Why is the Church so Political?
A friend of mine who has worked for both Church and State once remarked to me that the Church is much more political. He didn’t expound upon his assertion, but I suspect he’s correct. I theorize two reasons. First, within the Church, the protection of turf translates into the protection of holy ground. People in the Church face and sometimes fall to the temptation to assign a sacred significance to their projects. Second, officials and members in the Church, because they are doing God’s work, face the temptation to confuse their will with God’s will. Thy will be done becomes my will be done. Those who fall to this temptation interpret any criticism of or opposition to their will as disagreement with and antagonism to God’s will. The power the Church wields may be necessary for its mission, but that necessity make its power no less dangerous or, at times, frightening. The Church’s sometimes criminal response to cases of sexual abuse is a case in point.
Comments are closed.
So was their response to the cases of sexual abuse a democrat or republican response? I guess I don’t get how that is political. I think people are getting way too sensitive. Now they are saying that if you disagree with anything the president wants you are guilty of hate speech. Come on. Enough is enough. Is it political to have an opinion?
Dan, We are made to be sensitive because we cannot retain the smallest most hidden sin and expect to gain union with God. There are different degrees of sensitivity and a small population of people are born with more pain receptors. Those who are less sensitive tend to be more aggressive and do not have the insight to see the harmful effects of their aggressive attitudes and behaviors. This population tends to be attracted to political power as their problem solving style because they have adapted to a dangerous and aggressive with aggressive reactions. This is all genetic expression that increases chances for survival. When incorporated into faith the expression of faith becomes more like the secular social construct of hierarchy and power. The influence of this construct is seen in the individual whose rise to power within this system is determined by the ability to communicate effectively enough so as to create a sense of trust in this person to be able to express, educate and defend the belief systems that hold this construct in place. This creates a sense of safety for those who depend on such a world system for their purpose and identity.
Then you have the blind leading the blind.
So was their response to the cases of sexual abuse a democrat or republican response? I guess I don’t get how that is political.
Dan,
Saying the Church is political doesn’t imply allegiance to the Democratic or Republican party. Most of the Church isn’t in the United States, after all.
Political borrowing from Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, involves “competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government) . . . . political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices.”
When Henry Kissinger said, “University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small,” he wasn’t talking about Democrats and Republicans.
In any group or organization of sufficient size where there is power to be had, there will be politics.
Dan;
Not sure where you found Democrats, Republicans or the president in Kyle’s post. He explicitly said he was addressing the political system within the church, not the political system of the state or even church-state relationships.
The response of church authorities to scandal was neither Republican nor Democrat (how could it be with the response coming from authorities in multiple countries – indeed with the church being a body that refuses to be confined or described with a national identity), but it was profoundly political.
I think Kyle has diagnosed the problem well. We forget that we are members of the body of which Christ, not ourselves, is the head. Perhaps one way to help avoid this temptation is to bear in mind the difference between discernment and decision. If our task is to discern the mind and will of Christ (which necessarily requires formation to be able to do so) rather than decide what is right and wrong, we would shift the focus off of ourselves and inject a measure of humility into the political process within the church. This wouldn’t solve the problem of politics (I can always “discern” whatever I want if so inclined) but maybe it can shift the terms of the process.
Dan, he didn’t say it was partisan. He said it was political. Haven’t you ever heard the term “office politics?” It doesn’t mean Republicans v. Democrats; it means competition for and with the instruments of power.
How are you defining “political”?
I mean by “political” being marked by pursuits, possessiveness, and conflicts of power.
Politics is one way we hide from God, political argument is a method whereby we try to justify having decided for ourselves what is good and evil.
The frequent reception of the sacrament of penance is the best cure for church politics.
In answer to Dan’s question above: yes, expressing an opinion is a political act.
OK, in the narrow sense then. Because of course the church cannot help being political in the broad sense.
So was Jesus political?
Are we not political if we evangelize and seek to usher in the “Kingdom”?
We are mistaken if we do not know how to create a safe environment for healthy communication. What seems to take place with the extroverts who have dominated the catholic voice in America is the creation of an antagonistic relationship based on their ignorance of interpersonal dynamics. They project themselves as superior and keepers of the truth while disregarding their negative effect on others and see resistance as the other person’s fault. They do not have the insight to recognize that the other person’s resistance is the result of their lack of a compassionate understanding and a lack of love.
It seems like politics will always be a part of the Church (and probably everywhere else) since each person is striving to do better and gain that better position within the Church. This is similar to that of office politics. It seems like instead of people working together like they used to do, and sharing in the merits of the work, that individuals in today’s times who are working within the Church are in constant competition with each other. Could it because of s person’s need whether that be financial or gratification? Or is it out of selfishness?
Dan;
Of course Jesus was political (in the broad sense). He says a lot in the Gospels about proper exercise of (or refusal to exercise) power in human relationships. The Beatitudes are political statements. Turn the other cheek is a political statement. Give your taxes to Caesar and your life to God is a political statement. Even his renunciation of divine power in the incarnation and his refusal to resist his oppressors in his Passion were political acts.
If we live in obedience to the teachings and example of Christ, we cannot help but be political, and political in such a way that other political authorities might become uncomfortable. How does government authority deal with persons who cheerfully pay their taxes but maintain that their true and ultimate allegiance is give to another authority? And what about those who encourage others to also give their supreme allegiance to something other than their country? So yes, evangelism is a political act.
But look at the way Jesus was political – he refused to lord it over others (even those over whom he had rightful authority). He came as a servant, giving even his life for others. His politics turn the politics of the world upside-down, and we are called to do the same.
Jesus also instituted the Church and assigned to it a particular power structure, a clear political act, that; however, as Ryan points out, He didn’t seek (though the devil tried to tempt him with) worldly power.
Exactly Kyle. And as the body of Christ (lit. the physical manifestation of Christ on earth) the church, her members and her structures of authority must follow the example of Christ in their exercise of power. “Anyone who wants to become great among you must be your servant, and anyone who wants to be first among you must be the slave of all.”
Kyle, I disagree. Christ did assign the Church to a particular structure but not in this political world. It was not a political act. It freed us from politics, but, those who came later did not have the clarity of Christ and His vision of the Church was cumulatively contaminated with each passing generation as they moved further away from the original group and as they integrated a higher population into the church. Then in the 4th century the church became the religion of a born again emperor who thought that God was on his side when he won a war. Further contaminating and politicizing the faith and morphing it into a religion of politics.
Then you have the accumulation of wealth and status further mutating it into a secular construct with all of its legalism and narcissism hidden under the guise of the “fullness of truth”. The only Truth that is clear right now is that Christ is present in the Eucharist and Confession forgives our sins and Mary is the Mother of God and baptism initiates the work of the Holy Spirit and Confirmation joins us closer to this beautiful Humble Spirit.
Everything else is a male dominated political competition for power that has no place in Heaven.
It seems to me that it doesn’t much matter whether the reactions of the Church to instances of sexual abuse have been “political” or apolitical. What matters is whether they’ve been responses that can be categorized under the heading “good” or whether the responses must be filed under the heading “evil.”
And, guess what…?
Rodak makes a great point. The inaction or coverups of the sexual abuse cases within the Church is morally evil, and unconscionable. But, now the process is slow in its investigations in the Church’s effort to find the truth as to whether the accusations are true or not. But, unfortunately before the scandals came to light, the hierarchy of the Church relied on secular therapists for their advice and opinions and they are the professionals that advised the priests could be “healed” and moved from one parish to another. I wonder if the Church is using Christian therapists nowadays, as opposed to secular therapists as they did before.
Teresa R., it is not important whether or not the therapists were secular or Christian. I know because I was both secular and now Catholic. The important thing to remember is that a good therapist will always create an environment that seeks to establish safety and trust in order to seek the truth. The hierarchy is limited in their understanding of human relationships because of their limited experience with human intimacy and all of the vulnerability present in this most intense passionate level of entanglement.
I have worked within this intimate private vulnerable area with others for 30 years and what I have known from day one is that the children must always be protected and given the freedom and safety to express what they need.