In the wake of the United States Supreme Court decision in Dobbs, there have been renewed criticisms of the role of the Catholic Church in public advocacy. 

For example, in August, when the citizens of Kansas voted on a pro-life ballot initiative, known as the Value Them Both Amendment, one of its strongest advocates, both in financial support and public witness, was the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas, led by Archbishop Joseph Naumann, and the Kansas Catholic Conference, the voice of the Church in the state on matters of public policy.

In the days before the vote, two letters to the editor ran in the leading metro newspaper criticizing the role of the Church. One, written by a Jewish rabbi, contended that the Church was imposing its religious beliefs on Kansans. Another, written by a group of Catholic religious sisters, argued that politicians “will be able to impose religious beliefs on all Kansans, and make it more difficult for women to make decisions about their own health.”

Both critiques may be easily dismissed because opposition to abortion is not a uniquely religious claim, but rather a consequence of a biological fact. Consult any basic embryology textbook: an embryo is a living member of the human species who will develop (given the proper conditions and according to a natural trajectory) from embryo to fetus, to newborn, to toddler, to child, to adolescent, to adult, to death.

From this scientific reality we may ask, “so what?” The answer to this question does not require a specific religious view. A common view, shared by many religious, philosophical, and even atheistic persons, is that every human being is equal in dignity to all other human beings and should be afforded equal rights, one of the most fundamental of which is the right to life. 

Therefore, advocacy on behalf of the unborn is not an imposition of religious belief. 

It is true that the Church’s teaching on abortion – like its teaching on the intentional destruction of all innocent human life – has a theological dimension because its view that all humans should be treated with equal dignity is rooted in the religious claim that we are all created in the image and likeness of God. Indeed, many of the Church’s social teachings that can be articulated in a secular way are rooted in theological claims. 

Indeed, opposition to abortion is consistent with the innumerable other moral or religious norms reflected in law, such as opposition to other violent acts, to racial discrimination, or to theft and the enforcement of duties of care to children, the disabled, or the environment. The Church teaches that stealing is wrong, but nobody believes a sheriff is imposing his religious belief on others when he arrests a burglar.

Therefore, that a particular policy position may reflect a moral or religious claim does not compromise the witness of the Church or her members in the public square. 

To be sure, there are many concerns with the Church’s institutional interventions into political life from a tendency to bureaucratization to the dilution of its supernatural mission. Those on both ends of the political spectrum accuse the Church of over-emphasizing certain teachings to the neglect of others. Moreover, while some (and perhaps all) interpretations of the uniquely American notion of “separation of Church and State” are misguided, there are spheres of authority which ought to be respected. The primary obligation of the bishops is to teach, and the Church influences political and civic life in a primary way by providing formation to the laity who carry out the Church’s mission in the world through their personal vocations. As Pope Francis said, “a good Catholic meddles in politics.” 

And yet, the Church does have her own institutional mission. As Pope Benedict said in Deus Caritas Est, she “cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper.” One cannot imagine, for example, the righteous battles against slavery or for civil rights without the prophetic witness and courageous voices of the various churches, ministers, and people of faith.

The reality is that very few actually dispute an appropriate role of personal and institutional faith in public life. Many that might denounce the Church’s stance on abortion welcome the Church’s public witness and advocacy when it aligns with their own beliefs, such as on the death penalty or access to health care. 

The voice of the Church in public life does not threaten democratic principles. Rather, in a time of increasingly narrow, materialistic views of reality, the prophetic voice of the Church, which transcends ideological or partisan labels, is ever more necessary to proclaim the true good of the human person and to exhort all people to seek a just society rooted in the common good.

The post The voice of the Church in public life does not threaten democracy appeared first on Catholic Herald.