|
|
|
Politics |
|
One of the distinctive marks of the Christian religion is its essentially transpolitical character. Unlike Islam or Judaism, Christian Revelation does not call for the establishment of any particular regime or form of government, nor for any special code of civil laws and customs (cf. Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, 76, and CCC 2245). The New Law of Christ is above all a matter of grace, which transforms a person from within. Hence, from the beginnings of the Church to the present, Christians have lived in the most diverse sorts of political societies, with their distinct forms of organization and characteristic ways of life. They have done so, mindful of Christ’s command to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mk 12:17; cf. Mt 22:21, Lk 20:25). Political life is necessary and, at its best, noble, for Christians as for all human beings. And yet it must not be forgotten that “political options are by nature contingent and never in an entirely adequate way interpret the Gospel. . . . In particular, a political party can never be identified with the Gospel, and therefore, unlike the Gospel, it can never become an object of absolute loyalty” (Pope John Paul II, address, July 28, 1993; published as “Priests Do Not Have a Political Mission,” L’Osservatore Romano, English edition, August 4 and August 11, 1993). The Letter to Diognetus, a Christian document of the second century, expresses the situation this way: “Christians are indistinguishable from other men either by nationality, language, or customs. They do not inhabit separate cities of their own, or speak a strange dialect, or follow some outlandish way of life. . . . With regard to dress, food and manner of life in general, they follow the customs of whatever city they happen to be living in, whether it is Greek or foreign. And yet there is something extraordinary about their lives. They live in their own countries as though they were only passing through. They play their full role as citizens, but labor under all the disabilities of aliens. Any country can be their homeland, but for them, their homeland, wherever it may be, is a foreign country. Like others, they marry and have children, but they do not expose them. They share their meals, but not their wives. They live in the flesh, but they are not governed by the desires of the flesh. They pass their days upon the earth, but they are citizens of heaven. Obedient to the laws, they yet live on a level that transcends the law. . . . So noble is the position that God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it” (5, 6). As this shows, the transpolitical character of Christianity should not be interpreted as apolitical or antipolitical. The great commandment of love has practical consequences; the “kingdom not of this world” cannot ordinarily be attained without striving to live this commandment to the full in this world. And in this world we are made to live not as isolated individuals, but as members of various communities, from the family up through political society and the universal human community. Hence the Catechism of the Catholic Church treats political life, broadly speaking, under the headings “The Human Community” and “You Shall Love Your Neighbor As Yourself.” And these topics in turn merit inclusion in the Catechism as integral parts of our “Life in Christ” (Pt. Three). It is true that Christ himself shunned all involvement in political affairs. The core of his Messianic mission was to free Israel, and indeed all humanity, from bondage to sin and death, not to solve socioeconomic problems nor even to liberate the chosen people from the yoke of Roman domination. And yet his teaching is not without important implications for political life. As Pope John Paul II has explained: “[Christ] did teach a doctrine and formulate precepts that shed light not only on the life of individuals but also on that of society. In particular, Jesus formulated the precept of mutual love, which implies respect for every person and his rights; it implies rules of social justice aiming at recognizing what is each person’s due and at harmoniously sharing earthly goods among individuals, families and groups. In addition, Jesus stressed the universal quality of love, above and beyond the differences of race and nationality constituting humanity. It could be said that in calling himself the ‘Son of Man,’ he wanted to state, by the very way he presented his messianic identity, that his work was meant for every human person, without discrimination of class, language, culture, or ethnic and social group. Proclaiming peace for his disciples and for all people, Jesus laid the foundation for the precept of fraternal love, solidarity and reciprocal help on a universal scale. For him this clearly was and is the aim and principle of good politics” (“Priests Do Not Have a Political Mission,” L’Osservatore Romano). Church Teaching About Politics • To understand the Church’s teaching about politics, one must first be familiar with her teaching about the human person, a substantial unity of body and soul, hence possessed of reason and will. Catholic social teaching begins from the premise, rooted in both reason and Revelation, that human beings are by their very nature social creatures. To achieve their specific perfection and to reach happiness, humans must under normal circumstances participate in common goods that transcend in some way their purely individual well-being and that are made possible only by life in society. The societies most properly corresponding to the needs of human nature are, first, the family and then the political community, characterized by the pursuit of justice and the good life for its citizens. The Second Vatican Council sums up the nature and utility of political life as follows: “Individuals, families, and the various groups which make up the civil community are aware of their inability to achieve a truly human life by their own unaided efforts; they see the need for a wider community where each one will make a specific contribution to an even broader implementation of the common good. For this reason they set up various forms of political communities. The political community, then, exists for the common good: This is its full justification and meaning and the source of its specific and basic right to exist. The common good embraces the sum total of all those conditions of social life which enable individuals, families, and organizations to achieve complete and efficacious fulfillment” (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, 74; cf. Pope John XXIII, encyclical Peace on Earth, Pacem in Terris, 53-58 [1963]). This notion of the common good as the end of political life derives especially from the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, who in turn built upon its use by Aristotle and others. St. Augustine, in a famous passage of his City of God (Bk. XIX), sets forth peace – “the tranquility of order,” rather than the mere absence of war or strife – as the goal of political life and indeed of human life in general. Augustine’s understanding of peace has much in common with Aquinas’s notion of common good: On the political plane, both depend upon justice and civic friendship. Moreover, both evoke a harmonious arrangement or ordering of a rich variety of persons and activities, in such a way as to foster the well-being of all rather than catering to the private satisfaction of a few. In order for the pursuit of peace and the common good to be truly effective, a political community requires both a responsible citizenry and competent authority. This civil or political authority may be vested in laws, institutions, and individuals. Its mission is to foster justice and the flourishing of the people it serves, and consequently to repress those vices most damaging to social life. To guard against abuse of authority, it is prudent that decisions be made for the most part according to law, rather than left to the unlimited discretion of individuals who may be swayed by passion or desire for personal gain. In the context of modern political life, this “rule of law” usually goes hand-in-hand with some system of checks and balances, where each power (legislative, executive, judicial) is “balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within its proper bounds” (Pope John Paul II, encyclical The Hundredth Year, Centesimus Annus, 44 [1991]; CCC 1904). Nonetheless, ultimately it is human beings who make and administer the laws, set policy, and decide cases to which laws on the books do not apply. Hence not even the best set of laws and institutions suffices to render dispensable personal virtue on the part of the governed and especially the governors. Participation in Political Life • Political leadership, indeed public service in all its forms, is an especially noble pursuit, one that demands practical wisdom and upright intention with a view to the common good. The Second Vatican Council teaches that “[t]hose with a talent for the difficult yet noble art of politics, or whose talents in this matter can be developed, should prepare themselves for it, and, forgetting their own convenience and material interests, they should engage in political activity. They must combat injustice and oppression, arbitrary domination and intolerance by individuals or political parties, and they must do so with integrity and wisdom. They must dedicate themselves to the welfare of all in a spirit of sincerity and fairness, of love and of the courage demanded by political life” (Gaudium et Spes, 75). An important aspect of this courage is the fortitude to abide by the moral law, even at the cost of unpopularity or inefficiency. Participation in political life ought to elevate a person’s existence, “helping him greatly in fulfilling his calling (even his religious calling).” But it would be naïve to deny that political regimes often foster a social environment in which the human person is “turned away from the good and urged to evil” (Gaudium et Spes, 25). The Church therefore reminds citizens and rulers alike “that the common good touches the whole man, the needs both of his body and of his soul. Hence it follows that the civil authorities must undertake to effect the common good by ways and means that are proper to them. That is, while respecting the hierarchy of values, they should promote simultaneously both the material and the spiritual welfare of the citizens.” Human beings, “composed . . . of bodies and immortal souls, can never in this mortal life succeed in satisfying all their needs or in attaining perfect happiness. Therefore all efforts made to promote the common good, far from endangering the eternal salvation of men, ought rather to serve to advance it” (Pacem in Terris, 57, 59).
Thus far we have focused our attention on political life within a single community, its members bound together by ties of history, language, and culture as well as by a common code of laws and set of institutions. As important as these ties are, our common human nature, with its common origin and end in God, gives rise to duties that transcend the boundaries of individual nations. We are members not just of a particular society, but also of the international community, with the corresponding obligation to contribute insofar as possible to the universal common good.
On the macro level, nations, too, are obliged to act with justice toward one another and to bear in mind the good of all when formulating policy. Otherwise, as so often happens, patriotism degenerates into collective selfishness. Even efforts to foster one nation’s good may become means to facilitate the exploitation of outsiders. St. Augustine unmasks this hypocrisy with an amusing analogy: “Without justice, what are kingdoms but great robber bands? What are robber bands but small kingdoms? The band is itself made up of men, is ruled by the command of a leader, and is held together by a social pact. Plunder is divided in accordance with agreed-upon law. If this evil increases by the inclusion of dissolute men to the extent that it takes over territory, establishes headquarters, occupies cities, and subdues peoples, it publicly assumes the title of kingdom! This title is manifestly conferred on it, not because greed has been removed, but because impunity has been added. A fitting and true response was once given to Alexander the Great by an apprehended pirate. When asked by the king what he thought he was doing by infesting the sea, he replied with noble insolence, ‘What do you think you are doing by infesting the whole world? Because I do it with one puny boat, I am called a pirate; because you do it with a great fleet, you are called an emperor’ ” (City of God, IV, 4). With a view to meeting the needs of the international community in an age of increasing interdependence, recent documents of the Magisterium have encouraged the establishment of an effective global authority. This authority would need to respect the principle of subsidiarity, not seeking to usurp the proper roles of individual communities and their authorities, but focusing on problems beyond the scope of individual states (cf. Pacem in Terris, 80-145; Gaudium et Spes, 77-90; Pope John Paul II, encyclical On Social Concerns, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis [1987]). Subsidiarity is also of great importance within political society proper. In carrying out its service to the common good, government should facilitate rather than absorb the proper functions of persons, families, and smaller associations. Catholic teaching on politics thus opposes individualism and emphasizes the common good, while emphatically rejecting all forms of collectivism or totalitarianism. Such regimes crush the human spirit, impeding the integral human development that is the ultimate goal and justification of political life. See: Authority; Cardinal Virtues; Church and State; Citizenship; Civil Disobedience; Civil Law; Common Good; Family; Human Goods; Human Person; Interdependence; Property; Religious Liberty; Revolution; Social Doctrine; Social Justice; Subsidiarity; Thomas Aquinas, Thought of. |
|
|
|
|
