Is it really morally superior to simply wash one's hands of the matter when presented with a situation where neither of two choices is really good and just let the chips fall where they may even though it will likely lead to the greater evil prevailing?
When a greater evil comes to pass, when you had a chance to at least try to limit the evil, do we really want to say that we did nothing to stop it, and then pridefully claim that our hands are clean as we pat ourselves on the back for how morally pure we are?
Tuesday, November 6, 2012, is election day. Part of living the faith -- everyday, in all aspects of our lives -- is the question of how to apply the truths of the faith, most especially the truths of the inherent dignity of the human person, in that part of civil society known as the political and electoral process. (See Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est 28-29)
Who should you vote for?
The Church will not tell you who to vote for. Instead, it calls you to have an adult faith, such that, as with all decisions in life, your ballot should be based upon a properly-formed good conscience and well-informed prudent judgment. However, it must be understood that conscience is not the same as one’s opinions or feelings, and one cannot choose or create his own conscience. That is not the conscience, that is the will. Rather, conscience is a judgment of reason in the application of objective moral truth to a particular case.
A major objective of the New Evangelization is to explain the faith more effectively, including correcting misconceptions and misunderstandings that might present obstacles to conversion and people fully accepting and living the Good News of Jesus Christ. And one enormous area of misunderstanding in the modern day is this concept of conscience, an error which has led many astray. The word "conscience" comes from the Latin "con-scientia," meaning "with knowledge."Knowledge of what? Knowledge of something other than our subjective selves, something that is beyond the self -- it is knowledge of objective and eternal truth, the "anamnesis" of the Creator who exhorts us to love in truth. Rightly understood, conscience is not the voice of self or the personal will, but is the voice of God within our hearts, our very souls; it is the light of objective moral truth which is given us so that we might make our way in the dark. (See Blessed Pope John Paul II, Dominum et Vivificantem 43, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship 17)
The task of conscience is not to create moral truth, but to perceive it and then apply it, not ignore it. In our perception of such moral truth, we are assisted by the Magisterium of the Church, by the Pope and bishops, who are in turn specially guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete promised to us by Jesus Christ. Thus, as Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman noted, a properly-formed good conscience cannot be one that is in contradiction with the teachings of the Church.
Prior to the obligation of conscience is the obligation to properly form one's conscience, or more specifically, "an actual conscience, conscience understood as a 'co-knowing' with the truth," in the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (before he became Pope Benedict) in his 1991 talk, Conscience and Truth. If we have a false, improperly-formed conscience, one that is not "with knowledge" of objective truth, but is instead one that is "with ignorance" of objective truth, including knowing contradiction with authoritative Church teaching, including those teachings on the inviolability of human life, then we cannot assert a right to follow it. The obligation to follow one’s conscience is an obligation to follow a good conscience, one that is "with knowledge" of transcendent objective truth, and not a bad or malformed counterfeit "conscience." Conscience is meant to accuse one of error in sin, not justify it, and conscience is most emphatically not a license to delude ourselves to truth so as to justify doing, facilitating, or participating in that which is intrinsically wrong or mala in se (evil in and of itself). One's "subjective conviction and the lack of doubts and scruples which follow therefrom" are not sufficient, explains Cardinal Ratzinger in Conscience and Truth, "it will not do to identify man's conscience with the self-consciousness of the I, with it subjective certainty about itself and its moral behavior," especially in a relativistic age when so many can no longer see moral fault and sin. (see also Blessed John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 24)
With this connection to transcendent objective moral truth, in all things, including when making electoral decisions, we have an obligation in conscience, written as law upon our hearts, to do the good and resist evil. (Gaudium et Spes 16) This obligation to follow a good conscience, properly formed in conformity with the teachings of the Church, does not restrict human freedom, but instead calls the person to genuine freedom in truth, for only in truth will one be set free. On the other hand, Cardinal Ratzinger continues in Conscience and Truth, "the identification of conscience with superficial consciousness, the reduction of man to his subjectivity, does not liberate but enslaves. It makes us totally dependent on the prevailing opinions and debases these with every passing day."
O Most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of Mercy, at this most critical time, we entrust the United States of America to your loving care.
Most Holy Mother, we beg you to reclaim this land for the glory of your Son. Overwhelmed with the burden of the sins of our nation, we cry to you from the depths of our hearts and seek refuge in your motherly protection.
Look down with mercy upon us and touch the hearts of our people. Open our minds to the great worth of human life and to the responsibilities that accompany human freedom.
Free us from the falsehoods that lead to the evil of abortion, other assaults on the truth of the fundamental dignity of the human person, and whicht threaten marriage, family life, and fundamental rights of conscience. Grant our country the wisdom to proclaim that God’s law of Love and Truth is the foundation on which this nation was founded, and that He alone is the True Source of our cherished rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
O Merciful Mother, give us the courage to reject the culture of death and the strength to build a new Culture of Life.
The people asked, "Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not? Should we pay or should we not pay?" . . . Jesus replied, "Give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar." (see Mark 12:14-17)
Catholic teaching has long held that, while one has an obligation in good conscience to resist if government seeks to compel you to do evil, one nevertheless has an obligation to pay taxes.
"Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country: 'Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.' (Rom 13:7)" CCC 2240
That being so, would it be moral if government were to impose a tax on being homeless as a remedy for ending homelessness? How about a tax on being hungry? Would it be moral to "eliminate" unemployment merely by mandating that everyone get a job and impose a tax on those who remain unemployed?
Is it within a government's rightful authority to not only to tax a person's goods and activities, but to tax his inactivity, to tax his liberty to be left alone? Is it within a government's rightful authority to go so far as to tax a person's misfortune, to tax the hungry for not buying food, to tax the homeless for not buying or renting a home, to tax the unemployed for not getting a job?
Before you object that such questions are completely absurd, let us add another example. It is said by some that there is a moral right to healthcare and that the large numbers of uninsured persons is a problem of moral dimensions. Setting aside the question of conflating in this way the provision of health care and treatment with the holding of a medical insurance policy, is it morally licit to address the problem of people lacking insurance by imposing a tax on them for that very lack of insurance?? Is it moral, under Catholic teaching, to impose a tax on the uninsured for merely being without insurance?
Again, before you object that such is a completely absurd proposition, know this -- the United States Supreme Court, per Chief Justice John Roberts, has just ruled that, whether it is moral or not, it is entirely permissible under the taxing power of the United States Constitution to impose a tax on the uninsured merely for being uninsured.
To be continued, i.e. application of the sophistry and exercise in relativism that is the Roberts Rule to the now "no contraceptive coverage tax," formerly known as the contraceptive mandate, and even worse things.
Remarks of Pope Benedict XVI Press Conference en route to Mexico 23 March 2012
The Church must always ask herself whether she is doing enough for social justice on this great continent. It is a question of conscience that we must always ask ourselves - what should the Church do, what can she not do, what should she not do?
The Church is not a political power, it is not a party - it is a moral entity, a moral power. In fact, politics should fundamentally be a moral reality. The Church must act along that fundamental track. So I will repeat what I said earlier: the first thought of the Church is to educate consciences and thus create the necessary responsibility. It must educate consciences in individual ethics as well as public ethics.
In this perhaps, there may well be a lack. One sees in Latin America and elsewhere, among not a few Catholics, a certain schizophrenia between individual and public morality... In the private sphere, they are believers, but in their public life, they follow other paths that do not correspond to the great evangelical values that are necessary for the foundation of a just society.
So the Church must educate to overcome this schizophrenia, educate not only towards an individual morality but towards a public morality, and we must seek to do this with the Social Doctrine of the Church. This public morality must be reasonable, shared and able to be shared even by non-believers, a morality of reason.
Of course, we, in the light of faith, can see many things better with reason. But faith also serves to liberate us from false interests. With the social doctrine, we can create substantial models that will help overcome these social divisions. It is for this that we must work hard. The important thing is a common rationality towards which the Church offers a fundamental contribution, and which must always help in educating consciences for individual responsibility as well as for public life.
Today, the Church celebrates the feast day of the humble shepherd children of Fatima, Blessed Francisco and Blessed Jacinta. Given the various many attacks on the Church and the Catholic Faith by government, most recently the assault on religious liberty and conscience by the Obama Administration, we need to remember what Our Lady told us at Fatima -- although the faithful will suffer, and the Church will be persecuted, her Immaculate Heart will triumph.
The Mission of Fatima Continues
On October 13, 1917, a reported 70,000 people were present for the "Miracle of the Sun" outside the small town of Fatima, Portugal, where a radiant Lady in white had appeared to three humble shepherd children. The Lady had spoken of the war then raging in Europe (World War I) and had warned of an even greater war to follow (World War II), and she asked that people pray for the conversion of Russia to prevent its errors (e.g. Communism) from being spread throughout the world. A third "secret" involved the suffering and shooting of a "bishop in white," who has since been interpreted as being the pope.
The world wars are over, the Soviet Union is no more, and Eastern Europe is free. Pope John Paul II was in fact shot on May 13, 1981, the anniversary of the first apparition, and he suffered greatly before his death. Now that so much of the prophetic message of Our Lady has come to fruition, does that mean that Fatima is now relegated to the past? Are those events and the message of Our Lady of Fatima now merely a historical curiosity? Or perhaps we ought to ask: What really is The Message of Fatima?
We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete. Here there takes on new life the plan of God which asks humanity from the beginning: "Where is your brother Abel . . . Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground!" (Gen 4:9). Mankind has succeeded in unleashing a cycle of death and terror, but failed in bringing it to an end... In sacred Scripture we often find that God seeks righteous men and women in order to save the city of man and he does the same here, in Fatima, when Our Lady asks: "Do you want to offer yourselves to God, to endure all the sufferings which he will send you, in an act of reparation for the sins by which he is offended and of supplication for the conversion of sinners?" (Memoirs of Sister Lúcia, I, 162).
At a time when the human family was ready to sacrifice all that was most sacred on the altar of the petty and selfish interests of nations, races, ideologies, groups and individuals, our Blessed Mother came from heaven, offering to implant in the hearts of all those who trust in her the Love of God burning in her own heart. At that time it was only to three children, yet the example of their lives spread and multiplied, especially as a result of the travels of the Pilgrim Virgin, in countless groups throughout the world dedicated to the cause of fraternal solidarity. May the seven years which separate us from the centenary of the apparitions hasten the fulfilment of the prophecy of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to the glory of the Most Holy Trinity.
What is The Message of Fatima? What is the ultimate message given to us, the ultimate meaning?
There is great hardship and suffering in the world. Yet, we do not despair because Jesus came to save us from death and destruction. We have hope. Not the "hope" of wishes and grasping at straws, but of trustworthy confidence and assured expectation of salvation. (Spe Salvi) But Jesus asks for our help in the work of salvation, which comes through the Cross. We are called to, among other things, pray for others, make a gift of self in love to others, and to help Him carry the Cross, taking upon ourselves what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ and suffering with Him. (Col 1:24).
The ultimate message of Fatima is this: Humanity will necessarily suffer great hardship in this world, but God has not abandoned us. The Lady in white, clothed as with the sun, asks us to help her Son in the work of salvation, including prayer, penance, and redemptive suffering, not merely for ourselves, but for the salvation of others, for their conversion away from sin to embracing holiness. The faithful will suffer and even be hated and persecuted, but all this is beatitude (Mt. 5:3-10). In the end, notwithstanding all of the great evils that are thrust upon us, her Immaculate Heart will triumph.
The Heart open to God, purified by contemplation of God, is stronger than guns and weapons of every kind. The fiat of Mary, the word of her heart, has changed the history of the world, because it brought the Saviour into the world — because, thanks to her Yes, God could become man in our world and remains so for all time.
The Evil One has power in this world, as we see and experience continually; he has power because our freedom continually lets itself be led away from God. But since God himself took a human heart and has thus steered human freedom towards what is good, the freedom to choose evil no longer has the last word. From that time forth, the word that prevails is this: “In the world you will have tribulation, but take heart; I have overcome the world” (Jn 16:33). The message of Fatima invites us to trust in this promise. (Theological Commentary on Fatima, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)
Evil will not have the last say, the good will prevail. "He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there shall be no more death or mourning, wailing or pain." (Rev. 21:1-8)
Ultimately, The Message of Fatima is hope.
___________________
Here is a really interesting documentary from Italy on Fatima --
THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God. . . .
There are cases which cannot be overdone by language, and this is one. There are persons, too, who see not the full extent of the evil which threatens them; they solace themselves with hopes that the enemy, if he succeed, will be merciful. It is the madness of folly, to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war; the cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf, and we ought to guard equally against both.
The word “Beatitudes,” is derived from “beati,” as used in the Latin Bible. This Latin word “beati” has been translated as “blessed,” but it also is sometimes translated as “happy.”
Hence, in the Beatitudes listed in Matthew 5:3-10, we read "Blessed are . . ." The Gospel according to Luke (6:20-26) lists certain Beatitudes as well, but it also includes various "woes," e.g. "who to you who are . . ."
Aside from the Beatitudes, in everyday usage, we might say that this person is blessed with this or because of that. And in recent days, we have heard prominent wealthy people suggest that, with respect to their wealth, they have been "blessed" to have so much, that their riches are a blessing. These prominent people have also gone on to suggest that because their wealth has been "given" to them, that because much has been given to them, much is demanded of them, such as paying more in taxes to the secular government. In this context of blessing and wealth having been "given" to them, the implication clearly is that it was given to them by God.
That is a rather curious theology for someone to say. (Even more curious since these very same people, while implying that wealth is a blessing that has been given to them by God, then go on to demonize the wealthy.) Indeed, this is quite the opposite of what the Lord Himself says. He does NOT say, "Blessed are the rich." To the contrary, He says, "Blessed are you who are poor" (Luke 6:20)("Blessed are the poor in spirit" in Mt. 5:3), and this is followed by the very explicit words, "woe to you who are rich" (Luke 6:24).
In other words, worldly riches are NOT a blessing or gift from God. In fact, being rich in material things often leads to one being "rich in spirit"; such worldly wealth puts one at risk, it creates the danger and temptation for the person to think that, since he has so much already, that he does not need God. To be placed in a position of believing that you do not need God is not a blessing. Rather, the truly blessed is the one who is "poor in spirit," who understands that he DOES need God, that he is dependent upon God, that only with God can he receive what is truly good.
God does ask quite a bit of those who are materially wealthy, but not because He's the one who gave them all their money and possessions. Rather, He asks this as a matter of love; He asks them, and all of us, to love one another -- to make the free and voluntary choice to make a gift of self to others. And He certainly does not demand that those individuals who are rich give over their money to an entity that is infinitely more wealthier than they are. Instead, Jesus says for the rich to give their wealth to people who are poorer (Mt. 19:21), to utilize their estates in such a fashion to help the poor themselves, rather than impersonally shifting the burden of helping the poor onto government.
One is not converted from a woeful rich by giving his money to Caesar, much less passively allowing his earnings to be withheld in taxes with no action on his part. It is only in such personal charity, from the Latin "caritas," it is only in such personal love and gift of self that one can be converted from a "woe" to a "blessed." Jesus did not say to the tax collector, "keep up the good work Matthew," but "follow me." (Mt. 9:9) It is only in the personal act of love that one can be poor in spirit, meek, merciful, pure of heart, and a peacemaker. .
Summer is a time when many things slow down, including politics and governmental activities. Yet, at the same time, it is also a patriotic season when we remember with gratitude the great legacy of a democratic republic given to us by our Founding Fathers. In this time of relative calm, I would like to address some issues regarding Catholicism, electoral politics and the public life, and invite you to reflect upon them.
The Catholic Church is not a political party nor does She endorse political parties or candidates. She does not take sides in elections and political debates as would an interest group or civil association. However, the Church does have a place in the public square, but Her place is unique. Her role is to inform public debate about the universal truths and principles of a just society rather than to make specific policies or to promote candidates for office. The Church serves as a conscience for civil society. The principles that the Church defends in public life are not strictly religious principles knowable only through supernatural revelation, but are derived from the natural law, which can be known by right reason. These natural law principles can be discussed by all people of good will who are open to rational discourse and truth. Thus, the Church reminds voters and those in public life of the law written in their hearts and of that law’s necessary role in maintaining an equitable and harmonious society.
Often, the way that the Church contributes to political debates is by drawing upon basic principles about human dignity and the common good. For example, in the debate over undocumented immigration in the United States, the Church reminds all involved to balance the rights of national sovereignty and legal borders with respect for the dignity of each person and family. She does not propose specific political solutions to the problem, but calls for those deliberating these policies to be guided by humane principles as they strive to do what is best.
While most issues debated in the public square are matters of prudential judgment, there are others that touch on intrinsic evil and thus require the Church in Her prophetic mission to take an absolute stand against them. In our age, these issues especially concern the respect for human life and the definition of marriage and family. It is always, and at all times, evil to willfully take an innocent human life, or to willfully assist someone in those acts. Therefore, witnessing to the truth, the Church must call for an end to all forms of abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research.
Another clear-cut truth is that marriage between a man and a woman is not a societal construct, but a reality that exists because of the nature inherent in each human person. Human beings did not invent or define marriage; therefore we should accept and live out the reality that truly exists. Life and marriage do not attain their meaning and dignity from government or even from a democratic vote, because they are more elemental than these institutions. Life, marriage and family exist first and then governments of various kinds gain their being from them. Governments are instituted to aid and protect life and the family — not to decide what they are. The Church resists all attempts to redefine these fundamental human realities and invites all to enter into a rational dialogue about the full meaning of these God-given realities.
As a communion of brothers and sisters in Christ, the Church enjoins all her members to embrace the fullness of the truth and to live in accord with it. Catholics are called to a unity of life in which they uphold the natural law through their personal relationships and their participation in the civil arena. They are to oppose intrinsic evil and to defend the good in the public square. A faithful Catholic should protect the unborn and the aged, and stand for the truth of marriage in his or her political life, whether he or she is a politician or a voter.
In a world that rejects such basic truths of life and existence, it is not surprising that Catholics, as adherents to the truth, have become targets of a new bigotry. This prejudice, born of a relativistic ethos which denies the existence of absolute truth, questions the capacity of Catholics to participate as societal leaders and rejects their views out-of-hand as religious and unreasonable. Bigotry is an unfounded prejudice that seeks to marginalize, discredit and exclude individuals because they belong to a particular group. There have certainly been attempts in politics to smear Catholics as unfit to lead because they profess their Faith in its fullness and to dismiss their positions without reasoned debate as irrational religious convictions. However, the governmental principles proposed by the Catholic Church in the public square are based on natural law which, as we have discussed, is known through reason. These attacks are often subtle and may not always be intentionally bigoted. Regardless of intent, however, they are an assault against the truth that seeks to prevent a real dialogue based on reason. This new bigotry is part of what our Holy Father has called the “dictatorship of relativism.” As Bishop of the Church of Arlington, I recognize the need to identify publicly this form of injustice and call for its cessation.
Sadly, there are some Catholics who have used these discriminatory attacks against their brothers and sisters in public life. This is neither charitable nor just and falls short of how a Catholic is called to treat others. As members of the Church, we need to challenge this bigotry when we see it in public life or hear it in private conversation. We need to challenge others who use these methods or agree with them. We must always challenge with kindness, and invite them to discuss these false assertions on the basis of reason. In this dialogue, we can help them discover the true basis of our convictions. In order to do this, we have to be prepared to defend our position with reasoned knowledge and a dispassionate discourse, free from rancor. Because of this obligation, all Catholics are to deepen continually their understanding of the Church’s social and moral teaching.
Each of us is called toward a unity of life. We must seek to understand the truth that the Church teaches and then to uphold that truth by the example of our lives. This witness, however, must be visible not only in our private lives, but also in our participation in the public square. As citizens, we have the privilege and the responsibility to protect the common good. This common good is a reality, which we seek to know in a deepened way through prayer and through reasoned discourse.
Today, June 22, is the feast day for St. Thomas More. Over at Cinema Catechism, we have posted clips from A Man for All Seasons, as well as some thoughts of Blessed John Paul II on St. Thomas.
Here, however, let us take up the address that Pope Benedict gave during his trip to Great Britain to various dignitaries in Westminster Hall, where St. Thomas was tried in 1535 and condemned of high treason for refusing to repudiate the Church. Before being put to death, he declared, "I die the king's good servant, but God's first."
As I speak to you in this historic setting, I think of the countless men and women down the centuries who have played their part in the momentous events that have taken place within these walls and have shaped the lives of many generations of Britons, and others besides. In particular, I recall the figure of Saint Thomas More, the great English scholar and statesman, who is admired by believers and non-believers alike for the integrity with which he followed his conscience, even at the cost of displeasing the sovereign whose “good servant” he was, because he chose to serve God first. The dilemma which faced More in those difficult times, the perennial question of the relationship between what is owed to Caesar and what is owed to God, allows me the opportunity to reflect with you briefly on the proper place of religious belief within the political process.
This country’s Parliamentary tradition owes much to the national instinct for moderation, to the desire to achieve a genuine balance between the legitimate claims of government and the rights of those subject to it. . . .
And yet the fundamental questions at stake in Thomas More’s trial continue to present themselves in ever-changing terms as new social conditions emerge. Each generation, as it seeks to advance the common good, must ask anew: what are the requirements that governments may reasonably impose upon citizens, and how far do they extend? By appeal to what authority can moral dilemmas be resolved?
These questions take us directly to the ethical foundations of civil discourse. If the moral principles underpinning the democratic process are themselves determined by nothing more solid than social consensus, then the fragility of the process becomes all too evident - herein lies the real challenge for democracy. . . .
Just as “every economic decision has a moral consequence” (Caritas in Veritate, 37), so too in the political field, the ethical dimension of policy has far-reaching consequences that no government can afford to ignore. A positive illustration of this is found in one of the British Parliament’s particularly notable achievements – the abolition of the slave trade. The campaign that led to this landmark legislation was built upon firm ethical principles, rooted in the natural law, and it has made a contribution to civilization of which this nation may be justly proud.
The central question at issue, then, is this: where is the ethical foundation for political choices to be found?
The Catholic tradition maintains that the objective norms governing right action are accessible to reason, prescinding from the content of revelation. According to this understanding, the role of religion in political debate is not so much to supply these norms, as if they could not be known by non-believers – still less to propose concrete political solutions, which would lie altogether outside the competence of religion – but rather to help purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles.
This “corrective” role of religion vis-à-vis reason is not always welcomed, though, partly because distorted forms of religion, such as sectarianism and fundamentalism, can be seen to create serious social problems themselves. And in their turn, these distortions of religion arise when insufficient attention is given to the purifying and structuring role of reason within religion. It is a two-way process. Without the corrective supplied by religion, though, reason too can fall prey to distortions, as when it is manipulated by ideology, or applied in a partial way that fails to take full account of the dignity of the human person. Such misuse of reason, after all, was what gave rise to the slave trade in the first place and to many other social evils, not least the totalitarian ideologies of the twentieth century.
This is why I would suggest that the world of reason and the world of faith – the world of secular rationality and the world of religious belief – need one another and should not be afraid to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good of our civilization.
Religion, in other words, is not a problem for legislators to solve, but a vital contributor to the national conversation. In this light, I cannot but voice my concern at the increasing marginalization of religion, particularly of Christianity, that is taking place in some quarters, even in nations which place a great emphasis on tolerance. There are those who would advocate that the voice of religion be silenced, or at least relegated to the purely private sphere. There are those who argue that the public celebration of festivals such as Christmas should be discouraged, in the questionable belief that it might somehow offend those of other religions or none. And there are those who argue – paradoxically with the intention of eliminating discrimination – that Christians in public roles should be required at times to act against their conscience.
These are worrying signs of a failure to appreciate not only the rights of believers to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, but also the legitimate role of religion in the public square. I would invite all of you, therefore, within your respective spheres of influence, to seek ways of promoting and encouraging dialogue between faith and reason at every level of national life. . . .
I am convinced that, within this country too, there are many areas in which the Church and the public authorities can work together for the good of citizens, in harmony with this Parliament’s historic practice of invoking the Spirit’s guidance upon those who seek to improve the conditions of all mankind. For such cooperation to be possible, religious bodies – including institutions linked to the Catholic Church – need to be free to act in accordance with their own principles and specific convictions based upon the faith and the official teaching of the Church. In this way, such basic rights as religious freedom, freedom of conscience and freedom of association are guaranteed.
The angels looking down on us from the magnificent ceiling of this ancient Hall remind us of the long tradition from which British Parliamentary democracy has evolved. They remind us that God is constantly watching over us to guide and protect us. And they summon us to acknowledge the vital contribution that religious belief has made and can continue to make to the life of the nation.
Mr Speaker, I thank you once again for this opportunity briefly to address this distinguished audience. Let me assure you and the Lord Speaker of my continued good wishes and prayers for you and for the fruitful work of both Houses of this ancient Parliament. Thank you and God bless you all!
We have a duty under the higher law, as a matter of good conscience, to oppose and resist the evils of today: the attacks, in thought and deed, on the instrinsic dignity, value, and sanctity of human life.
While people are rising up against oppressive government in the Middle East (and we hope and pray that it will lead to actual freedom, including religious freedom, in those countries and not greater oppression), stop by Cinema Catechism to learn about the Polish martyr priest, Blessed Father Jerzy Popiełuszko, who was murdered by the communist Polish secret police because of his support for the Solidarity freedom movement in the 1980s.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010, is election day. Although we are not of the world, we are in the world, and ours is a living faith, not something merely philosophical or academic that we take out once a week for an hour or so, and then put back in the closet, where the world thinks it belongs, unseen and unheard. Part of living the faith -- everyday, in all aspects of our lives -- is the question of how to apply the truths of the faith -- and the moral obligation to do so -- most especially the truths of the inherent dignity of the human person, in that part of civil society known as the political and electoral process.
The process of electing, of making choices, has been with us from the very beginning, when the man and the woman were put to the choice of (a) rejecting God and seeking power for themselves by eating the fruit or (b) choosing to embrace God, who is Love and Truth, and rejecting the lie of relativism.
Similarly, in elections today, we are faced with a choice -- do we choose (1) that which is most consistent with authentic love and truth or (2) that which we believe will lead to the most power or personal gain?
“Love God and love your neighbor.” That is what the Gospels and our own baptism call us to do in every situation. Whether at home, the office, the grocery store, the mall, or the movie theater, we make choices every day about how we live our faith.
Another arena where each of us is faced with the challenge of loving God and one another to the best of our ability is the public square. Participating in the political process is an integral part of who we are as people called to be faithful citizens – that is, Americans who practice civic virtue guided by their Catholic faith. But before engaging in such an important venture, we must first form our consciences thoughtfully, prayerfully, and correctly – just as an athlete practices thoroughly before entering an event. And the “venture” or “event” for which we are called to prepare ourselves is not merely the day of an election, although elections are certainly critical. Rather, exercising faithful citizenship means bringing our principles, guided by Gospel values, to bear on decisions that are shaped and made every day of every year.
Election Day
As bishops, we do not tell Catholics for whom to vote. Our role is to teach, and the upcoming Election Day (November 2) provides a “teaching moment” for us to reflect on timeless truths in a timely way. It is the duty of each individual voter to receive the Church’s moral and social teachings with an open mind and heart and to make decisions by applying those teachings.
Unfortunately, the decisions we all must make are in the context of a culture that does not fully embrace our values. Party platforms are far from perfect; most candidates do not agree with the Church on every issue; and a candidate may support some aspects of the Catholic moral framework but not others. There are so many issues that require our attention:
How can we build a culture of life when others propose abortion to deal with difficult pregnancies, euthanasia to address illness, embryo-destructive research to seek cures, and capital punishment to combat crime?
How can our economy create more jobs?
What assistance can be provided to people who cannot afford housing or health care?
How can we protect the institution of marriage against efforts to redefine it?
Can our nation’s broken immigration system be repaired?
What can governments do to help parents, as primary educators, offer their children the best educational options?
What are the best ways to achieve greater security and lasting peace in our region and our world?
Faced with these questions and so many more, it is essential to remember that not all issues have equal moral weight; we must be able to discern differences in moral gravity among them before we vote. While most issues debated in the public square are matters of prudential judgment about which people of goodwill can legitimately disagree (e.g., deciding on the best way to ensure access to health care), some practices permitted by government (and sometimes even funded with taxpayers’ money) are intrinsically evil – that is, always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. As the U.S. bishops’ statement Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship (www.faithfulcitizenship.org) makes clear, “[T]he moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions.”
Among acts that are intrinsically evil, those that directly attack life itself are the foremost threats to human dignity. The right to life is the foundation upon which all other human rights are based and without which no other right could possibly exist. Therefore, violations of this right are more serious than any other human rights violation. And sometimes these violations occur with almost unimaginable frequency. Such is the case with abortion, which extinguishes the lives of nearly 4,000 children per day (and well over one million per year) in the United States alone.
It follows, then, that protecting life to the maximum degree possible should be our highest consideration when we vote. Many issues deserve our careful attention. When the issue is whether to protect or deny the fundamental right to life, however, it outweighs other matters.
The other 364 days
Once we vote, we are not free to “leave the scene” until the following November. When it comes to exercising civic responsibility, voting is just the tip of the iceberg. No matter who gets into office, he or she will be making decisions that determine whether families thrive or struggle, whether individuals are respected or exploited, and even whether people live or die. We must take an active role in influencing these debates throughout the year, especially by letting those who represent us know how we want them to vote on legislation they are considering.
To highlight the baptismal responsibility we all share to advocate for just policies throughout the year, we have instituted a statewide “Advocacy Sunday” campaign to boost enrollment in the Virginia Catholic Conference Email Advocacy Network. In an August 30th letter we sent to all parishes in our two dioceses, we encouraged every parish to conduct a sign-up drive for the Conference’s network during the weekend of November 13-14.
This network provides alerts about key respect-life, social-justice, and education bills being considered by the Virginia General Assembly and the U.S. Congress and provides an easy way (in under a minute) for participants to email their legislators before they vote for or against these bills. The staff of our Conference has repeatedly found that these very simple constituent messages to their representatives’ offices play a decisive role in outcomes, especially on close votes. Over the last several years, contacts to elected officials made by users of the Conference’s network have restricted state abortion funding, excluded embryonic stem-cell research from new state biotechnology programs, thwarted death-penalty expansions, and preserved policies to protect the mission and values of religious institutions that serve those most in need.
These communications – from constituents to those who represent them – have truly saved lives and improved the quality of life for the poorest and most vulnerable. But imagine just how much could be accomplished if many more of the hundreds of thousands of registered parishioners in our two dioceses participated in the Conference’s network. Surely, we could much better build a culture of life in our Commonwealth, much better assist the poorest and most vulnerable in our midst, and much better enhance family life and educational opportunities for our state’s children.
We renew our appeal to every Virginia parish to conduct a sign-up drive to expand the Virginia Catholic Conference Email Advocacy Network the weekend of November 13-14. Many parishes have ordered postcards provided by the Conference for use in this “Advocacy Sunday” campaign. If your parish has not ordered these postcards (designed to make the sign-up process as easy and effective as possible), the Conference’s website (www.vacatholic.org) contains an order form, as well as other materials that were previously mailed to parishes to facilitate these campaigns. These resources can all be accessed via the “Materials for Sign-Up Campaign” link, and we highly encourage their use. During the Conference’s Catholic Advocacy Day on January 27 (see Events link at www.vacatholic.org), we will personally present awards to representatives of the parishes whose sign-up drives yielded the best outcomes.
We also encourage individuals to volunteer at their parishes to help make these drives successful. And if you are not currently enrolled in the Conference’s network, we invite you to sign up, either during an “Advocacy Sunday” drive at your parish or in advance by visiting the Conference’s website, clicking the “Join the Network!” icon, and completing the short electronic form. In addition, please consider inviting others to join. Are there family members, friends, or coworkers who would be interested in advocating for just policies to protect human life, enhance human dignity, and advance the common good?
Importance of Prayer
We conclude by emphasizing the importance of prayer in forming our consciences as we prepare to vote whenever elections are held and to advocate for just policies on all 365 days of the year. Prayer should be our solid foundation in these activities, just as it should be in all of our endeavors. By opening our minds and our hearts to the Lord in the Eucharist and in our daily prayer lives, we enable Him to mold and fashion us into the faithful citizens He calls us to be.
As together we seek to participate faithfully in the political process as voters, advocates, and followers of Christ, let us pray for each other, for our Commonwealth, and for our country.
Faithfully Yours in Christ,
Most Reverend Paul S. Loverde, Bishop of Arlington
Most Reverend Francis X. DiLorenzo, Bishop of Richmond
After meeting with the Queen yesterday, Pope Benedict gave an address today to British politicians and dignitaries, including four former Prime Ministers - Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, John Major, and Margaret Thatcher. The meeting was held in Westminster Hall, where St. Thomas More was tried in 1535 and condemned of high treason for refusing to repudiate the Church. Before being put to death, St. Thomas declared, "I die the king's good servant, but God's first."
Thank you for your words of welcome on behalf of this distinguished gathering. As I address you, I am conscious of the privilege afforded me to speak to the British people and their representatives in Westminster Hall, a building of unique significance in the civil and political history of the people of these islands. Allow me also to express my esteem for the Parliament which has existed on this site for centuries and which has had such a profound influence on the development of participative government among the nations, especially in the Commonwealth and the English-speaking world at large. Your common law tradition serves as the basis of legal systems in many parts of the world, and your particular vision of the respective rights and duties of the state and the individual, and of the separation of powers, remains an inspiration to many across the globe.
As I speak to you in this historic setting, I think of the countless men and women down the centuries who have played their part in the momentous events that have taken place within these walls and have shaped the lives of many generations of Britons, and others besides. In particular, I recall the figure of Saint Thomas More, the great English scholar and statesman, who is admired by believers and non-believers alike for the integrity with which he followed his conscience, even at the cost of displeasing the sovereign whose “good servant” he was, because he chose to serve God first. The dilemma which faced More in those difficult times, the perennial question of the relationship between what is owed to Caesar and what is owed to God, allows me the opportunity to reflect with you briefly on the proper place of religious belief within the political process.
This country’s Parliamentary tradition owes much to the national instinct for moderation, to the desire to achieve a genuine balance between the legitimate claims of government and the rights of those subject to it. While decisive steps have been taken at several points in your history to place limits on the exercise of power, the nation’s political institutions have been able to evolve with a remarkable degree of stability. In the process, Britain has emerged as a pluralist democracy which places great value on freedom of speech, freedom of political affiliation and respect for the rule of law, with a strong sense of the individual’s rights and duties, and of the equality of all citizens before the law. While couched in different language, Catholic social teaching has much in common with this approach, in its overriding concern to safeguard the unique dignity of every human person, created in the image and likeness of God, and in its emphasis on the duty of civil authority to foster the common good.
And yet the fundamental questions at stake in Thomas More’s trial continue to present themselves in ever-changing terms as new social conditions emerge. Each generation, as it seeks to advance the common good, must ask anew: what are the requirements that governments may reasonably impose upon citizens, and how far do they extend? By appeal to what authority can moral dilemmas be resolved?
These questions take us directly to the ethical foundations of civil discourse. If the moral principles underpinning the democratic process are themselves determined by nothing more solid than social consensus, then the fragility of the process becomes all too evident - herein lies the real challenge for democracy.
The inadequacy of pragmatic, short-term solutions to complex social and ethical problems has been illustrated all too clearly by the recent global financial crisis. There is widespread agreement that the lack of a solid ethical foundation for economic activity has contributed to the grave difficulties now being experienced by millions of people throughout the world. Just as “every economic decision has a moral consequence” (Caritas in Veritate, 37), so too in the political field, the ethical dimension of policy has far-reaching consequences that no government can afford to ignore. A positive illustration of this is found in one of the British Parliament’s particularly notable achievements – the abolition of the slave trade. The campaign that led to this landmark legislation was built upon firm ethical principles, rooted in the natural law, and it has made a contribution to civilization of which this nation may be justly proud.
The central question at issue, then, is this: where is the ethical foundation for political choices to be found?
The Catholic tradition maintains that the objective norms governing right action are accessible to reason, prescinding from the content of revelation. According to this understanding, the role of religion in political debate is not so much to supply these norms, as if they could not be known by non-believers – still less to propose concrete political solutions, which would lie altogether outside the competence of religion – but rather to help purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles.
This “corrective” role of religion vis-à-vis reason is not always welcomed, though, partly because distorted forms of religion, such as sectarianism and fundamentalism, can be seen to create serious social problems themselves. And in their turn, these distortions of religion arise when insufficient attention is given to the purifying and structuring role of reason within religion. It is a two-way process. Without the corrective supplied by religion, though, reason too can fall prey to distortions, as when it is manipulated by ideology, or applied in a partial way that fails to take full account of the dignity of the human person. Such misuse of reason, after all, was what gave rise to the slave trade in the first place and to many other social evils, not least the totalitarian ideologies of the twentieth century.
This is why I would suggest that the world of reason and the world of faith – the world of secular rationality and the world of religious belief – need one another and should not be afraid to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good of our civilization.
Religion, in other words, is not a problem for legislators to solve, but a vital contributor to the national conversation. In this light, I cannot but voice my concern at the increasing marginalization of religion, particularly of Christianity, that is taking place in some quarters, even in nations which place a great emphasis on tolerance. There are those who would advocate that the voice of religion be silenced, or at least relegated to the purely private sphere. There are those who argue that the public celebration of festivals such as Christmas should be discouraged, in the questionable belief that it might somehow offend those of other religions or none. And there are those who argue – paradoxically with the intention of eliminating discrimination – that Christians in public roles should be required at times to act against their conscience.
These are worrying signs of a failure to appreciate not only the rights of believers to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, but also the legitimate role of religion in the public square. I would invite all of you, therefore, within your respective spheres of influence, to seek ways of promoting and encouraging dialogue between faith and reason at every level of national life.
Your readiness to do so is already implied in the unprecedented invitation extended to me today. And it finds expression in the fields of concern in which your Government has been engaged with the Holy See. In the area of peace, there have been exchanges regarding the elaboration of an international arms trade treaty; regarding human rights, the Holy See and the United Kingdom have welcomed the spread of democracy, especially in the last sixty-five years; in the field of development, there has been collaboration on debt relief, fair trade and financing for development, particularly through the International Finance Facility, the International Immunization Bond, and the Advanced Market Commitment. The Holy See also looks forward to exploring with the United Kingdom new ways to promote environmental responsibility, to the benefit of all.
I also note that the present Government has committed the United Kingdom to devoting 0.7 percent of national income to development aid by 2013. In recent years it has been encouraging to witness the positive signs of a worldwide growth in solidarity towards the poor. But to turn this solidarity into effective action calls for fresh thinking that will improve life conditions in many important areas, such as food production, clean water, job creation, education, support to families, especially migrants, and basic healthcare. Where human lives are concerned, time is always short: yet the world has witnessed the vast resources that governments can draw upon to rescue financial institutions deemed “too big to fail.” Surely the integral human development of the world’s peoples is no less important: here is an enterprise, worthy of the world’s attention, that is truly “too big to fail.”
This overview of recent cooperation between the United Kingdom and the Holy See illustrates well how much progress has been made, in the years that have passed since the establishment of bilateral diplomatic relations, in promoting throughout the world the many core values that we share. I hope and pray that this relationship will continue to bear fruit, and that it will be mirrored in a growing acceptance of the need for dialogue and respect at every level of society between the world of reason and the world of faith.
I am convinced that, within this country too, there are many areas in which the Church and the public authorities can work together for the good of citizens, in harmony with this Parliament’s historic practice of invoking the Spirit’s guidance upon those who seek to improve the conditions of all mankind. For such cooperation to be possible, religious bodies – including institutions linked to the Catholic Church – need to be free to act in accordance with their own principles and specific convictions based upon the faith and the official teaching of the Church. In this way, such basic rights as religious freedom, freedom of conscience and freedom of association are guaranteed.
The angels looking down on us from the magnificent ceiling of this ancient Hall remind us of the long tradition from which British Parliamentary democracy has evolved. They remind us that God is constantly watching over us to guide and protect us. And they summon us to acknowledge the vital contribution that religious belief has made and can continue to make to the life of the nation.
Mr Speaker, I thank you once again for this opportunity briefly to address this distinguished audience. Let me assure you and the Lord Speaker of my continued good wishes and prayers for you and for the fruitful work of both Houses of this ancient Parliament. Thank you and God bless you all!
• Original material Copyright 2006-2024 inclusive.
• This is a nonprofit site that is operated for educational purposes, including comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and/or research. Any excerpted material for which a valid copyright might be claimed is used by permission or under the fair use doctrine or other exceptions to copyright law or other legal authority.
Some Catholic guy commonly known around the Internet as Bender. A lowly servant who happens to be certified as a Master Catechist from the Diocese of Arlington.
