(Source)
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Politics
(Source)
In this article, we assume a good political party should be based on Biblical Principles. (If you don't agree with that assumption, please see Should we leave our Bible in the closet when we go vote?) That being assumed, should this political party call itself Christian, or a Catholic?
This question is also interesting because it's related to another question: If "Biblical Principles" (as explained in the article referenced above) are roughly the same thing as Natural Law knowable by reason, and if good Government is based on Natural Law, why then even mention Christianity? Why not just mention reason?
Theories are nice, but politics must deal with reality. In reality, we are not in a pure state of Nature. Man is in a state of fallen (and redeemed) Nature. Yes, in theory, if Man was in a purely natural state, we would not need to bother with this Christianity thing. But in reality, Original Sin has caused darkening of the reason and weakening of the will:
The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly
and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and
revelation so moral and religious truths may be known by everyone with
facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error.
[Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1960]
The Catholic Church is an expert in humanity, and Her interpretation of Natural Law is guided by God. In other words, the Church's Magisterium extends to interpretation of natural law.
The Catholic dogma of Original Sin is exactly that, a Catholic dogma of Faith. As such, it cannot be demonstrated by reason alone. But we can prove two things: (i) the perfection of the Catholic Church's transmission of this Law; and (ii) the effects of Original Sin on the "knowability" of Natural Law.
First, the perfection of the Catholic Church's transmission of Natural Law is demonstrated in two steps. First, a sociologist can study the official teachings of the Church for the past two thousand years or so, and observe that these teachings have never essentially changed. Second, a competent philosopher can study moral philosophy using reason alone, then compare that to the official teachings of the Church on Natural Law (as determined by the previously mentioned sociologist), and observe that they match. (If you're a philosopher who thinks he sees a mismatch, please see Section 4 here below.)
Second, the effects of Original Sin on the knowability of Natural Law by Pagans and Protestants can be observed. For pagans:
The main lesson [qui is drawn from the study of human thought throughout
the ages] is a humbling lesson for purely natural reason, a pressing
invitation to recognize its own powerlessness, and a clear demonstration
of apologetic's thesis recalled at the beginning of this history: the
moral necessity of Revelation, so that truths, even of the natural order,
that are necessary to moral life, be known "ab omnibus, expedite,
firma certitudine et nullo admixto errore".
[Précis
d'histoire de la philosphie, §717]
For Protestants, a sociologist of religion can observe that Mainstream Protestant churches have more or less abandoned Natural Law. Even among Evangelicals, who (thank God) have not thrown the Bible out the window, Natural Law has not been everywhere preserved in all its purity (we can think about contraception, divorce, embryonic stem-cell research, abortion in cases of rape and incest, etc.).
Suppose two Christians, one Catholic and the other one not, disagree on a point. This point will either be on the left part of the drawing (a purely religious question), or on the right (purely political question), or in the middle (mixed question, accessible either using Faith or Reason).
Overview of the
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church
If the question is about a point on the right, then both have a good democratic debate, and the members of the party vote on it! That's all! If it's on the left, the non-Catholic Christian just needs to scream: "Point of order, Mister Chairman! This point has nothing to do with politics!" That's all! The Catholic just needs to shut up.
If the point is in the intersection, in the middle of the drawing, it's Natural Law that wins. If the interpretation of Natural Law, proposed by the non-Catholic Christian (or by the Pagan), doesn't concur with the official interpretation of the Catholic Church, then it's simply that the non-Catholic Christian is wrong, and I can prove it. If you don't believe me, we can have a debate right here on my web site. The spectators will clearly see!
