What is the
Centrist Philosophy of Voice on Choice ?
… abortion, euthanasia
and gay marriage must be opposed by Catholics in public life.
Dr.
James Muller wants to reform the Catholic church.
He
wants to see the The
Church’s “ stand on contraception revised “.
(
From VOTF web site : statement made at St John The Evangelist ,Wellesley ,Ma.,
March 2002 }
James Muller is Chairman of VOTF's Board
of Trustees )
Tom Daschle's Duty to Be Morally Coherent J. Bottum 04/17/2003
The
Senate minority leader is ordered to stop calling himself a Catholic by Bishop
Robert Carlson
.. public figures who aren't going to oppose abortion shouldn't call themselves Catholic anymore.
J.
Bottum, Books & Arts editor
TOM
DASCHLE may no longer call himself a Catholic. The Senate minority leader and
the highest ranking Democrat in Washington has been sent a letter by his home
diocese of Sioux Falls, sources in South Dakota have told The Weekly Standard,
directing him to remove from his congressional biography and campaign documents
all references to his standing as a member of the Catholic Church.
This
isn't exactly excommunication--which is unnecessary, in any case, since Daschle
made himself ineligible for communion almost 20 years ago with his divorce and
remarriage to a Washington lobbyist. The directive from Sioux Falls' Bishop Robert Carlson
is
rather something less than excommunication--and, at the same time, something
more: a declaration that Tom Daschle's religious identification constitutes, in
technical Catholic vocabulary, a grave public scandal. He was brought up as a
Catholic, and he may still be in some sort of genuine mental and spiritual
relation to the Church. Who besides his confessor could say? But Daschle's
consistent political opposition to Catholic teachings on moral
issues--abortion, in particular--has made him such a problem for ordinary
churchgoers that the Church must deny him the use of the word
"Catholic."
Much
of the discussion about Daschle's standing has gone on in private over the last
few years, although Bishop Carlson and Senator Daschle had a very public spat
about partial-birth abortion in 1997. During the run-up to a Senate vote on the
issue, Daschle proposed what he called a "compromise," banning the
procedure while allowing exemptions for any woman who claimed mental or
physical health reasons for having such a late-term procedure. Pointing out the
way the exemptions gutted the ban, Carlson called Daschle's proposed compromise
a "smokescreen" designed solely to "provide cover for
pro-abortion senators and President Clinton, who wanted to avoid a veto
confrontation."
Daschle,
in turn, rose on the floor of the Senate in Washington to denounce his own
bishop back in South Dakota for speaking in a way "more identified with
the radical right than with thoughtful religious leadership." Carlson
later told the Sioux Falls Argus Leader that he remains mystified by Daschle's
position on abortion. "NARAL claims him as one of their number-one supporters.
I don't understand how he can be in touch with South Dakotans as much as he is,
and yet consistently have a pro-abortion record."
This
year, on January 16, Bishop Carlson received additional ammunition for his
discussions with Daschle when Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's office, the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued in Rome a "Doctrinal
Note" on Catholics in political life. "A well-formed Christian
conscience," the note declared, "does not permit one to vote for a
political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental
contents of faith and morals."
The
Doctrinal Note marks at least the beginning of the end of the Vatican's
toleration of what the pope's biographer George Weigel has called "Cuomoism" in the
American Church: the effort to finesse abortion by declaring oneself personally
opposed but politically supportive of laws allowing abortion. Catholics have a
"duty to be morally coherent," the Doctrinal Note declares, and the
Catholic fight on the life issues--abortion, euthanasia, and cloning--is not
some merely prudential question, to be decided by political give and take. The
Catholic Church doesn't take political positions--except when politics intrudes
into something, like the right to life, that ought to be beyond the power of
politicians.
Bishop
William Weigand of Sacramento was the first American bishop to use the new note
from Rome. At a pro-life Mass on January 22, he spoke of California Governor
Gray Davis's claim to be a "pro-choice Catholic." After describing
the efforts by Davis's pastor to get the governor to see the moral incoherence
of his position, Weigand declared, "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. 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." (Russ Lopez, a spokesman
for Davis, responded with the hilarious and deeply revealing complaint that
Bishop Weigand was "telling the faithful how to practice their
faith." In Lopez's mind--as, indeed, in the minds of many--the promise of
the separation of Church and state, in which no political figure gets to tell
believers how to practice their faith, has turned into a need for the
separation of Church and Church, in which not even a religious figure gets to
tell believers how to practice their faith.)
There's
quite a list of pro-abortion Catholics in Washington--beginning with Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic minority
leader in the House--who could use similar instruction in "the duty to be
morally coherent." Just in the Senate, there's Biden, Collins,
Daschle, Dodd, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Landrieu, Leahy, Mikulski, Murray, Reed,
and
more. But at least Tom Daschle has now been forced by Bishop Carlson to assume
some responsibility for moral coherence--even if it is, unfortunately, a coherence
achieved in the wrong direction.
The
diocese in Sioux Falls would not say what brought the issue of Tom Daschle's
Catholicism to a head at this moment, although one South Dakotan suggested it
may have to do with Daschle's crossing of yet another line recently when he
began direct fund-raising for NARAL. Senator Daschle's office has not yet
responded to a request for comment. It's a serious thing when a bishop breaks a
pastoral relation, no matter how tenuous that relation may have grown. But Bishop
Carlson is right that the time has come to banish Cuomoism from American politics. This isn't a matter
of favoring Republicans or Democrats. Regardless of their party, public figures
who aren't going to oppose abortion shouldn't call themselves Catholic anymore.
A
native of South Dakota, J. Bottum is Books & Arts editor of the Weekly
Standard.
Kerry Rejects Vatican Politician Criteria
Senator Says He Can't Be Bound By Doctrine
WASHINGTON
-- One of the Democratic presidential hopefuls is rejecting the Vatican's new
guidelines for Roman Catholic politicians.
The document approved by Pope John Paul
II declares that Catholic politicians must oppose abortion, euthanasia and gay
marriage.
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry says that "as a
Catholic" he has "enormous respect for the words and teachings of the
Vatican." But Kerry says that to "represent all the people" he can't
be bound by church doctrine. Kerry's statement says that's part of President
Kennedy's "lasting legacy."
But the Vatican says abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage
so violate church teachings, they must be opposed by Catholics in public life.
Below
Articles from
Crisis
Magazine
Catholic
World Report
And
the complete text of
The Vatican Statement on Catholic
Politicians' Duties
From
Crisis Magazine
No,
golf has not been made the national past time (but a fair guess). I'm talking
about
the Vatican's release of the "Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding
the
Participation of Catholics in Political Life." And believe me, this is
some
note.
As
Americans, we've all been the unfortunate witnesses of so-called
"Catholic"
politicians
who pander to voters, playing up their church affiliation to gain
support,
only to conveniently set their religious convictions aside once elected.
It's
the same tired excuse every time: "Well, I'm personally against X, but as
a
politician
in the public sphere, I have an obligation not to impose my views on
others."
Not
so, says the Vatican. In fact, this new document says just the opposite.
Quoting
from John Paul II's Evangelium vitae, it states 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."
That
seems pretty clear to me: Catholic politicians need to act like Catholics.
But
the document doesn't stop at the obligation of Catholic lawmakers. The laity
is
also reproached for not voting their Christian conscience: "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."
Groups
like Catholics for a Free Choice will be disappointed to hear that
"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...[are] in contradiction
to
basic principles of Christian conscience [and] are not compatible with
membership
in organizations or associations which define themselves as Catholic."
(Frances
Kissling, call your office.)
Even
Catholic publications are given a stern reprimand for "express[ing]
perspectives
on political choices that have been ambiguous or incorrect." In
short,
no one is off the hook.
I
can already hear the complaints. "But what about my duty to respect my
conscience?"
There
are a couple of answers to that. First of all, it's true, we're bound to
follow
our conscience. However -- and this is essential -- our conscience MUST be
properly
formed. People who disagree with the Church's teachings tend to do so
out
of hand without first trying to understand those teachings. That's not
following
your conscience, that's following your will.
But
the Vatican has more to say about our obligation to follow our conscience.
"[T]he
right to freedom of conscience and, in a special way, to religious
freedom...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."
In
other words, our conscience is free insofar as humans are free, and we must
make
our own choices. However, that doesn't mean that all choices are equally
good,
and we're still responsible for weighing these choices very carefully
against
the teachings of the Church -- accepting the consequences of that
decision.
Others
may argue that the arena of politics is no place for religion. Senator
(and
presidential hopeful) John Kerry of Massachusetts seems to think so. In his
polite
rejection of the Vatican's statement, Kerry has explained that to
"'represent
all the people' he can't be bound by church doctrine."
Kerry
misses the point on so many levels that it's hard to know where to begin.
As
a Catholic, he IS bound by Church doctrine, not by the laws of a democracy
that
is only of "human creation." His responsibility to the Faith must
always
come
first, or he simply isn't living that Faith.
And
the Vatican makes another important point: This isn't a simple case of
religion
vs. politics. The Church fully understands the need to keep these
institutions
separate. However, the Church also teaches absolute truths that have
nothing
to do with mere denominations or institutions -- the sanctity of human
life
being one of them:
"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."
And
later...
"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."
In
short, moral relativism is no virtue. These are truths that, while taught by
the
Church, are not exclusive to Catholicism. Nor are they capable of existing
independent
of our political lives.
Still,
others may groan that the Church is simply trying to force some kind of
political
agenda on its members. But this just isn't so. While the document
states
very plainly that abortion, euthanasia, and homosexual unions can never be
supported,
it lists other goals -- education for children, social justice, and
peace
-- that it doesn't make any prescriptions for. While these are ends we must
always
work for, the document doesn't force Catholics to accept any one way of
achieving
those goals.
"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,"
the
document says. "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."
The
Church doesn't force us to accept a particular position on welfare reform,
immigration,
or education -- the details of these "temporal questions" are left
up
to us. However, some of these questions are beyond dispute -- such as abortion
and
euthanasia -- and the Church is right to remind us of our primary duty to the
moral
law, not just the law of the land.
In
a time when both clergy and laity are losing sight of their responsibilities
as
Catholics, it certainly is refreshing to hear a clear voice give us such an
indisputable
guide to living -- and voting -- faithfully. I'd really encourage
you
to read Ratzinger's piece yourself. It's actually pretty short, but it packs
a
lot of great information. You can see the full document on Zenit's Web site at
www.zenit.org.
Let's
hope the Governor Granholms and Senator Kerrys of this country will give it
a
closer look.
Best,
Deal
mailto:Comments@FaithfulVoice.com
Catholic
World News
CWNews
DAILY NEWS BRIEF for JANUARY 16, 2003
©
Copyright 2003 Domus Enterprises
Strong
Vatican Document on Catholic Political Responsibilities
VATICAN,
Jan 16, 03 (CWNews.com) -- In a strongly worded new document on the political
responsibilities of the Catholic faithful, the Vatican has emphasized that
believers can never legitimately give their support to policies that violate
fundamental moral principles or the natural law.
The
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has released a 15-page
"note" on civic responsibilities, addressed especially to Catholics
engaged in public life. The document, entitled "On Some Questions
Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life," is signed by
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, the prefect and
secretary, respectively, of that Congregation. It was made public on January 16
with the approval of Pope John Paul II.
The
Note stresses that Catholic citizens are free to follow their own judgment on
political issues, and that the Church does not become involved in partisan
politics. At the same time, the Congregation notes, a faithful Catholic cannot
support initiatives that violate the dignity of human life; nor can a Catholic
in good conscience support a political initiative, party, or movement that is
incompatible with the moral teachings of the Church.
"A
kind of cultural relativism exists today, evident in the conceptualization and
defense of an ethical pluralism, which sanctions the decadence and
disintegration of reason and the principles of the natural moral law," the
Vatican document observes.
Rejecting
that relativistic approach, the document says: "Democracy must be based on
the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are
the underpinning of life in society." The Note argues that the bloody
history of the 20th century illustrates the dangers of ideology that is
stripped of moral principles.
In
public life, the Vatican document states, Catholics have the "legitimate
freedom" to pursue any policy that is "compatible with the faith and
the natural moral law." Thus different Catholic activists might pursue
radically different approaches to various public issues.
However,
there are some issues on which a Christian cannot compromise his moral
principles, the Note observes. The Church does not dictate the political
preferences of the faithful, but the magisterium does seek to form the
consciences of believers, so that they recognize the unchanging principles of
moral law. The document continues: "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."
Among
the moral principles that Catholics must always defend in public life, the Note
lists the right to life "from conception to natural death," the
"rights of the human embryo," and the rights of the family. In regard
to family rights, the document explicitly states that "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
Note goes on to cite other moral principles that Catholics should always
defend, including the right of parents to educate their children, the right to
freedom of conscience and of worship, and the general principles of solidarity
and subsidiarity. The Note points out that Christians are always obliged to
work for justice and peace, and to reject terrorism. In setting forth these
principles, the Vatican document observes, the Church is not engaged in any
sectarian political effort. The truths of natural law are accessible to everyone,
not exclusively to the Catholic Church. The Note argues: " 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." The Vatican document condemns the
"intolerant secularism" that seeks to remove any trace of religious
or moral beliefs from public discussion of political issues.
The
Vatican document acknowledges that some Catholic politicians and Catholic institutions
have, in recent years, given their support "to political forces or
movements with positions contrary to the moral and social teaching of the
Church on fundamental ethical questions." The Note flatly states that such
support is unjustifiable.
Although
it was published on January 16, the Note was formally signed on November 24,
2002-- the feast of Christ the King.
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.
Return to FaithfulVoice.com
main page
