Secular Pluralism and the Natural Law

Today, especially in advent of the coming election in November, many Americans hold the pluralistic view that whatever is right for each individual should constitute what principles our government should build from. If you believe that is right, fine. I, personally, don’t, but that’s my opinion. This type of thinking leads to a lot of problems in the formation and operation of government. If there cannot be a common truth or a common principle, from what will government, or our American democracy, take its root? On the flip side, as a Catholic, how does this pluralism restrict the search for truth? When my belief, which is rooted very deeply in my character, calls for the search for what is true and good runs into conflict with the view of a relativist who believes that each has his or her own opinion of what is true and good, I want to know if there can be any sort of communication at all, especially in politics. Obviously our worldviews are in conflict, but there must to be some sort of common ground. If there is no common ground, human life issues, such as abortion, poverty, etc. cannot even be discussed until such a commonality is reached. Without such, communication is deemed ineffective and you end up with two frustrated parties. What has already been proposed in contradiction with secular pluralism is that each human being, having an intrinsic law written within the very fabric of their being, has dignity.

In searching for articles or documents relating to the life of a believer in the role of politics, I ran across a document entitled The Participation of Catholics in Political Life, published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Perfect! Upon reading it, an interesting section, important enough to be mentioned, was brought to light concerning relativism in our day. It reads:

A kind of cultural relativism exists today, evident in the conceptualization and defence of an ethical pluralism, which sanctions the decadence and disintegration of reason and the principles of the natural moral law. Furthermore, it is not unusual to hear the opinion expressed in the public sphere that such ethical pluralism is the very condition for democracy.^[12] As a result, citizens claim complete autonomy with regard to their moral choices, and lawmakers maintain that they are respecting this freedom of choice by enacting laws which ignore the principles of natural ethics and yield to ephemeral cultural and moral trends,^[13] as if every possible outlook on life were of equal value. At the same time, the value of tolerance is disingenuously invoked when a large number of citizens, Catholics among them, are asked not to base their contribution to society and political life – through the legitimate means available to everyone in a democracy – on their particular understanding of the human person and the common good. The history of the twentieth century demonstrates that those citizens were right who recognized the falsehood of relativism, and with it, the notion that there is no moral law rooted in the nature of the human person, which must govern our understanding of man, the common good and the state.

Such relativism, of course, has nothing to do with the legitimate freedom of Catholic citizens to choose among the various political opinions that are compatible with faith and the natural moral law, and to select, according to their own criteria, what best corresponds to the needs of the common good. Political freedom is not – and cannot be – based upon the relativistic idea that all conceptions of the human person’s good have the same value and truth, but rather, on the fact that politics are concerned with very concrete realizations of the true human and social good in given historical, geographic, economic, technological and cultural contexts. From the specificity of the task at hand and the variety of circumstances, 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. It is, however, the Church’s right and duty to provide a moral judgment on temporal matters when this is required by faith or the moral law.^[14] If Christians must «recognize the legitimacy of differing points of view about the organization of worldly affairs«,^[15] they are also called to reject, as injurious to democratic life, a conception of pluralism that reflects moral relativism. Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society.

The full document can be found at http://benedettoxvi.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html.

The part I found to be most interesting was that democracy has to be founded on “non-negotiable principles”. Without these, debates are a waste because each person has his or her own view of the good. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that natural law is “established by reason” (CCC 1956) and is “immutable and permanent throughout the variations in history” (CCC 1958). This means that people should be able to have discussion about the dignity of life and a human being’s rights without necessarily having a religious background. One just needs reason. Relativism, most specifically moral relativism, goes against the natural law and even denies the human nature. This needs to be challenged and recognized by our leaders today. This is not just a religious claim, but a human claim.

All of the candidates running for office have mentioned in their campaigns the role of faith with regards to politics. Mitt Romney back in December 2007, when speaking about Mormonism and politics, has even mentioned the thought that secularists have presently developed their own religion in society because of their strong stance against religion. This is a very interesting thought. A president most needed for today’s society is one who recognizes the secularism that has entrenched itself in the current thought and how dangerous the implications of secularism really are. If it is gotten to the point in our society where we cannot even have a discussion about the dignity of life and fundamental rights of human beings, how can we build a society built upon protecting any individual? Is than any other principle upon which we can build democracy?

A Savior for a President?

“Jesus did not come to teach a way of life…his role is that of a savior…”
-John Howard Yoder
Listening to Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama speak about their credentials, Yoder’s statement came back to me. Advocates of dramatic change, the Democratic candidates have emphasized the failure of the Bush presidency and the stack of problems either will face upon entering the White House. So I’ve asked myself (in very secular terms): do I want a president who teaches me an American way of life or a savior?
So what’s the difference? For the sake of argument, I’ll categorize the Democratic candidates as “savior”. A Democrat in the White House means a deliverance of the American people from the War, a mounting Health Care problem, and a descending Economy. John McCain, on the other hand, suggests a guidance of American ideals: Finishing our job in Iraq responsibly, addressing the recession with a Hooverian “I don’t believe we’re heading into recession” and “providing families with incentives to buy health care” not to mention the moral compass he provides on life issues: anti abortion and human cloning.
Can a savior- concerned with making dramatic changes- guide the America way of life? How Christ-like should our president be?

She's got something up her sleeve

Where do you wear your faith? ...on your sleeve like Obama, Huckabee and others in this presidential race? ...or do you find a little harder to talk about your faith even though it is an integral part of your life like Clinton and Giuliani?
I have become a bit skeptical of all of these candidates that continuously speak of how important their faith is to them, but also how important it will be to put this faith to the side when it comes to making decisions for our nation. Have we come to the point where the candidates feel obligated to talk about their faith, not because it is what is at the core of who they are, but because it helps to get votes?
I think a candidate, like Hillary, who acknowledged to CBS news that speaking about her faith does not come easy to her and because of her upbringing she is weary of those that "wear their faith on their sleeves" shows just as much faith, if not more, than the other candidates. Tell me, how can we find fault in someone that openly admits that her faith has brought her through the struggles she has faced in life (abuse, infedelity, etc.)? It doesn't seem to be a question that Clinton has strength and that she can carry on, isn't this vital for a president? Clinton wants to win the race for who she is, not for who people want her to be. Faith, for her, and for many other Americans is carried in the heart and while it is present at the core of their being it can be expressed in other ways than just their words.
Giuliani, when he was still in the race, was asked about his religion and he answered saying, "My religious affiliation, my religious practices and the degree to which I am a good or not-so-good Catholic, I prefer to leave to the priests." While this answer can be aggravating, and somewhat humorous, I think we must respect this. Instead of making a huge deal out of his faith only to say that it will be set aside when in the oval office, he established how it would be, not leading people on just to get another vote.
I think that as God's faithful we need to look less at what the politicians are wearing on their sleeves and look to the heart of the actions that they have taken in the past and the present, not just their words. I am not at all saying that by broadcasting their faith it means that they really don't have it, but we should not just accept it as truth -- look for evidence.

Poverty: Political Faux Pas?

“We joined together in a city that had been abandoned by our government and had been forgotten, but not by us. We knew that they still mourned the dead, that they were still stunned by the destruction, and that they wondered when all those cement steps in all those vacant lots would once again lead to a door, to a home, and to a dream.” John Edwards

Returning to New Orleans just 13 months after he announced his candidacy there, John Edwards suspended his campaign on Wednesday, January 30th. Apparently disappointed by the little focus on poverty during Democratic reactions to President Bush’s final State of the Union address, the Houston Chronicle reported that some close supporters of Edwards claimed that “he saw the New Orleans speech as a chance to refocus attention on the problem.”

Edwards began, without hesitation, by claiming that we “as citizens and as a government, have a moral responsibility to each other, and what we do together matters.” He continued to say that “if we want to live up to the great promise of this country that we all love so much,” we must do better. And by do better, Edwards means the creation of a one America—“one America where no child will go to bed hungry because we will finally end the moral shame of 37 million people living in poverty.” This, along with a laundry list of other hopes (universal health care, better public schools, a swift end to the war in Iraq, etc.), are certainly in line with Catholic Social Teaching’s focus on the preferential option for the poor (as well as human dignity, dignity of work, and others).

But, Edwards is out of the race. For all of his big ideas about poverty, it didn't get him very far. In his New Orleans speech, he used language like “brothers and sisters” and “neighbors in need” and “but for the grace of God;” but it seems as if this spiritual language fell flat in the grand scheme of things. His message didn't come close to having the emotional power and charisma of other political greats. Nor was it as controversial, somehow. And while we know that our vote must be based on more than just personality, rhetoric, and even charisma, we also recognize that to impact a crowd or a constituent, the speaker's (or preacher's) ability to deliver the words (or Word) is as important as his or her content.

So why is poverty not a larger issue in this election? Why is it not more prominently discussed in debates? Yes, we're hearing a lot about the economy and the potential recession lately, but who besides John Edwards has so consistently and diligently called us out on the “moral shame” of poverty? Perhaps it's because having a preferential option for the poor means not having a preferential option for one's self. Perhaps because a commitment to the most vulnerable—to an issue like ending poverty, or cutting it in half, as Catholic Charities USA is working towards by 2020 (see last week's RI Catholic for more details)—requires sacrifices. It requires the rest of us to let go of some of our economic power or to use our power and give of our time and skills to advocate for someone other than ourselves.

Juan Williams, as quoted earlier by Dr. Dillon, begs the question: “Are (political candidates) putting on cloaks of religious intention, rather than acting as truly religious people, who are willing to make sacrifices, willing to lose, in order to deliver the word?”

When Edwards states that he has the word of Senators Clinton and Obama that they will uphold the battle against poverty, what does that mean in terms of concrete change? I'll be interested to see how that pans out...

Single Issue Voting: Not So Singular for Christian Voters

Pro-choice vs. pro-life; close the border vs. guest worker program; troop removal vs. remaining in Iraq; pro - funding for embryonic stem cell research vs. anti - opponents. This election time is overwhelmed with large issues that divide our country into opposing sides. Single issue voting is a term floating around during discussions over this election. No one wants to be a single issue voter, especially if it's that one issue that draws you to a candidate. Last weeks introduction to faith and politics sparked an interest in understanding how faith influences political decisions especially in single issue voting. What I have come to realize is that there are no single issues for Christian voters. 

The term "single issue" is a social construct that encompasses a wide array of issues under some abstract title. I find this reality clearly relevant to Christian voters who chose a specific issue like being pro-life as a determinant of who they support. I have heard, through various conversations, that this form of voting is close-minded or fails to really look at all the issues relating to the election. However, while it does seem to be very individual to vote because of one issue, it's really how someone views this issue that matters the most. I will elaborate.

Speaking in terms of Christian voting, many Christians will vote pro-life because of faith beliefs and the call to respect the dignity of all life. While this is a single issue vote in the public eye, for a Christian, voting pro-life could encompass endless issues which they support. A pro-life vote supports the dignity of life, the belief that life starts at the time of conception, the renunciation of government funding for embryonic stem cell research, hopefully a desire to end capital punishment and up holding of strong "family values".  There is no single issue in the matter, rather it is a multi-issue topic that reveals many values a voter holds important to the person they want in office. 

While I feel that this can relate to many people, without faith as a consideration, I feel that bringing faith into politics eliminates single issue voting. It really promotes the sincere desire to fully take part in the democratic process and be a fully informed citizen. When faith, of any tradition, is brought into the political equation, no rash decisions can be made. Each vote, each platform must be carefully considered and broken down. This creates a genuine desire to vote for what one feels is true and best for the country. More importantly, because faith makes each issue important and multi-faceted, it eliminates single issue voting and promotes a comprehensive evaluation of every issue.

Faith and Politics today.

I was left with a lot of questions after our first class on Monday. I found it really interesting and exciting to embark on what will be a multi-faceted discussion of the complicated issue of faith and politics. After viewing the blog that Dr. Dillon wrote on Monday I was interested to see how things have changed. In other words, after watching videos on two of our leaders from years back I was interested to learn whether faith and politics was deemed an important issue from our current candidates. I went onto the websites of all the major candidates from both parties- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee. I found that a commonality among the websites was that they all had a tab at the top of the sites entitled “Issues.” I decided to see whether these candidates considered the crossroads of faith and politics to be a modern day “issue.” I found that faith was mentioned only on two of the candidates sites. Barack Obama had faith as an issue on his website and I will include his thoughts below. Perhaps most impressively, Mike Huckabee had an actual section under issues which he called “faith and politics”- perfect! Below you will find the two videos from these two candidates in which they discuss how faith and politics should inform one another.

(an interesting side note that I found from exploring the websites- I believe that it was Joe (or Bob?) that during class brought up the possibility of the environment being a moral issue. We ended up not putting it under the moral tab but I was interested when I found this as Huckabee’s tagline for his faith and politics section- “My faith is my life - it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth.” Just thought that it was interesting that the one issue he chose to illustrate the intersection of his faith and politics was the environment.)



I think in Huckabee's video we see a similar idea to that of Martin Luther King- that his faith is part of who he is and is therefore part of his political thought and action. Huckabee has been criticized for his extremist views when it comes to his faith, particularly his denial of evolution. My question is this- should Huckabee's opinions about something such as evolution effect his ability to be a strong political leader? If the answer is yes, then does that mean that candidates should hide their religious affiliations? And if the answer is no, then does that mean that any issue regarding faith should not affect one's political abilities and be used to pick up votes? I certainly do not know the answers to these questions, but I think they would make an interesting discussion.



Here, Barack takes a somewhat different road from Huckabee with an emphasis more on the communion of the various religious backgrounds of Americans and how the people of various religions can come together for a common political goal. He makes an interesting point about the major movements in our country and how they have been led by people of faith. I think another interesting idea that is brought up in this video and something that I was thinking about during the last class is the distinction between faith and morality. Barack says that the religious people do not have a monopoly on morality. When we talked last time about Kennedy bracketing his faith and politics and saying that he would leave faith behind when he entered the Whitehouse I could not help but think, well does that mean he needs to leave his morality? Are the issues of faith and morality separate and what are their distinctive roles in politics?

(Another side note that I thought was interesting was that the quote about the video on Barack's website was in relation to the Kennedy video that we watched in class-
“(Obama's speech on faith) may be the most important pronouncement by a Democrat on faith and politics since John F. Kennedy's Houston speech in 1960 declaring his independence from the Vatican...Obama offers the first faith testimony I have heard from any politician that speaks honestly about the uncertainties of belief.”
— E.J. Dionne, Op-Ed., Washington Post, June 30, 2006

I thought this was interesting given the fact that I was looking for how the new politicians differ or are similar to those we saw in class and then the website mentions that exact speech.)

The other major issue that I focused on during my time watching the news and other events this week was which issues were really being focused on by the candidates and the press. I was interested to see whether what we deemed the “moral issues” would find there way into the current political discourse. I watched both the State of the Union and the Democratic Debates, I was unable to watch the Republican debates so I watched highlights online. During the State of the Union Address George Bush mentioned the word “faith” only three times. The quotes are below:

“Thanks to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarships you approved, more than 2,600 of the poorest children in our nation's capital have found new hope at a faith-based or other nonpublic schools.”

“Faith-based groups are bringing hope to pockets of despair with newfound support from the federal government.”

“And, to help guarantee equal treatment of faith-based organizations when they compete for federal funds, I ask you to permanently extend Charitable Choice.”

Okay, so he mentions faith, but not really in regards to his own beliefs but only in regards to faith-based initiatives. For a president who campaigned as a “compassionate conservative” and used his faith quite a bit to appeal to voters, it is surprising that he does not mention it much these days.

During the Democratic Debates and what I could find from the Republican Debates there was no mention of faith and politics nor of the issues that we called moral. The major issues that were brought up during the debates were the big three of this election: Health Care, Economy, and the War. No candidate, except perhaps Huckabee, relates these kinds of issues to their own faith. I think the issue of poverty is one that represents some exception to this rule because often candidates mention their own values in relation to the supposed war on poverty. However, it is somewhat disheartening that faith does not seem to have a central role in our political discourse. Is this how it should be? Should the separation of church and state require that one’s faith be bracketed when it comes to political issues? And just as Dr. Dillon alluded to in her second post, is the discussion of faith on the political road a real faith or a calculated move to obtain more votes?

The cloaks of religious intention?

An interesting article in the Providence Journal today summarizes a talk that Juan Williams of NPR gave last night on the intersection of faith and politics.

Of particular interest, Williams mentioned that certain candidates are vying for claim to carry the legacy of MLK and tying this claim to their own religious faith. He acknowledged that this seems fair on a lot of issues (poverty, race, education, health care). But then he asked people to remember Dr. King's real religious faith, his pastoring and preaching. He called people to imagine Dr. King were still alive:

“You can imagine this living Dr. King asking people, ‘Are you standing up and speaking to these central issues in American life, or are you simply asking for votes, are you simply posturing and putting on the cloaks of religious intention, rather than acting as truly religious people, who are willing to make sacrifices, willing to lose, in order to deliver the word?’ ”

One wonders, particularly as we are also looking at Yoder's Politics of Jesus over the next couple of weeks, how close to home this hits for a variety of candidates, in both parties. Is there real faith here, or is there simply the marketing and rhetoric of faith for the sake of votes?

It's important to note, I think, that as long as we have a picture of Christian faith where God became human, suffered, died, and rose in order to teach us to be nice and get along the way good democratic liberalism (in the classic sense) meant for us to, it will be very difficult to really grasp this question. Or, to put it another way, I don't think the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus happened in order to make the world safe for democracy. As long as we think this way, it is hard for us to imagine (as Williams' question implies) the possibility that we (or our favorite candidate) might have to be faithful to the Gospel even if it means sacrificing the possibility of power and success and realizing their goals.

Regardless, it is clear that the claim to be operating out of faith convictions is becoming important in this election. Now we get the beginnings of the next wave: the questions about the sincerety of that faith. I wonder if we will see a third wave: a real conversation about what a sincere faith can/should/must consist in. It will be interesting to see.

Week 1: Faith and Politics?

Most Americans, including most American Christians, have a sense that religion and politics don't mix. For American Catholics, this line was pretty clearly drawn one morning in Texas.

JFK speaking in Houston on Sept 12, 1960



The Democratic nominee says, among other things, "I believe in an America where the separation of Church and State is absolute." This includes the Pope and bishops not telling Catholics how to vote or how to lead. The same, of course, goes for Protestant ministers, who shouldn't tell their congregations how to vote (or lead, one would presume).

Does that include this guy?



Martin Luther King never held a political office, but there can be little doubt that he was political. First and foremost, however, he was a pastor. Clearly, he felt that the Gospel demanded a certain response from Christians to the striking sanitation workers, and to people whose civil rights were being denied for racial or other reasons. Should faith and politics be allowed to mix like this?

We are embarking on a project in which we will be trying to think through the proper relationship between faith and politics. We do so particularly in the context of the Catholic tradition and in the context of the United States. We do so--with all due respect to President Kennedy--in keeping with the guidance of our bishops, in their document "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship."

The idea that we can separate issues into neat, distinct categories, such as moral, political, economic, religious, is an illusion. We will be exploring the issues at the intersection of faith and politics.

By the way, it is no accident that I have chosen the clips above. The two gentlemen in question are, of course, powerful and interesting figures in their own right, relevant almost 50 years later regardless. But, these guys, believe it or not, are in this week's political news. Caroline Kennedy has anointed Barak Obama her dad's successor. And Hillary Clinton, speaking at a Baptist church in Memphis the day after losing South Carolina (especially the African-American vote) to Obama, has invoked quite strongly the legacy of Dr. King.

In fact, I can't resist quoting just a bit of her speech directly here, because she is right about this and it's so relevant:

The cause for justice has always come from people of faith and people of labor. Here in this great hall today, you understand, as Dr. King did, that your cause was his cause. His movement was a broad and deep one. It was a movement to redeem the soul of America; to fulfill the common purpose of our nation. A movement inspired by the idea, as he put it, that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," and that included economic justice.

The injustice of poverty; the injustice of people who work hard all day and then on the night shift, and it is still not enough. The injustice of being invisible in a country of so much wealth and opportunity.... That invisibility eats away at the heart and soul of America. There should not be any invisible Americans and if it’s up to the faith community and the labor community and political leaders like those of us here today, there will not be invisible workers anywhere, ever again.

Hillary Clinton--far from the obvious "religious" candidate among the front-runners for either party--is calling for partnerships of faith and labor and politics for something that sounds very like what the popes and the bishops have called "the preferential option for the poor." She is also not the only candidate trying to claim the legacy of MLK, or speaking to the intersection of faith and politics.

That intersection will be our focus for our journey together.