Faith and politics should not be strangers

I wish to begin by welcoming Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver to Ireland and especially to Ballaghaderreen. Ballaghaderreen is to Ireland what Mississippi is to America—a nightmare for young students learning how to spell. I wish to thank him for his recent book, Render Unto Caesar, an accessible and erudite book with a challenging central message. The central theme of that book, political service through public affirmation of the Catholic faith, will act somewhat as the template for my talk. The essential idea which I have to communicate today, inspired by Archbishop Chaput’s, is that faith should comfort but never anaesthetize.

Archbishop Chaput offered a caveat towards the beginning of his talk. He suggested that because the American and Irish political contexts are different, not everything he has to say may be relevant to the political landscape this side of the Atlantic. However, my own sense of it is that everything he has to say is of relevance to us Irish citizens.

It is the duty of us all to make a gift of our faith to politics. This idea, which lies at the heart of Render Unto Caesar, is a challenge to us all, believers and non-believers alike. For believers it challenges complacency and comfort. For non-believers it challenges prejudice and comfort.

There is an assumption in some quarters of society today that politics and religion should be kept rigidly separate. Some speak of the dangers of theocracy and of the necessity for the separation of Church and State. But separation is not the same as segregation. Religious belief can never be, theoretically or practically, a solely private affair. Indeed it is impossible to understand the genesis of the modern nation-state if religion and theology are omitted from its history.

Aristotle defined the goal of politics as the achievement of the common good. This common good can only be achieved by listening to all reasonable voices within the polity, and not just those of the majority. Religion is an ever present voice within society. And a cornerstone of Christian social thought is the importance of the common good.

European civilisation is founded on three pillars: Greek philosophy, Roman law, and Judeo-Christian religion. Christianity rescued Europe from the break-up of the Roman Empire and the very real threat of barbarism. It re-established education and founded the first universities. The Christian worldview of an ordered and intelligible cosmos allowed for the rapid development of science. The same worldview led to the flourishing of charitable communities, schools and hospitals. On the other side, it is when religion has been totally excluded from public life that history’s worst atrocities have been committed. It is arguable too, that when Church and State were too closely allied the Church most lost sense of its core values and consequently acted contrary to the teachings of Christ. As Archbishop Chaput has pointed out, the separation of Church and State protects the Church’s role from the State as much as it respects the perennial pluralism of society.

But what happens when separation becomes segregation? I wish to use the example of human rights. 2008 marked the 60th anniversary of the United Nations Declaration of human rights. Undoubtedly the 1948 promulgation marked one of the great moments of 20th century civilisation. Out of the nihilism of Auschwitz came a universal recognition of the value of the human person. This event was a great cultural, political, philosophical and theological achievement. I do not use the word theological lightly here. Human Rights is the fruit of a natural law philosophy. And although natural law can trace its roots back to ancient Greece, its foremost defender, both historically and philosophically, is unquestionably the Catholic Church.

Imagine for a moment political, legal and social life without the pervading influence of human rights. Authentic respect for each and every individual human being would not exist. Instead, utilitarianism, pragmatism, expediency, relativism and nihilism would each vie for supremacy in a political context whereby an individual’s most basic rights were a matter of contingent fact. There would be little or no reason to mourn for dead Palestinian children, for Chinese torture victims or for the systematic culling of severely disabled persons. It is the difference between barbarism and a Christian inspired civilization.

So just as faith and reason are distinct but inseparable, so politics and religion are also distinct but inseparable. Natural law is completely compatible with theology. Similarly, politics is completely compatible with religion. The secular and the sacred owe their respective identities to the other, whereas the ideology of secularism denies the identity of the sacred.

Unfortunately the philosophy of human rights is beginning to suffer the consequences of the divorce of politics from religion, and reason from faith. Various lobby groups, intellectuals, and, most sadly of all, elements within the UN itself, are pushing for a dangerously false interpretation of human rights law. In their eyes human rights is but a political tool to be manipulated in order to push for things like abortion and same-sex marriage. Theirs is a utilitarian approach to natural law: which is an absurdity.

None of this is to deny the virtuous habits of many non-believers, and of ‘other-believers’. But is to ask whether virtuous living can thrive in a society that disregards the idea of a higher, benign good according to which all things may be judged and according to which all things find their reference point.

I have referred to the need to make a gift of our faith to politics. But now I wish to speak of the dangers. Well-meaning Catholics often fail to appreciate the nature of political discourse. Political discourse does not employ the terminology of either missionary or apocalyptic zeal. Political discourse, whether it be lobbying, debating or canvassing, necessarily requires an appreciation of pluralism. By this I mean that the sincere Catholic must be aware that his or her audience does not share a single, homogenous worldview. It may comprise of agnostics, libertarians, believers of other faiths and other Christian denominations, socialists, liberals, and the holders of a whole range of other philosophies. Thus when a Catholic speaks in a political forum—and all public life is somewhat political— he or she must not presume that the language of the Catholic faith will resonate well among his or her audience. It is not a question of denying the faith, but rather presenting the intellectual fruits of faith in a manner comprehensible to a general audience. Hence informal education is a prerequisite to engaging politically. There is no point saying to the listeners of Morning Ireland that embryo research is wrong solely because Scripture or the Vatican says so. The thinking and language of reason and natural law must be respected – and we must respect and refer to ideas of human rights, science, history, law, common sense and relevant studies and statistics. When the opportunity presents itself, and it by no means always does, a theological point should be made, but only if it is directly related to the issue at hand. The average non-believing listener will be more receptive to theo-logic after he or she has heard and understood logic first of all. Too often a so-called religious argument veils a lack of clarity on the given issue. The classic example is to respond to a tough question with ‘I am a Catholic and so therefore I believe X’ without expanding upon either the theological or philosophical reasons for believing X. This is a disservice both to religion and to political discourse. It is the response one would expect from an electronic toy, not a Catholic called to reflect upon their faith and to learn about their faith and how it applies to the world. Faith without reason is fideism, not theism.

It should be fairly clear from this that natural law reasoning is generally the appropriate political discourse. It is capable of leading to truth and of being understood by everyone. Yet often a person can let their own prejudices and presuppositions obscure their reasoning abilities. This can happen both with believers and non-believers alike. I wish to speak about two examples of such prejudice obscuring understanding of one’s faith: nationalism and political party.

European history offers a classic example of how individuals could marry irreconcilable values in the domains of faith and politics. Both deep religious devotion and a fervent support for colonial oppression was often displayed by the ruling classes for a considerable period of time. Of course we do not have to look to remote history. It was also evident during the troubles in Northern Ireland. Many Catholics, lay and religious, experienced tension between their nationalist sympathies on the one hand and the doctrines of religious freedom and the sanctity of all human life on the other.

The next example of prejudice distorting Catholic faith as lived in the political domain is another political prejudice, this time party political prejudice. As an independent Senator I have the good fortune not to be ordinarily presented with this temptation, and it is perhaps too easy for me to speak publicly on this particular issue. However, I can point to esteemed colleagues as examples of politicians who are Catholics and who give committed service to their respective parties without disconnecting their political lives from their faith. Unfortunately, there are some politicians who have not incorporated their faith into their political project as courageously as they could have. Archbishop Chaput gives the contrasting examples of Mario Cuomo and Robert Casey Sr., among others, in his book. It can be tempting to think of certain other political figures who publicly professed their Catholic faith but who politically did little to employ their faith in bringing about the common good. But that can only ever be something we reflect on in general terms as we try to get our own house in order.

I repeat, this is not to stand in any kind of moral judgement of other people but rather to lament the fact that sometimes, politicians with personal religious faith may not always feel it is desirable or legitimate to link their deepest beliefs and aspirations with their political project. In fact, the political project of every politician should start from his or her deepest aspirations and beliefs, whether they be religious or not. Where these beliefs involve certain religious views about a human being’s ultimate destiny, this creates no real conflict or controversy, unless it is controversial to say that human beings are special and sacred and that pursuing the good of every person and of the community is the highest and most noble goal of politics.

Despite, or maybe because of, our material triumphs over the last fifteen years Irish political life has fallen short in its capacity to ‘render unto justice’. Poverty, sex trafficking, the downgrading of the traditional family unit, and the right to life of all human beings have not received the requisite attention and remedies from the Government. Unless faith is followed by its necessary corollary, action, it hobbles about on crutches. In the political domain solo fides is not enough. One of the great exemplars of this in our epoch was the great Baptist Minister, Martin Luther King and his life of religiously inspired political engagement. William Wilberforce is another example.

So it's about faith and works. Solo fides is not enough. We ought not simply to hide from the secular just because it sometimes contradicts the law of Christ. This is what happened with part of the American evangelical movement in the 1950’s—seeing that society was becoming more aggressively secular they sought to distance themselves from the public domain. It is arguable that this decision speeded up the process of secularisation. Today many evangelicals are openly hostile to the legitimate fruits of secular life, most noticeably the development of scientific knowledge, as especially evident in the debate between evolution and creationism.

Irish Christians today face the same dilemma that American evangelicals faced in the 1950s. There is a tendency, detrimental in my view, among lay Catholics to too easily dismiss the secular. For instance, the letters pages of many Christian newspapers show ample hostility towards evolutionary science. This is despite the writings of many great Christian scientists, such as John Polkinghorne, Alistair McGrath and Francis Collins, who demonstrate the compatibility between evolution and theism. Not to mention the views of the late Pope John Paul II, the late Cardinal Avery Dulles and Pope Benedict XVI. There were also signs of this simplistic dichotomy between the secular and sacred in the recent Lisbon Treaty Referendum. I voted ‘no’, but I hope I did so for more nuanced reasons than simply thinking Europe is evil and Catholic Ireland is good, (and I will vote yes if the guarantees we have been promised ensure Ireland's freedom to decide its laws on sensitive social and ethical issues). Actually, if we want to debate the EU we must engage our reasoning capacities and must make an effort to understand what the EU is and what it is not. Unless we inform ourselves of the functions of the Parliament, the European Council, the Commission and the Court of Justice we risk discrediting our deeply held political views. This is true for every issue; dismissing the secular is sometimes an alibi for us to disengage our critical faculties.

The same detrimental tendency is also evident among some people on religious life. Many Priests, Nuns and Bishops today fear being hit with a belt of the editorial. Many of those editorial writers and some of their friends in politics cannot resist a belt at the crozier. Yet particularly in a harsh media climate there is a duty among the religious to public explain and defend Church teaching. Apology originally meant explanation. They must apologise for abuse perpetrated by Catholics, but apologise also on behalf of the truth. Unless the public domain and media fora are challenged by learned and articulate Catholics, groups like the HSE can too easily blame avoid taking responsibilities for their own failings while the blame falls on supposed ‘right wing Catholic organisations’. The recent confusion over the Pope’s remarks on a need for an ecology of the person (when he was wrongly said to equate homosexuality with the destruction of the rainforests) demonstrate how willing some journalists are to obscure Church teaching. A courageous hierarchy should not hesitate to publicly challenge mistruths and falsities. More than this, they should proactively seek out opportunities to publicly proclaim the Gospel message.

What of concrete Christian activism? The coming days, weeks and months will see two important social issues come before us. One of these is the proposed Civil Partnership Bill. This Bill seeks to give same-sex couples the same legal and financial benefits as married couples, and co-habitees a reduced level of financial and legal benefits, all in the name of equality. We should not deny that any pair of co-dependent adults, whether in the form of care givers, siblings or co-habitees, are entitled to basic legal and financial protection. We should be emphatic about that. Yet at the heart of this Bill lies a triple injustice. Neither care-givers not siblings will receive protection from this Bill, simply because theirs is a strictly Platonic relationship. Furthermore, this Bill downgrades the special status of marriage by offering its benefits to other forms of parental relationships. This means that same-sex couples receive the same reward as the average married couple with children, even though the only reason for the reward in the first place is to aid the upbringing of children. This is distributive injustice—resources will not be distributed according to just deserts but according to an absolutised notion of equality. We should remember that the fact that everyone is equal does not mean that all forms of relationship are either equal or identical in the eyes of the State, nor should be. Studies consistently show that a traditional marriage is the best environment in which to raise a child. This brings me to the third injustice: child welfare. The resources spent on implementing the Civil Partnership Bill would be better spent on aiding existing families. It is the traditional family unit which is the future of our society. In the eyes of many lobbyists this Bill is merely a stepping stone to same-sex adoption and same-sex marriage—there is an EU dimension to this question—and to a time when children will lose their right to a mother and father.

The second issue is that of the status of the embryo. In general Irish Catholics are much better informed on this issue than on marriage, so I won’t go into much detail. Suffice to say the R V. R Supreme Court challenge may well fail to vindicate the right to life of human beings at their earliest stages of existence. It may well fail to affirm a coherent understanding of human rights. This will also impact upon the issue of embryo stem cell research. What can the committed Christian do about this?

It's a matter of becoming more politically active, remembering two important principles. People of faith have the right to bring their lived experience into their practice of politics. And they have the responsibility to show that their values, inspired by faith, have a rational basis having regard to the natural law which is itself rational. Their values are intellectually credible and socially relevant.

I wish to end on a somewhat questioning note. In p. 184 of Render Unto Caesar Archbishop Chaput raises the issue of treating the Church merely as a political institution. He observes that many Catholics view the Church in terms of left or right and in terms of lobby groups. Of course, the left-wing/right-wing political paradigm is heavily indebted to French Enlightenment political thought, and does not properly describe the complexities of the Catholic faith. For instance, Catholicism may be considered to the left on some issues (immigration, death penalty) and to the right on others (divorce, abortion). However, there remains a very real issue here. We need to work with commitment in the political sphere to bring about the common good, but such work may be politically divisive, and we must especially strive to avoid partisan animosity within our own Church on issues of contention? Do we need an alternative modus operandi, and is one readily available within our Church community already? Or are we to accept that tension will always exist within the Church between the so-called liberals and so-called conservatives? Perhaps we could further reflect on these issues over the course of the weekend.

In ending, I would like to thank you for your patience and express hope that at least some of what I said may have given cause for reflection.