Principled leadership

Posted by admin on Nov 3, 2005 in Issues & Ideas | 0 comments

I was confused to discover an article in the last issue of Mars’ Hill entitled “Democrats or Demagogues.” The argument was made that the Catholic Church proved it was a totalitarian institution by stating that it would deny the sacraments, and thus salvation, to Catholic politicians who support policies which are contrary to Catholic teaching. The writer seems to believe that because they are elected by the masses, politicians are ultimately responsible to the will of the people and not their own conscience. This statement is a result of a grave misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine and a warped sense of our Christian duty.

The article implies that by denying the sacraments to Catholic politicians, the Church is preventing them from achieving salvation. According to some Protestant groups, such as the Puritans, this may be the true understanding of excommunication. However, the Catholic doctrine of excommunication does not assert that anyone barred from receiving the sacraments–including non-Christians, Evangelicals and Protestants– is going to hell. This is not Catholic doctrine and never has been, contrary to popular perception. Rather, in the Catholic version of excommunication, the denial of the sacraments is denial of an aid to salvation, not salvation itself [Catechism of the Catholic Church 95].

This article also suggests that man’s highest authority while holding a democratic office is his constituents. Thus, if a Christian politician is governing a state whose people are demanding the legalization of activities which are clearly contrary to his faith, such as gay marriage, abortion, or euthanasia, that politician is ethically bound to satisfy his constituents. This approach is a total perversion of the gospel. Consider how this line of logic led to the decriminalization of abortion in Canada under Pierre Tredeau, a Catholic. The result has been the government funded murder of over 300 unborn children every day in Canada, and figures in America are higher by population.

Adolf Hitler held an election after declaring himself dictator of Germany in 1933 in which his Nazi party won two-thirds of the seats in parliament by preaching a message of military expansionism and racial hatred. Under the ethical logic proposed in the article, Hitler had full moral authority to remain dictator of Germany, and govern as he saw fit. However, the ultimate result of this unchecked power in the hands of a madman was the deaths of 52 million people.

In conclusion, I do not think it will be acceptable to stand before God and say “I spat on You and Your laws, but it was not my fault because I needed to do it to remain popular.” If there is a conflict between our Christian values and our democratic ideals, democracy must ultimately lose, because, as Christians, we are responsible to God first. As to the article’s argument that applying Christian beliefs to politics would lead to a decrease in Christian politicians’ influence, I ask this question: what good is it to have Christian politicians who will not let their Christian values inform their policies? The only problem I have with the stand that the Catholic Church is taking is that it should have been started in the 1960s.