Church and State

From time to time Catholic bishops become involved in the debate concerning issues of public policy. Most recently, through pastoral letters, joint statements, and comments in the media they have entered into the lively discussion in our country concerning the government's bill to redefine marriage. They, and the Pope, have also commented on the death penalty, the war in Iraq, abortion, gambling, and numerous social justice issues.

Whenever bishops or other religious leaders speak out on matters of public policy some people object that they are violating the principle of the separation of Church and state. Our country's Foreign Minister has recently voiced such objections. It is intriguing that fervent Canadian nationalists are such devout believers in that famous American civic principle, which in any case was intended to prevent the formation of a state Church, not to suppress comment by religious leaders. Bishops are citizens too.

One view of the proper role of religion is that it is essentially a private reality, a comforting myth that some people find valuable as a kind of security blanket to help cope with a rough world. Catholic Christianity rejects that view. The Gospel message has both personal and social implications, which are presented by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount and in the vision of the last judgment in Chapter 25 of Matthew's Gospel. Christians are committed to engagement in society, and that is sometimes not welcomed. A South American bishop once said: "When I feed the poor, people call me a saint; when I ask 'Why are they poor?' people call me a communist." Although obviously not all who identify themselves as belonging to a religious group faithfully practise that religion or accept all of its beliefs, religious belief is a significant factor in our society. In Edmonton, 29% of the citizens reported to the census that they were Catholic and the next largest group, at 23%, claimed no religion. The rest of the community is divided into many different religious faiths. It is artificial and unreal to sanitize public discourse so as to exclude the insights of the many religious and secular traditions with which our country is blessed, and which influence and often guide the lives of countless citizens. There is wisdom in religious traditions, which are not a threat but a treasure. Religious believers, in fact, are not particularly threatened by the faith of others. They often work together and learn from one another. It is the adherents of militant secularism (itself a kind of religion) who are most allergic to religious voices.

Some argue that a legislator needs to bracket scrupulously whatever profound inner convictions guide his or her life, and simply reflect accurately what the majority of constituents believe about an issue at the moment. In that case we could replace politicians with polling machines. Edmund Burke, the noted 18th century British politician, once wisely pointed out to constituents who objected to the way he was voting in parliament, that the people elect a whole human person and trust his judgment, always reserving the right to vote him out the next time.

Clearly, no religion should impose its beliefs upon society, and the roles of politician and religious leader must be kept distinct. Take it from someone coming from a two thousand year old Church which has too often become entwined with government: it is good for no-one, and certainly not for religious faith, when priests become politicians. But religious leaders do have a prophetic role, vital to the common good of the community, and it is the foolish king who seeks to muzzle the prophet. When the powers of the state rush to re-engineer the most fundamental social institution, far more fundamental than the state itself, society needs critical voices to raise inconvenient questions. It also needs time to reflect on the implications of the proposal. There is social injustice in our society, and the social teachings of the Catholic Church provide a compelling vision of the common good, and offer a devastating critique of a community absorbed with materialism that robs the human person of dignity. That same consistent ethic rejects the killing of the most vulnerable at either end of the spectrum of human life, and proclaims that the common good of our society requires that its most basic building block be the community of a man and a woman faithful in love and open to the awesome gift of life. It also requires that all persons be treated with reverence, whether or not one agrees with their beliefs or actions.

Obviously, citizens who are believers are profoundly influenced by their experience of faith, and by the light of faith which illuminates more fully the central questions of life, and reveals aspects of reality not accessible in any other way. Their positions on vital issues facing society are not, however, simply matters of faith. They also involve a rational analysis which is inherently open to people of other faiths or of no faith. In a pluralistic society, of course, reason and not faith must be the coin of public discourse. So, in the issue at hand, the description of marriage in Matthew 19 as a covenant of a male and a female is convincing to Christians because it is the word of Jesus. That consideration is understandably irrelevant to our fellow citizens who are not Christians. There are reasons, however, quite apart from faith, for arguing against the Government's proposal to reinvent marriage, and it is those reasons that Catholic bishops invite the community to consider.

We live in a world of sound bites, and of shallow but persuasive rhetoric. Our society is the richer when matters of great public significance are examined thoroughly, not hurriedly, and when the voices of all are heard, including those who bring to the table the wisdom of the spiritual traditions which are such a treasure in our community.

Thomas Collins
Archbishop of Edmonton

Edmonton, February 19, 2005