A CONFLICT OF COVENANTS

Speaking to the citizens of the Italian town of Cesena on his way to a pastoral visit to the city of Bologna, Pope Francis offered several personal observations and commentary on the role of the Christian believer in politics.

The Pope said that people will never improve the political landscape by observing and judging from afar, but rather by personal involvement in politics, done in a spirit of charity and helpfulness.

 “If the politician is wrong, go tell him, there are so many ways to say, ‘But I think that would be better like so, like so…’ Through the press, the radio... But say it constructively,” the Holy Father encouraged.

“And do not look out from the balcony, looking at her from the balcony waiting for her to fail.”

“The authentic face of politics and its reason for being,” Francis said, is “an invaluable service to the good of the whole community. And that is why the Church's social doctrine regards it as a noble form of charity.”

In order to re-establish the independence and the ability of politics to serve the public good, Pope Francis insisted, “we must act in such a way as to diminish inequalities, to promote the welfare of families with concrete measures, to provide a solid framework of rights-duties – balance both – and make them effective for everyone.”

Why is that I have so often found  myself disagreeing with a Pope I respect and admire so much?

Pope Francis, in his zeal to unify humanity under the umbrella of political globalism and a certain cultural homogeny, conveniently either forgets or ignores the fact, that in the exercise of religious faith versus political governance, human beings often find themselves bound to two distinct covenants.

In free and democratic societies of diverse religious and cultural constituencies, Christian politicians especially and often find themselves caught in the middle of the tensions arising from their covenant to carry out the will of the people as well as the evangelical counsels.

Within the context of such diversity, it is difficult (perhaps at times impossible) to define what constitutes “the common good” let alone promote it.

The Pope refers to the Church’s social doctrine (without specifying its imperatives or demands) as a “noble form of charity”.  But, according to whose definition?  That’s the rub!

For example, some Christian believers in free and democratic societies demand that their political representatives uphold what they define as an inalienable right to life.  The Church would characterize their political defense of the right to life as a morally virtuous act, a “noble act of charity”.

Yet, other citizens, within those same free and democratic societies, may hold differing viewpoints regarding such rights but equally expect that what they define as the common good or welfare will be respected by those they have placed in office.

And so, the question remains.  

When the Pope speaks about the duty of politics being to promote the common good, whose definition of the common good applies.  The Catholic definition?  The Christian definition?  The non-Christian?  The agnostic?  The atheistic?

Society mirrors the cultural and religious values of those who comprise it.  Politics serves to express those values in the system of laws and governance by which those societies are ordered and function.

No system of political governance can long survive if it consistently finds itself in opposition or contradiction to the values of its citizenry.

The mission of the Church is to enlighten the hearts and minds of mankind the truths of the Gospel and provide the spiritual resources helpful in bringing healing to humanity’s wounded nature.  The Church exists to assist humans being in the effort to convert their hearts and minds to the Divine Mind and Will and experience redemption in the process.

Politics are ordered to the promotion of the “common good”. 

But, the “common good” does not exists independently of the governing authority which both defines and promotes it.

In a monarchical society, it is the king or queen who absolutely define the rights and obligations of the Crown and its subjects.  This regal authority is sovereign and unfettered by any demands which may be brought to bear upon it.

In oligarchical societies, it is a elite group which has captured or accepted the power of governance and, therefore, decides what the relationship of citizens to their government is and how it is to be expressed.

In theocracies, it is the priestly class that governs according to the truths and precepts of a particular religious culture.

In free and democratic societies, the power of governance rests in the governed.  

Where there is a homogeneity of cultural and religious values shared among the citizenry, what constitutes “the common good” may be agreed upon with little disagreement or controversy.  But in those societies which exhibit great differences in cultural composition and values systems, the definition of what constitutes “the common good” may vary widely.

While the Christian believer is bound to assenting to a definition of the common good informed in accordance with the tenets of religious faith, the politician is bound to a definition of the common good which is largely defined by the citizens he or she represents.

Thus, the Christian politician may often find himself or herself in a dilemma in the fulfillment his or her covenant with the Church versus that of the State.

Pope Francis suggests that it is the duty of the faithful to engage in politics and infuse them with the evangelical counsels and virtues.  

But the Holy Father fails to address those situations in which the pervading values of citizens find little if any concordance with the Gospels.

His words offer little insight, solace or assistance to Christian believers (both politicians and citizens) who find themselves in situations where one’s covenant with faith is at odd’s with one’s covenant with the political structure within which he or she lives.

I have tried to be consistent on this issue.  

It is my belief that the role of the Church is to proclaim the virtues of faith and give witness to those virtues in a way which will inspire the acceptance and assent to these virtues among men and women of good will.

In this way, perhaps, faith can have its greatest impact and influence over political life.

Otherwise, I am afraid, religion and politics will always be condemned to the often futile effort at finding a balance (dare I say compromise) between the varied and often opposing definitions of what constitutes the common good in religiously and culturally diverse societies.

Perhaps, what Pope Francis needs to stress is not the power which a Christian can or should exert in politics, but rather the power of witness by which a person of faith may assist in the conversion of the hearts and minds of suffering humanity to the love of God and neighbor!