Can Catholics be good legislators in a pluralistic democracy?

As a result of the discussion on Catholic Social Doctrine, one of the readers of this blog brought up a question that has been asked before in the history this nation. Can a Roman Catholic be a member of a government in a pluralistic democracy? Actually, it really brings up the broader question of whether a Christian can be a member of government. Why did this question come up? Well, let’s look at the last part of the quote from Mr. Weigel’s article:

The moral imperative to legally protect innocent human life from conception until natural death is a settled matter in Catholic doctrine. So is the nature of marriage as the stable union of a man and a woman. Catholic legislators who support the abortion license are manifestly in dissent and have damaged their communion with the Church. So have legislators who support “gay marriage.” Academics eager to demonstrate their fidelity to Catholic social doctrine might point this out — and support the bishops who do.

This last quote makes it clear that any legislators who vote in favor of allowing gay marriage have “damaged their communion with the Church.” I am deliberately leaving abortion out of the picture because that is an issue of taking life, rather than an issue of permitting a state of life that the Catholic Church considers intrinsically disordered. But notice that Mr. Weigel says that those Catholic legislators who vote in a way that goes against the settled doctrine of the Catholic Church have “damaged their communion with the Church.” This is a state of self-excommunication, that implies that the bishops probably ought to finish the process and declare them excommunicate. I say this because there are many calls for the bishops to act as a whole and to declare an automatic excommunication on those who vote against the settled doctrine of the Church. Thus my reader commented:

I agree: which is why Roman Catholics are not qualified to hold public office because their religion requires them to push their religion on the rest of us.

I would go further and say that Christians as a whole are not qualified to serve in public office, but I feel that way exactly because I think my religion, as I’ve been taught it, exactly forbids me from forcing it on others and that, put in a place of enforcing public policy or living my religion, I’d be caught in a moral catch 22. …

Let me give you another thought experiment that will perhaps bring this idea into a little more focus. Imagine a town in which the majority (60%) are Catholic and the rest are Protestant. As a result, the majority of the town council are Catholic. The local supermarket sells various prophylactics, and its pharmacy sells the pill. A Catholic citizen brings this to the attention of the town council and insists that the supermarket must be forbidden from selling those items as use of those items violates settled Catholic doctrine. More than that, the citizen claims that the pill is an abortifacient, and that therefore the town council has no choice but to forbid its use inside the city limits. Would not the majority on the town council be required to vote to forbid any contraceptives inside the town limits, on pain of “damaged … communion with the Church?” It would appear that the Catholic majority would be duty-bound to make the sale and use of those prophylactics and the pill illegal within the town limit, regardless of the differing doctrinal (and secular) opinions of the town’s minority Protestants (and agnostics/atheists). That is, Mr. Weigel’s argument is that no doctrinal plurality is allowed to a Roman Catholic legislator on matters that are settled doctrine and impact daily life.

It may surprise you to find out that this is not a new question, a new thought. I can remember questions of this type being posed to us in ethics class in seminary. It has come up before in history, and more than once. For instance, during the presidential election of John F. Kennedy, that precise objection was raised by many Protestant pastors. It was said that the election of a Catholic president would bring the USA under the rule of Rome. This same objection came up during the Reformation, and many of the early Anabaptists answered it by clearly stating that Christians could not be part of the police, the armed forces, or the government. That is, they were not simply pacifists, but were also full separatists. Today’s separatist fundamentalists are only partially separated in comparison to those early Anabaptists.

However, it may surprise you that before Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Empire that there were Church Fathers who not only had the same question, but answered it in the same way as the Anabaptists, that Christians could not truly be part of the government of a pluralistic State. Let me remind the readers that the pre-Christian Roman Empire was incredibly pluralistic, allowing multiple religions and multiple cultural practices, all provided that it was acknowledged that the Emperor was in charge and provided they acknowledged the Roman gods. The one clear exception were the Jews, who had the right to only believe in their one God, provided they did not revolt against the Empire. But, Christianity was not one of the approved religions, and thus they came under the ban, which was more or less enforced in the times before Constantine.

For instance, Tertullian writes negatively of the oath that both a soldier and a city official must take as being one forbidden to Christians.

Do we believe it lawful for a human oath to be superadded to one divine, for a man to come under promise to another master after Christ, and to abjure father, mother, and all nearest kinsfolk, whom even the law has commanded us to honour and love next to God Himself, to whom the gospel, too, holding them only of less account than Christ, has in like manner rendered honour? Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? And shall he apply the chain, and the prison, and the torture, and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs? Shall he, forsooth, either keep watch-service for others more than for Christ, or shall he do it on the Lord’s day, when he does not even do it for Christ Himself? And shall he keep guard before the temples which he has renounced? And shall he take a meal where the apostle has forbidden him? And shall he diligently protect by night those whom in the day-time he has put to flight by his exorcisms, leaning and resting on the spear the while with which Christ’s side was pierced?

Saint Hippolytus wrote:

A soldier, being inferior in rank to God, must not kill anyone. If ordered to, he must not carry out the order, nor may he take an oath (sacramentum) to do so. If he does not accept this, let him be dismissed from the church. Anyone bearing the power of the sword, or any city magistrate, who wears purple, let him cease from wearing it at once or be dismissed from the church. Any catechumen or believer who wishes to become a soldier must be dismissed from the church because they have despised God.

Saint Cyprian said:

“[Christians] are not allowed to kill, but they must be ready to be put to death themselves… it is not permitted the guiltless to put even the guilty to death.” “God wished iron to be used for the cultivation of the earth, and therefore it should not be used to take human life.”

For the sake of space, trust me that I could find several other quotes that show that some of the Early Church Fathers appeared to believe it impossible for a Christian to either serve in the armed forces or in government. Several others had strong doubts but allowed service provided that a member of the military or a judge had been a member or in office before they became Christian. However, other Church Fathers did not agree with them, and there is a serious question as to whether their quotes have been interpreted correctly. Nevertheless, the question of Christians in government in a society is a question that never went away and has been continually debated since the beginning of Christianity.

===MORE TO COME===