|
|
|
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. Suggested
Readings: CCC 407, 1878-1986, 2210-2213, 2234-2257, 2265-2267, 2273,
2302-2317. Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the
Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, especially 23-32, 73-90. Pius XII, On the
Function of the State in the Modern World, Summi Pontificatus. John XXIII,
Peace on Earth, Pacem in Terris. John Paul II, On Social Concerns,
Sollicitudo Rei Socialis; The Hundredth Year, Centesimus Annus. St.
Augustine, City of God, Bks. II, 21-22, IV-VIII, XIV, 1-4, 11-15, 28, XIX;
Letters 91 and 138. St. Thomas Aquinas, On Kingship to the King of Cyprus,
Bk. I; Summa Theologiae, I-I, 90-97, 100, 105, 1, II-II, 47, 50 (on
prudence), 57-58 (on right and justice). Mary
M. Keys Russell
Shaw. Our Sunday Visitor's Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine. Copyright ©
1997, Our Sunday Visitor.
For any
inquiries or comment, you may contact the WEBMASTER
|
