QUESTION:

What do you think about the clergy entering the political field of activities and taking up positions in the government? What is the Church’s position about it? Does the Church hold on to the separation of the Church\religion and politics of state governance? What does it imply?

Jessy David

ANSWER:

By Jacob Parappally MSFS

It is dangerous to mix religion with politics as it is dangerous to mix politics with religion. Political parties manipulate religious sentiments to secure power and when they achieve their goal they would still use it to remain in power. Their end they have in mind is obvious and the means they use to manipulate the religious feelings of the people are usually predictable. But when religion uses politics it is subtle except in theocratic societies. If there is a plurality of religions in a country and if it has a democratic system of governance as in India, the politicians of all political parties seek support from the religious leaders of all religions as their support is expected to influence the believers of their religion to support the politicians to win elections and come to power.
Politicians seek favours from religious leaders and vice versa. When the leaders of the Church hobnob with politicians and important officials of the government it is usually to secure some favours. They justify it by convincing themselves and others that it is for the good of the Church and the believers. Some of them consider it absolutely necessary to cultivate such relationships even if they do not subscribe to the political system or the ideology of those in power. Generally it is considered that it is beneficial both for the Church and for the political parties or those engaged in the governance of the State to have a cordial relationship between the Church and the State. However, the question is how right and justifiable it is for the hierarchy of the Church, mainly the clergy, to get involved directly in political activities or taking up positions in the government?
According to the Code of Canon Law, 285/3 “Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation of civil power.” The Church has interpreted the phrase, ‘a participation of civil power’ as sharing of power which involves legislative, executive and judicial power. Further, 287/2 says, “They [clerics] are not to have an active part in political parties and in governing labour unions unless, in the judgment of competent ecclesiastical authority, the protection of the rights of the Church or the promotion of the common good requires it.” While 9 countries prohibit clergy from becoming presidents of the country by their constitution, 22 priests and one bishop joined politics and held high offices in the government. In 2005, Bishop Fernando Armindo Lugo requested Rome to laicize him that he could join politics and stand for election to become the president of Paraguay, a South American country. However, Rome did not permit him to do so. He did not wait for the permission of Rome and joined active politics and in 2008 he was elected president of Paraguay though the constitution of the country had prohibited a cleric to become the president of the country. Anyway, after his election he was laicized. He was impeached in 2012 and one year later he was elected a senator. In India Fr P.J. Jacob of Belgaum diocese won the election and became a member of the Karnataka State assembly (M.L.A.) in 1983.
Though the Canon Law prohibits the clerics to have active participation in parties or to assume public offices, a few clerics joined political parties and held public offices ignoring the law of the Church. When Pope John Paul II visited Nicaragua in 1983 there were three priests, Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, a Maryknoll priest from the USA, Fernando Cardenal, a Jesuit priest and his own brother Ernesto Cardenal, a Franciscan priest who were already cabinet ministers in the Sandinista government headed by Daniel Ortega. Wagging his finger angrily at the Franciscan priest Ernesto Cardenal, then the minister of culture, who was kneeling before him Pope John Paul II admonished him openly, “You must regularize your position in the Church.” He never did. But his brother Jesuit priest left the party and position and rejoined the Jesuits. The Church is very clear about its position with regard to the active participation of its clerics in political parties or holding offices of the State. They are prohibited to do so because it is considered inappropriate for the state of life they have committed themselves to.
Church and State Relationship
It was claimed that the Popes had not only spiritual power but also temporal power since emperor Constantine had donated Rome and the western part of the Roman empire to the Church to be ruled by the reigning Pope. Donatio Constantani, an imperial document proving this claim was used in the 13th century to support the political authority of the papacy. Historians show that Donatio Constantini was a forged document probably made in the 8th century. The leaders of the Church justified their power over the political sphere by claiming that both the spiritual and temporal power or “the two swords” have their source in God whose representatives they claimed to be. Pope Boniface VIII who reigned between 1294 – 1303 said, “We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: ‘Behold, here are two swords’ [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: ‘Put up thy sword into thy scabbard’ [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest (The Bull, Unam Sanctam published in 1302). However, in the course of time the Church had to give up its claim of one of its swords namely, the temporal power, but not willingly. It was forcibly taken away by those rulers who would not accept the political power of the Church over them. The Protestant Reformation could survive only because of the support of those rulers who resisted the claim of the power of the Pope over them.
From the time of Napoleon’s refusal to be crowned by Pope Pius VII on December 2, 1804, the temporal power of the Popes declined. It is said that for all practical purposes the temporal power of the Popes ended when the Italian Army entered Rome exactly 150 years ago on 20 September 1870. The separation between the Church and the State became a reality with the French revolution which abolished the hold of the Church on the State. Later, the third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson wrote in January, 1802 to the Baptist Association, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that the act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” From this emerged the phrase “building a wall of separation between Church & State.” However, almost all the pontifical declarations of 19th century rejected the separation of the Church and the State as pernicious.
The history of the Church is intertwined with the political history of all Christian nations. The era of Christian empires, kingdoms and republics are gone. There are 20 nations which have declared themselves as Christian nations. Certain nations of the world which are considered by others as Christian nations do not claim themselves to be so. In the present day political reality of the world it is important to understand how the Church relates with the governments of various nations. Some of the nations are hostile to the Church, some indifferent and some have cordial relationship with the Church mostly for the political gains of the party that is in power. The second Vatican Council clearly states, “Christ, to be sure, gave His Church no proper mission in the political, economic or social order. The purpose which He set before her is a religious one. But out of this religious mission itself comes a function, a light and an energy which can serve to structure and consolidate the human community according to the divine law. As a matter of fact, when circumstances of time and place produce the need, she can and indeed should initiate activities on behalf of all men, especially those designed for the needy, such as the works of mercy and similar undertakings” (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, GS No 42).
Vatican II declares that the Church is not a political entity or an agent but works for the integral development of every human being to live in freedom and attain his or her destiny. In the Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae) it further says, “The freedom of the Church is the fundamental principle in what concerns the relations between the Church and governments and the whole civil order. In human society and in the face of the government the Church claims freedom for herself in her character as a spiritual authority, established by Christ the Lord, upon which there rests, by divine mandate, the duty of going out into the whole world and preaching the Gospel to every creature. The Church also claims freedom for herself in her character as a society of men who have the right to live in society in accordance with the precepts of the Christian faith” (DH No.13). The Church’s self-realization as a spiritual authority to lead humans to fulfil their God-given vocation as humans in our times can be seen in the dealings of the Popes John XXIII, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and the present Pope Francis. While they did not support any specific form of secular government, they all affirmed that the state must guarantee the dignity and human rights of every person. The Church fulfils its prophetic role in the world by standing for those values of the gospel that recognize and promote human dignity, freedom and integral development of all citizens.
Not Political but Prophetic Role of the Church
In the history of the Church we can find four phases in relation to the state or to the world as Vatican II often terms it. In the first phase the Church was a persecuted Church. The ruling political powers persecuted it. In the second phase the Church aligned with the world as it became the religion of the Roman Empire and eventually began to rule the world when the Pope had both spiritual and temporal powers. In the third phase, after the Reformation and the political upheavals that followed it, the Church was deprived of its temporal power and its spiritual power over a section of the Christian believers. The fourth phase is the time since the second Vatican Council. It is in this fourth phase of the history of the Church that it re-discovered its original vocation to be a prophetic community like its Lord and Master. It has to become the true image or sacrament of Christ, “the Light of the nations” or Lumen Gentium. It is possible only by being immersed in the world, ‘bruised by it’ as Pope Francis says and yet keeping its prophetic identity. It cannot and should not isolate itself from the world. However, it is not by supporting political parties or letting itself be manipulated by governments for their political advantages but by being a spiritual and moral mirror to the governments that they pursue only whatever is good for the well-being of all the people and the integral development of the nation.
Political parties have their own ideologies. Even if some or many of their ideologies are not opposed to gospel values, the Church cannot and should not support any political party or be identified with them. It can raise its prophetic voice credibly against any type of human rights violation, corruption, injustice and dehumanizing and discriminatory policies only when it is not a beneficiary of the favours of the ruling party or the government of a country. To continue the prophetic mission of Christ, the Church must be alert to the policies and programmes of the government in power and raise its authoritative prophetic voice against any form of discrimination and marginalization of any section of the society in the name of religion, class, ethnicity or gender etc. It should be in the forefront fighting in solidarity with others when human rights are violated or when the poor and marginalized are discriminated. It must raise its voice against any form of autocracy or tyranny that dehumanizes and enslaves humans by taking away their fundamental right to be free to live the way they choose to without causing any harm to anyone, believe and profess what they want to believe and profess and move freely without any restriction from the state. The Church must always remain as the conscience-keeper of the world!
A-political Leadership of the Clergy
According to Aristotle, a human being is a political animal. Clergymen are also political animals with their preferences for a particular political ideology and the political party that represents that particular ideology. However, by his commitment to the Lord in the Church to be the minister of the Word and the Sacraments and as the leader of the believing community a clergy man should not let himself be identified as a party worker or propagandist for a political ideology. If a priest chooses to hold any political ideology or identifies himself with a particular political party he would certainly alienate a section of his community which is opposed to his political ideology. It is detrimental to the fulfilling of the ministry entrusted to him. Even if all the members of the community belong to one party, a priest or bishop must be above such party politics to be a credible witness to Jesus and His Kingdom. It is probably for this reason that the Church prohibits the clergy from entering politics and holding offices in the government.
It is unfortunate that there are priests and even bishops who express publicaly their allegiance to a particular political ideology and a political party. Some may justify that it is not for their sake but for the good of the Church that they do so. The good of the Church they claim to secure may be at the cost of the purity and power of the Word of God they proclaim. When the temple of the Church is used for any trade it becomes a den of thieves even if it is for the so called good of the temple! To scurry favour from politicians, political parties or the government in power, the leaders of the Church may be tempted to support them as they run various institutions that need the support of the government. But by doing so they sacrifice at least some fundamental values of the gospel which the Church has the duty to live and proclaim.
For many blind followers of political ideologies or parties the crumbs that fall from the table of power are necessary for their security and survival. But the Church should never trade its soul to secure any false recognition, financial aid, political patronage to cover up some of the misdeeds of the clergy, favourable treatment and judgment from law-enforcing authorities of the State, quid pro quo arrangement of Church institutions with government agencies etc. It is sad, that such indirect involvement of the clergy or the Church leaders are taking place in many places where the Church members are a minority or even majority in a society. The neutrality of the clergy or the Church leaders in general concerning political ideologies or political parties is absolutely necessary to make the Church the conscience of the society and the world. Though the clergy is made up of persons who are also political animals and feel attached to a particular party or ideology which to some extent corresponds to their convictions they have to sacrifice it like many other things of life they offer as sacrifice when they have positively responded to the divine call to be a servant-leader of the Christian community. Aligning with the oppressive systems the political and religious leaders of Jesus’ time would have spared Him of His death on the cross. Whenever the Church leaders aligned themselves with the rulers of their times they betrayed the cross of Christ for pieces of silver and gold. The Church can proclaim that Jesus is alive with the power of the Spirit only when it stands above politics and fight for the rights of all people to live a dignified human life.