"Conscience must concur with church's moral teaching, politicians told"

Roman Catholic church leaders have issue a strong call to the strong call to Catholic politicians to align their conscience with the church's teachings

Responding to a recent statement by Catholic Democrats in the House of Representatives affirming "the primacy of conscience" in their voting decisions, three key leaders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said conscience "must be consistent with fundamental moral principles," including the church's opposition to abortion.

"As members of the church, all Catholics are obliged to shape our consciences in accord with the moral teaching of the church," said a "Statement on Responsibilities of Catholics in Public Life," which called abortion "a grave violation of the most fundamental human right -- the right to life."

I can imagine how this is going to play among the editorialists: expect words like "controlling," "medieval," "intolerant," "denying freedom of thought," even "bigoted." I'm sure the question will be raised, how the Church thinks it can come off telling people what their consciences should say. There will be charges of hypocrisy, in light of recently publicized moral failures in the Catholic Church.

The Church takes a big risk in standing against what is considered to be the great moral virtue of our era, tolerance; and that risk is heightened by apparently standing against personal freedom. Remember the big stink when some priests denied Holy Communion to politicians who supported abortion? Here it comes again.

I'm not a Catholic myself, but I tend to think they're on the right track, in spite of all this. I'm a bit uncomfortable with the terminology used, that conscience should be shaped by the Church's teachings--I'd rather say that conscience should be aligned with the Word of God. We Protestants have to remember, though, that our understanding of God's Word is shaped by our heritage as well, so this is more a concern with language than with substance, except for this: as individuals and institutions, we must be very cautious about setting ourselves up as authorities, because we all make mistakes. The Roman Catholic Church's teaching is not infallible, and every word we utter must be tested by God's Word. Thus I do not agree with every moral teaching of the Catholics, since at least one of them, regarding contraception, I cannot find in Scripture.

That's not what this statement focused on, though:

"While it is always necessary to work to reduce the number of abortions by providing alternatives and help to vulnerable parents and children, Catholic teaching calls all Catholics to work actively to restrain, restrict and bring to an end the destruction of unborn human life. . . . A priority for the poor, the protection of family life, the pursuit of justice and the promotion of peace are fundamental priorities of the Catholic moral tradition which cannot be ignored or neglected."

It's hard to disagree with any of that. But what interests me more right now is not the content of this call, but whether they have the right to make it. Pundits will frame it as an infringement on politicians' right to conscience and personal identity. It isn't, though. Consider, for example, one of the other bodies that some of these politicians belong to: the United States Congress. Congress is an association of decision makers, with its identity and purpose chartered by the Constitution. Members of Congress take an oath to uphold this Constitution. They do this voluntarily, as membership in Congress is voluntary. We wouldn't blink at members of Congress being urged to let their consciences be shaped by the Constitution.

Membership in the Roman Catholic Church is also voluntary. The Church is an association of people who have stated their agreement with the Church's beliefs and (I presume) vowed to uphold its teachings. The identity of the Church is chartered in the Bible and in documents of Councils down through the centuries. It seems to me this statement by the Catholic leaders is just calling on politicians to do what they've already agreed to do. If someone no longer agrees with the Church's teaching, why would they call themselves a part of it? What's so controversial about that?

What, then, about the Church's hypocrisy, following their own moral scandals? I'm in no position to comment on how that all took place or was allowed to continue, but this I know: one does not atone for past errors by condoning future ones.

What's really going to rankle many about this moral call is that it claims to represent an absolute morality. That's the real sticking point in it. It's saying that being a Catholic is more than a cultural/social matter, but has a defined (and agreed) belief system attached to it. It's saying that (Catholic) politicians' consciences shouldn't have free range over any territory they happen to prefer, that there are fences around what is right and wrong, that there is a standard for moral decision making.

I repeat, what's on my mind here is not whether everything the Church teaches is right (it isn't, in my opinion), or even whether moral authority is properly vested in the Catholic Church (which I also disagree with); but whether it's right in saying that there is such a thing as moral authority. I'm almost hesitant to bring that up here, since we've covered it on this blog at great length in the past, but I invite you to think of it this way: what if the Church is right, that there really is a standard for us to follow? How then could it be wrong to urge our nation's leaders to follow it?

(HT to Christdot)

Posted: Fri - March 17, 2006 at 10:45 AM |

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson getCategoryName("<$CategoryUUID$>");

"Conscience must concur with church's moral teaching, politicians told"

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson