Christianity, Judaism, Islam and other religious traditions offer a vision of the future in which God reigns supreme and all is right with the world. The lion lies down with the lamb and nations beat their swords into plowshares. In Christianity this ideal future world is described as the Kingdom of God. This ideal world is seen as the work of God but all Christians can play a role in bringing it about. We can do this by living the Gospel teachings and working to see that those teachings are reflected in the laws and policies of the societies in which we live.
Over the centuries Christian kings have tried to realize Gospel teaching in their laws and policies with greater or lesser success, just as Islamic and leaders from other religious traditions have tried to incorporate teachings from their religious tradition in their laws and policies. Sometimes this has worked very well. During the reign of Charlemagne, that king strove to apply Gospel teaching to his kingdom and for a few decades civilization flourished in Western Europe.
Other times this has not gone well, as civil rulers have used religion as a political tool for their own benefit and church leaders have been corrupted by temptation to wealth and power. Much of the history of the church for the past one thousand years has been the struggle to find a balance between the demands of the Gospel and the pressure of politics on the church by civil rulers.
One of the documents of the Second Vatican Council is Dignitas Humanae. This document identifies the balance between church and government. Essentially, it says that both church and government have their proper roles in society and those roles should be respected. Government has no right to control the proper exercise of religion and religion has no right to dictate policy and law to government. Each needs to be respectful of the other. While this seems obvious, it arises from a history during which the church asserted its authority over civil governments at various times and civil governments have asserted their authority over the church.
While the church has no right to dictate policy to civil governments, it does have a responsibility to proclaim the Gospel message to society. That message has implications for social policy. While the church cannot dictate social policy, it has the responsibility to help form the consciences of citizens and political leaders in light of the moral implications of Gospel teaching. Further, Christians have a responsibility to consider those policies and politicians for whom they vote in light of the demands of Gospel teaching. Christians should oppose policies that are contrary to Gospel teaching and support policies that are consistent with Gospel teaching.
This doesn’t mean being a Republican or Democrat or any other political party. Political parties have their own agenda. Sometimes that agenda may be consistent with Gospel teaching, while at other times it is diametrically opposed to Gospel teaching. For example, the Republican platform is probably closer to Church teaching on the issue of abortion, while on the same issue the Democratic platform solidly supports abortion as an acceptable option. However, on most other Gospel teaching, aside from abortion, it is the Democratic party that is closer to Gospel teaching. The result is that the Christian has to pick and choose their position on issues based on the Gospel and not political affiliation, as neither party is consistent with the Gospel.
It isn’t just a matter of checking a particular policy against the Gospel, as this is not always clear. In some situations a policy may be neutral or simply the lesser of two evils. The Christian is called to apply critical reflection to the issue as well. Critical reflection is using logic and reason in light of established facts and likely consequences of a policy to come to a decision about the wisdom of a particular policy.
The recent executive order excluding refugees from the United States and inhibiting travel to the United States for citizens of certain Muslim majority countries is an example of the lack of critical reflection. The executive order justifies the restrictions in light of terrorism, yet no Americans have been killed by terrorists in the US from any of the nations listed in the Executive order. While thousands of Americans have been killed by terrorists from Saudi Arabia which is not on the list.
Further, the clear Gospel teaching is to welcome the stranger and especially the refugee. The Pope, the US Bishop’s Conference and many other world political and religious leaders have spoken against the executive order. In speaking out, the church is proclaiming the Gospel and helping to form the conscience of the American people and their leaders. This is a valid and necessary role for the Church. Failure to speak out in such circumstances would be a betrayal of the Gospel, as would be placing a political agenda ahead of the demands of justice and Gospel teaching.
The right to control the nation’s borders by the government is not in question. What is in question is the effectiveness of the policy as presented to protect the US, as well as its consistency with basic Gospel values. To achieve our goals of security for the American people and the world we cannot make major policy decisions based on a gut reaction, political rhetoric or simplistic remedies. Policy must arise from serious and competent critical reflection on the issues that challenge the nation, all in light of the demands of the Gospel. If our leaders fail to do this, they place the nation in danger and compromise the values that are the moral and spiritual foundation of America.
