Joseph Mattam, SJ
The Catholic Church has from the time of Gaudium et Spes
emphasized the importance of Christians being involved in civil life and “play
their role as citizens”. In the 2002 document of the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith “The Participation of Catholics in Political Life”
Cardinal Ratzinger mentioned the example of saints like Thomas More who were
actively involved in Politics.
He said it was “commendable that in today’s democratic
societies, in a climate of true freedom, everyone is made a participant in
directing the body politic.” The Cardinal wrote that by fulfilling their civic
duties, “guided by a Christian conscience in conformity with its values, the
lay faithful exercise their proper task of infusing the temporal order with
Christian values, all the while respecting the nature and rightful autonomy of
that order” and reminded the “lay faithful are never to relinquish their
participation in ‘public life’, that is, in the many different economic,
social, legislative, administrative and cultural areas, which are intended to
promote organically and institutionally the common good.
John Paul II had warned many times of the dangers which
follow from confusion between the religious and political spheres. He urged the
need for keeping “the distinction between the domains proper to religion
and to political society. In practice, the identification of religious law
with civil law can stifle religious freedom, even going so far as to restrict
or deny other inalienable human rights” He argued for the autonomy of the
religious and secular spheres.
While this general encouragement is given again and again,
the Canon Law prohibits clergy to assume public offices which involve a
participation in the exercise of civil power, whether in the legislature,
presidency or judiciary. Can. 285 #2: “Clerics are forbidden to assume public
office whenever it means sharing in the exercise of civil power.” Can. 287 #2:
“They [clerics] are not to play an active role in political parties or in
directing trade unions unless, in the judgment of the competent ecclesiastical
authority, this is required for the defense of the rights of the Church or to
promote the common good.”
Recently when Fr. Bismarque Dias announced his plans to
stand for election in Goa, there has been a
renewed interest in the question of priests in politics. Though it is a
fact that Bishops can be ambassadors, representatives of the Vatican State
all over the world, and the Bishop of Rome is also the head of a sovereign
state, the Vatican authorities have consistently opposed priests standing for
election or holding public office whether it be in El
Salvador, Haiti,
Karnataka or anywhere else. It is obvious that the leaders definitely follow
the Canon Law which is clear and unambiguous:
While the emphasis on Christian involvement is very clear and definite, why has there been another standard for the Clerics? Based on a misreading of some biblical passages the Catholic Church had for centuries shied away from involvement in politics and the material realm, restricting the Church’s role exclusively to the spiritual realm. One of the misunderstood passages is Mark 12.13-17, about paying taxes to the emperor. In the past many have argued from this text against the Church’s involvement in the material realm saying that the Church is at the service only of the spiritual realm and the State must look after the material realm.
For centuries the “church” meant the clerics. Since the
Church’s mission is exclusively in the religious, spiritual realm, the clerics
who represent the Church may not enter into politics which is of the secular
sphere. Does this text teach this? What actually is the text saying? It
begins by saying that “”they sent to him [Jesus] some Pharisees and some
Herodians to trap him” (MK12.13). Where is the trap? If he says, “Pay taxes”
those who are nationalists would trap him; if he says “do not pay taxes” those
who are loyal to Rome
would trap him. What did he really say? He told them “Give to the emperor the
things that are the emperor’s”. And what are the things of the emperor?
“Whose head is this and whose title? – Jesus said very clearly to give to the
emperor what belongs to him, namely his “head and the title”. They saw the
point immediately “And they were utterly amazed at him” (Mk 12.17).
He was not making a division between the spiritual and the material realms; he was not telling them to pay or not to pay taxes but simply to give to the emperor his head and title he has imprinted on the coin which belongs to God and therefore to the people of the land. Everything, except sin, belongs to God. But the Church leaders down the centuries have seen here a division of the material and the spiritual, and concluded that the Church (read: clerics) is to be at the service only of the spiritual realm. Jesus made no such division. Another misunderstood passage is Jn 18.36 which used to be translated as: my kingdom is not of this world, though the text says, my kingdom is not from this world, as it is from the Father’s love.
Seeing the role of the priest exclusively as something
spiritual, dealing with the altar, worship, with the “sacred” is not coming
from Jesus nor the New Testament for Jesus had not established such a ‘cultic,
sacred’ priesthood. In his mind the leaders he left behind were to lead
the community by their service, “to look after the sheep”, to build up the
community, as Paul puts it.
Whatever helps build up the community was to be the realm of
the leaders’ activity. In today’s world actual participation in the political
life of the nation seems to be an important area where a priest needs to be
involved, as policies are made and decisions are taken in the public sphere, in
politics. This affects everybody and hence for the leaders of the community to
be totally absent in that sphere does not seem proper. Since the priest
represents the Church in the public eye, it is fitting that some priests be
involved in such matters. Even Jesus’ actions and words had political
implications, though he was not a politician.
What do we say about the stand taken by Fr Bismarque Dias? I
think we need to support him. He says he is not looking for wealth or position,
but for a better means to serve the people and the country. “I have no
bank account. I will have to open one for the election. I have no money, no
vote banks, but I will be the voice of my people:” He has been actively involved
in social action and empowering the people. His move is seen as quite unusual
in Goa. He is fully aware that his
decision has put the Goa Catholic Church in an embarrassing situation, but as
he told The Hindu, “I will go ahead as I am convinced I am doing the right
thing. I will not back out.” Jesus and Gandhi are his inspiration.
“I know this is a critical juncture, Goa is losing something; I shall bring new energy to politics. I am doing this to gain power to serve the people. If good Catholics were there to take care of concerns in the political system I would not enter politics. If the Church were to take a firm stand on environmental issues and issues of the poor people’s struggle to save their agri-lands, I would not enter elections.”
Politicians have turned into criminals and we cannot
continue to watch helplessly when people are looking for alternatives,” he
says. He explains that while taking up issues of the people with government
departments, what struck him was the massive corruption, total lack of
transparency and the complete disdain for people. This is what made him decide
to fight the elections. As everyone knows today politics is taken over
mostly by crooks and selfish leaders, if a good Christian can be present in
such a sphere and hopefully function as a good Christian and a good politician
who has the peoples’ interest in mind, then that would be a great service.
Obviously the canon law makes sense if it is talking about a parish priest who is in charge of a particular parish where there could be members of various political parties; if he becomes a party member he would not serve the cause of building up the Body of Christ, the community, which is the primary task of the priest. His participation in politics can cause division and would not help the community. I am not suggesting that all priests should enter politics; but if one or the other feels that he can serve the country better in this way, he should be supported. Credit to Indian Currents, 19/2/12 Delhi
(The author is founder & dean of the
first Regional Jesuit Theologate and regional seminary in Gujarat and its dean for nearly 16 years, teaching
seminarians, conducting seminars and retreats for priests and sisters. Being a theologian
and sought after speaker at international conferences he is a regular visitor
to countries in Europe, Americas
and Africa.)