If You Like Political Islam, How about Political Catholicism?

Toronto's Cardinal Collins.

At the election debate a night or two ago, Cardinal Collins announced the intent to form ongoing political interest groups in the archdiocese, to advocate for Catholic political causes.

This idea makes me uncomfortable.

It does have some historical justification. In mainland Europe, there have been Catholic political parties. The Church does have a defined social teaching.

However, the image it immediately evokes for me is the United Church, which seems to have abandoned religion altogether for politics.

Which is an abdication of responsibility. We already have political parties to handle such affairs. By comparison, we lack awareness of religion.

Most political issues are not moral issues; they are disagreements on how best to accomplish some shared moral aim. To inject the Church into the political discourse systematically, without reference to some specific issue, risks missing this, and so increasing political divisions that have already become too wide. As well as alienating Catholics who cannot in good faith support the Church’s particular political positions. Bishops, priests, or religious people generally have no special insights or expertise here. Their training is not in law, or economics, or practical affairs, or political science.

Some political issues are indeed moral issues, and here I would expect the Church to speak loudly: abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, conscience rights, the seal of the confessional, whether a war is unjust, human equality in its true sense, real racism and discrimination—as opposed to the current gross misappropriation of these terms to mean their opposite. In principle, concern for the poor, of course—but this illustrates the problem. All current political groups profess concern for the poor. Accusing any current political party of lacking it is therefore claiming either greater expertise in politics than the politicians or non-Catholics generally, or claiming that those who oppose you politically are evil people, both malicious and dishonest.

That is a serious charge to make without strong evidence; it is destructive to society if not true; and it is bad Christianity.

The same would apply, in bargain quantities, to the Church getting involved with “environmental” issues. Nobody is opposed to a clean environment.

And I certainly do not want the local parish agitating for such things as a new neighbourhood crosswalk. Which is an example I think the cardinal actually used. How confident are we that it is objectively more moral to spend public funds on a new crosswalk than on some other priority--say, a seniors’ centre, paying down public debt, or a soup kitchen for the poor? Are we supposing the non-
Catholics are too stupid to see this, or simply evil?

It is not always obvious that we are well-served by the priorities of the North American Church hierarchy.