More Deus, More Caritas

At Mirror of Justice, Greg Sisk with an extended post on what Benedict has to say about the role of the Church in public life:

In emphasizing the proper role of the Church in the awakening and formation of conscience, while insisting the the Church must not enter into the “political battle” that remains instead the separate vocation of the laity, Pope Benedict XVI’s words have been portrayed by some as a departure from the public witness of his predecessor. After all, John Paul II addressed civil authorities regularly with boldness and spoke with prophetic directness on issues of human rights, pointedly including the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.

I submit that these observers both have misread Benedict XVI as foreshadowing something of a withdrawal by the Church on direct engagement with civil regimes on basic matters of human rights (including sanctity of life issues) and have misunderstood the non-political nature of John Paul II in his forthrightly religious witness in the public square. In other words, I see in his first encyclical a steady continuity by Benedict XVI with John Paul II in the understanding of the appropriate role of the Catholic Church when it encounters the temporal civil order. John Paul II confronted tyranny in many areas of the world and the self-centered idolatries in our corner of the globe by speaking the truth plainly and by encouraging an evangelical spirit that would transform societies by first bringing spiritual renewal to the people. But John Paul II eschewed direct political involvement by the Church or its clery, particularly that of a partisan nature.

The priority of evangelical renewal in John Paul II’s messages was often overlooked, given the uncompromising power of his words regarding the sanctity of human life and the greater specificity of his teachings on the fundamental duty of civil society to protect human life and dignity (e.g., Evangelium Vitae). However, one should not extrapolate a general political agenda, much less a call for direct Church involvement in political campaigns or ideological platforms, from the Church’s teachings condemning such inherent evils as genocide, slavery, and abortion.

Comments

[David]

I'll suggest that both John Paul II and Benedict XVI are reminding us of distinctions recognized at Vatican II.

From Gaudium et Spes:

"Christ, to be sure, gave His Church no proper mission in the political, economic or social order. The purpose which He set before her is a religious one.(11) But out of this religious mission itself come a function, a light and an energy which can serve to structure and consolidate the human community according to the divine law."

http://tinyurl.com/4hvy3

[anonymous seminarian]

Great article. I agree with the Prof. Sisk that we should see JPII's frequent prophetic addresses regarding human rights as just that- prophetic. They were calls to conversion of heart in the face of inherent and manifest evil. They were not endorsing this or that political agenda. Vastly different political entities could respond to these appeals in different ways. One aim of Vatican II, stessed again and again by JPII, is that the Church should make space for legitimate secular human activity in a way roughly analogous to how scholasticism made space for the excercise of human reason (I don't think he ever used this analogy, but I find it helpful). That is not to say that the Church is unconcerned with secular affairs; only that the way to influence the secular sphere is to teach, evangelize and sanctify lay apostles who will then go forth to tranform social and political stuctures. This is why I get somewhat annoyed (I think justly) when I hear priests, bishops, curial officials, ect...advocating for specific political initiatives (and attempting to do so using the influence of their office). This seems to me to be undercutting the Church's teaching on the legitimacy and independence of the secular sphere and intruding upon the jurisdiction of laypeople.

[Michael Hugo]

It is important, though, to keep the religious leadership religious. Catholic/Christian history is sadly littered with the Church's "strange bedfellows". The minute the Church starts talking about immigration policies or, worse, economic policies, it goes into the weeds.

The U.S. Bishops know as much about economics as they do about running a seminary.

But, more to the point, JPII was a truly great leader when it came to articulating the Church's role with regard to human rights, etc. He was just asleep at the wheel when it came to running the Church.

Charity begins at home, and I hope PBXVI focues on removing the plank from the Church's eye. By this, I mean just what I said above: we must keep our religious leadership religious.