founded on
Catholic principles, in which support has been given to political forces or
movements with positions contrary to the moral and social teaching of the
Church on fundamental ethical questions. Such activities, in contradiction to
basic principles of Christian conscience, are not compatible with membership in
organizations or associations which define themselves as Catholic. Similarly,
some Catholic periodicals in certain countries have expressed perspectives on
political choices that have been ambiguous or incorrect, by misinterpreting the
idea of the political autonomy enjoyed by Catholics and by not taking into
consideration the principles mentioned above.
Faith
in Jesus Christ, who is «the way, the truth, and the life»(Jn
14:6), calls Christians to exert a greater effort in building a culture which,
inspired by the Gospel, will reclaim the values and contents of the Catholic
Tradition. The presentation of the fruits of the spiritual, intellectual and
moral heritage of Catholicism in terms understandable to modern culture is a
task of great urgency today, in order to avoid also a kind of Catholic cultural
diaspora. Furthermore, the cultural achievements and mature experience of
Catholics in political life in various countries, especially since the Second
World War, do not permit any kind of 'inferiority complex' in comparison with
political programs which recent history has revealed to be weak or totally
ruinous. It is insufficient and reductive to think that the commitment of
Catholics in society can be limited to a simple transformation of structures,
because if at the basic level there is no culture capable of receiving,
justifying and putting into practice positions deriving from faith and morals, the
changes will always rest on a weak foundation.
Christian
faith has never presumed to impose a rigid framework on social and political
questions, conscious that the historical dimension requires men and women to
live in imperfect situations, which are also susceptible to rapid change. For
this reason, Christians must reject political positions and activities inspired
by a utopian perspective which, turning the tradition of Biblical faith into a
kind of prophetic vision without God, makes ill use of religion by directing
consciences towards a hope which is merely earthly and which empties or
reinterprets the Christian striving towards eternal life.
At
the same time, the Church teaches that authentic freedom does not exist without
the truth. «Truth and freedom either go together hand in hand or together
they perish in misery».27 In a society in which truth is neither
mentioned nor sought, every form of authentic exercise of freedom will be
weakened, opening the way to libertine and individualistic distortions and
undermining the protection of the good of the human person and of the entire
society.
8.
In this regard, it is helpful to recall a truth which today is often not
perceived or formulated correctly in public opinion: the right to freedom of
conscience and, in a special way, to religious freedom, taught in the
Declaration Dignitatis humanae of the Second Vatican Council, is based on the
ontological dignity of the human person and not on a non-existent equality
among religions or cultural systems of human creation.28 Reflecting on this
question, Paul VI taught that «in no way does the Council base this right
to religious freedom on the fact that all religions and all teachings,
including those that are erroneous, would have more or less equal value; it is
based rather on the dignity of the human person, which demands that he not be
subjected to external limitations which tend to constrain the conscience in its
search for the true religion or in adhering to it».29 The teaching on
freedom of conscience and on religious freedom does not therefore contradict
the condemnation of indifferentism and religious relativism by Catholic
doctrine;30 on the contrary, it is fully in accord with it.
V.
Conclusion
9.
The principles contained in the present Note are intended to shed light on one
of the most important aspects of the unity of Christian life: coherence between
faith and life, Gospel and culture, as recalled by the Second Vatican Council.
The Council exhorted Christians «to fulfill their duties faithfully in
the spirit of the Gospel. It is a mistake to think that, because we have here
no lasting city, but seek the city which is to come, we are entitled to shirk
our earthly responsibilities; this is to forget that by our faith we are bound
all the more to fulfill these responsibilities according to the vocation of
each... May Christians...be proud of the opportunity to carry out their earthly
activity in such a way as to integrate human, domestic, professional,
scientific and technical enterprises with religious values, under whose supreme
direction all things are ordered to the glory of God».31
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of
November 21, 2002, approved the present Note, adopted in the Plenary Session of
this Congregation, and ordered its publication.
Rome,
from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, November
24, 2002, the Solemnity of Christ the King.
+
Joseph Card. RATZINGER
Prefect
+
Tarcisio BERTONE, S.D.B.
Archbishop
Emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary
mailto:Comments@FaithfulVoice.com
______________________________________
1
Letter to Diognetus, 5,5; Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2240.
2
John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio Proclaiming Saint Thomas More
Patron of Statesmen and Politicians, 1: AAS 93 (2001), 76.
3
Ibid., 4.
4
Cf. Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 31; Catechism
of the Catholic Church, No. 1915.
5
Cf. Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 75.
6
John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation, Christifideles laici, 42: AAS 81 (1989),
472. The present doctrinal Note refers to the involvement in political life of
lay members of the faithful. The Bishops of the Church have the right and the
duty to set out the moral principles relating to the social order;
«Nevertheless active participation in political parties is reserved to
the lay faithful» (ibid., 60). Cf. Congregation for the Clergy, Directory
for the Ministry and Life of Priests (March 31, 1994), 33.
7
Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 76.
8
Cf. Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 36.
9
Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree Apostolicam actuositatem, 7; Dogmatic
Constitution Lumen gentium, 36; Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 31 and
43.
10
John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles laici, 42.
11
In the last two centuries, the Papal Magisterium has spoken on the principal
questions regarding the social and political order. Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical
Letter Diuturnum illud: ASS 14 (1881—1882), 4 ff; Encyclical Letter
Immortale Dei: ASS 18 (1885—1886), 162ff; Encyclical Letter Libertas
prFstantissimum: ASS 20 (1887—1888), 593ff; Encyclical Letter Rerum
novarum: ASS 23 (1890—1891), 643ff; Benedict XV, Encyclical Letter Pacem
Dei munus pulcherrimum: AAS 12 (1920), 209ff; Pius XI, Encyclical Letter
Quadragesimo anno: AAS 23 (1931), 190ff; Encyclical Letter Mit brennender
Sorge: AAS 29 (1937), 145—167; Encyclical Letter Divini Redemptoris: AAS
29 (1937), 78ff; Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Summi Pontificatus: AAS 31 (1939),
423ff; Radiomessaggi natalizi 1941—1944; John XXIII, Encyclical Letter
Mater et magistra: AAS 53 (1961), 401— 464; Encyclical Letter Pacem in
terris: AAS 55 (1963), 257—304; Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum
progressio: AAS 59 (1967), 257—299; Apostolic Letter Octogesima
adveniens: AAS 63 (1971), 401—441.
12
Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus annus, 46: AAS 83 (1991);
Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor, 101: AAS 85 (1993), 1212—1213;
Discourse to the Italian Parliament, 5: L'Osservatore Romano (November 15,
2002).
13
Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, 22: AAS 87 (1995),
425—426.
14
Cf. Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 76.
15
Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 75.
16
Cf. Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 43 and 75.
17
Cf. Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 25.
18
Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 73.
19
Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, 73.
20
Ibid.
21
Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 75.
22
Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2304.
23
Cf. Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 76.
24
John Paul II, Message for the 1991 World Day of Peace: «If you want
peace, respect the conscience of every person», 4: AAS 83 (1991),
414—415.
25
John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles laici, 59.
26
Cf. John Paul II, Address to the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See:
L'Osservatore Romano (January 11, 2002).
27
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et ratio, 90: AAS 91 (1999), 75.
28
Cf. Second Vatican Council, Declaration Dignitatis humanae, 1: «This
Sacred Council begins by professing that God himself has made known to the
human race how men by serving him can be saved and reach the state of the
blessed. We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and
Apostolic Church». This does not lessen the sincere respect that the
Church has for the various religious traditions, recognizing in them
«elements of truth and goodness». See also, Second Vatican Council,
Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 16; Decree Ad gentes, 11; Declaration
Nostra aetate, 2; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 55: AAS
83 (1991), 302—304; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
Declaration Dominus Iesus, 2, 8, 21: AAS 92 (2000), 742—765.
29
Paul VI, Address to the Sacred College and to the Roman Prelature: in
Insegnamenti di Paolo VI, 14 (1976), 1088—1089.
30
Cf. Pius IX, Encyclical Letter Quanta cura: ASS 3 (1867), 162; Leo XIII,
Encyclical Letter Immortale Dei: ASS 18 (1885), 170—171; Pius XI,
Encyclical Letter Quas primas: AAS 17 (1925), 604—605; Catechism of the
Catholic Church, No. 2108; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
Declaration Dominus Iesus, 22.
31
Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 43; see also
John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles laici, 59.