The (supposedly) conflicting religious and civic duties of Catholic politicians

Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa recently made quite a stir when he stated that, in certain situations, he might be compelled to refuse communion to Catholic politicians who fail to uphold Catholic moral teaching in the exercise of their functions (in particular, in the question of abortion). In addition to print media commentary on the issue, you can also listen to a radio interview he did on the topic.

Many people were quite upset by this, of course, and gave many of the usual arguments, including the issue of the separation of Church and State. In such a view, a politician may have his own personal views on a particular matter, but must represent all his constituents including those who are not Catholics. Therefore, he can somehow be a good Catholic and still support a non-Catholic moral viewpoint at the same time.

In my view, the Catholic faith has no problem with the separation of Church and State, especially since Jesus himself told us to give to Caesar what belong to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God. The issue is not separation, but superiority. Simply put, God is superior to Caesar. If a politician dies and comes before God’s throne of judgement, the Lord is going to judge him based on the whole of his life. The fact that he was an elected official for a particular point of time does not exempt him from moral judgement — as far as I know, the simple fact of being elected does not exempt anyone from the moral law.

Now some people will argue that this means Catholic politicians will therefore never get elected, because the people themselves are not all Catholic. There are two responses to this argument.

First of all, we need to recognize that a politician is a representative, not a mouthpiece. In other words, do we elect politicians to represent our views, or our best interests? If the former, a politician is then reduced to becoming a mere mouthpiece of the mob, and we go looking for the person best able to parrot our point of view. If the latter, on the other hand, a politician is a thinker and a leader, someone able to come to grips with the complexities of modern society and to best be able to promote the common good within it. In my opinion, we should not be picking people who blow with whatever wind happens to prevail within a constituency; we should be picking people with the spine to stand tall even if the wind is blowing at hurricane force.

Secondly, I would like to point out that a politician is called to be a leader, not a follower. If he or she has a particular idea that s/he believes is the best course of action for society, he must promote that idea and *get people to see its wisdom*. A good politician is an instrument of positive social transformation, even if that transformation is not (at the moment) popular with the crowd — by transforming the people themselves.

I remember I once was chatting with a political candidate in a national election. I asked him how he might vote on a question like abortion. He replied that, if the issue came up, he would hold “town hall” meetings in his riding, and then vote in Parliament according to the consensus that emerged. His answer disgusted me, and I told him so. He was startled at my reaction, and I explained to him that if the issue was slavery (for example), we might be still be cursed with that particular form of social cancer today. The point was not lost on him — as he was black.

Politics is the art of the possible, of course, so sometimes there is only so much a politician can do in a particular time and place — but no matter what, he or she can and must work to make justice a little more possible. One may disagree with the Catholic understanding of justice and the common good, of course, and in that respect a lively debate can then emerge. But one cannot claim to believe that the Catholic Church is the carrier of the authentic teaching of the Son of God and then fail to uphold that teaching. Either we do not really believe it, or we don’t love our neighbours enough to promote a position that, in theory, is best for them and for society. The issue of taking communion is really besides the point, in some ways. What it really comes down to is having the inner integrity to hold fast to Christ no matter what, and to love our neighbour with a Christ-like love. To profess faith in Christ and yet do otherwise is like kissing Christ in the Garden of Gethsemene — and hopefully none of us want to turn out like the guy who did *that*.