My earlier post on the the Gospel of Life prompted a second friend to pose this question:
But the question is on what grounds a Roman Catholic believes his or her position on, say, contraception must be implemented in public policy. I don't eat pork or shellfish, and don't eat milk and meat together, or unkosher meat, but I can't imagine making a law forbidding someone else from doing it. Now, to some extent, that is a difference between Judaism and Catholicism: the bright side of Jewish particularism is that we don't think that everyone has to be Jewish (we aren't sadists, after all). I would never in the world demand that someone use an IUD; I can't imagine conversely that someone be denied the right to use one, either.
So is there any place under which a Catholic would say, "this is my belief, but I would not insist that this be implemented as public policy"? Where do Catholics draw that line?
Another very fair question.
The Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life acknowledges that, as to many issues, "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." (§3) It further recognizes that "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. 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." (Ibid)
The Note reminds us that Saint Pope John Paul II 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.” (§6)
Accordingly, setting aside the claims of Catholic Integralists, “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.” (§6)
With respect to the vast majority of political disputes, the ordinary Magisterium at most expresses “a prudential judgment on a matter about which different conclusions are permissible.”[1] In these situations, as Saint John Paul II has stated, the “church has no models to present.” (Centesimus Annus § 43)
But there are limits: In a relatively small number of cases, the “magisterium proposes something as binding on the consciences of all Catholics.”[2]
"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." (§4) In these (few) cases, the Church does believe that the civil law ought to accord with moral law. Hence, speaking of the duties of lawmakers, the Note explains that: “For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.” (Ibid.)
Even in those areas, however, the Church is pragmatic: “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.” (§4)
In thinking about all of this, it often strikes me that, with few exceptions, such as abortion, murder, suicide, euthanasia, the death penalty, and so on, the Church mainly gives broad guidance rather than detailed policies.
If it thus seems as though the Church is unwilling to draw a bright line answer to my friend’s question, perhaps it is because the Church must navigate between Scylla and Charybdis. As prominent Vatican observer John Allen wrote:
On the one hand, it's fully legitimate to expect someone who calls him or herself “Catholic” to take the faith seriously in terms of public choices. At the same time, moral calculations in prudential circumstances are not the direct competence of Church authorities. It is a maddening dilemma: to one side lies the danger of clericalism, to the other assimilation of fecklessness. How to strike the right balance is perhaps the most pressing question facing the American church with regard to its engagement in public life.[3]
In any event, these are topics on which far smarter folks than I have written a small mountain of books and scholarly articles. I urge you to go forth and explore.
