A Political Mandate

Antoine Caron
(1521-1599)
The Arrest and Supplication of Sir Thomas More
Oil on wood
Musée des Beaux-Arts, Château at Blois

Fr. John Zuhlsdorf has been providing a fascinating running commentary on a controversy in America: the plan to force Catholic employers to provide free contraception and abortion coverage in employee healthcare plans
It is only now beginning to be reported in the United Kingdom
On the other side of the Pond, there is a sense of mounting mystification and incomprehension as to why the American administration has gotten itself into an untenable position. And attempting to behave in a patently immoral way
And that in a country where contraception and abortion are freely available at the expense of the state on the NHS for very many years
Since when has there been a “super-right” to have contraception and an abortion at the expense of the employer ? And which “right” outweighs the genuine religious and conscientious objection of the employer to provide this ?
The arguments put forward on behalf of the Administration`s policy seems to border on sloganising and the juvenile. Their arguments lack depth and insight.
It has been depicted as a battle between the Obama administration and the Catholic Church. However other religious leaders from other religious denominations have strongly objected to the issuing of the new regulations.
Passages from the Encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII on Church and State including the rights of the citizens and the duties of Catholic politicians have been quoted in the Catholic blogosphere.
But perhaps more attention should be given to more modern Church documents.
It is full of quotations from one of the main documents of Vatican II and was written by a man who was at Vatican II, helped implement Vatican II and spent his life standing up to tyranny and despotic governments
It is a positive message extolling a paradigm of how a politician of whatever faith should act
For those who base their faith and religious practice on what they perceive as doctrine derived from Vatican II, it must come as uncomfortable reading in the present controversy
And in truth there`s not a cigarette paper`s difference between what Blessed John Paul II wrote and what Pope Leo XIII wrote.

“The life and martyrdom of Saint Thomas More have been the source of a message which spans the centuries and which speaks to people everywhere of the inalienable dignity of the human conscience, which, as the Second Vatican Council reminds us, is “the most intimate centre and sanctuary of a person, in which he or she is alone with God, whose voice echoes within them” (Gaudium et Spes, 16).

Whenever men or women heed the call of truth, their conscience then guides their actions reliably towards good. Precisely because of the witness which he bore, even at the price of his life, to the primacy of truth over power, Saint Thomas More is venerated as an imperishable example of moral integrity.

And even outside the Church, particularly among those with responsibility for the destinies of peoples, he is acknowledged as a source of inspiration for a political system which has as its supreme goal the service of the human person. …

Given his inflexible firmness in rejecting any compromise with his own conscience, in 1534 the King had him imprisoned in the Tower of London, where he was subjected to various kinds of psychological pressure.

Thomas More did not allow himself to waver, and he refused to take the oath requested of him, since this would have involved accepting a political and ecclesiastical arrangement that prepared the way for uncontrolled despotism.

At his trial, he made an impassioned defence of his own convictions on the indissolubility of marriage, the respect due to the juridical patrimony of Christian civilization, and the freedom of the Church in her relations with the State. Condemned by the Court, he was beheaded …

In this context, it is helpful to turn to the example of Saint Thomas More, who distinguished himself by his constant fidelity to legitimate authority and institutions precisely in his intention to serve not power but the supreme ideal of justice.

His life teaches us that government is above all an exercise of virtue

Unwavering in this rigorous moral stance, this English statesman placed his own public activity at the service of the person, especially if that person was weak or poor; he dealt with social controversies with a superb sense of fairness; he was vigorously committed to favouring and defending the family; he supported the all-round education of the young.

His profound detachment from honours and wealth, his serene and joyful humility, his balanced knowledge of human nature and of the vanity of success, his certainty of judgement rooted in faith: these all gave him that confident inner strength that sustained him in adversity and in the face of death. His sanctity shone forth in his martyrdom, but it had been prepared by an entire life of work devoted to God and neighbour. …

What enlightened his conscience was the sense that man cannot be sundered from God, nor politics from morality. As I have already had occasion to say, “man is created by God, and therefore human rights have their origin in God, are based upon the design of creation and form part of the plan of redemption. One might even dare to say that the rights of man are also the rights of God” (Speech, 7 April 1998).

And it was precisely in defence of the rights of conscience that the example of Thomas More shone brightly. It can be said that he demonstrated in a singular way the value of a moral conscience which is “the witness of God himself, whose voice and judgment penetrate the depths of man’s soul” (Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, 58), even if, in his actions against heretics, he reflected the limits of the culture of his time.

In the Constitution Gaudium et Spes, the Second Vatican Council notes how in the world today there is “a growing awareness of the matchless dignity of the human person, who is superior to all else and whose rights and duties are universal and inviolable” (No. 26).

The life of Saint Thomas More clearly illustrates a fundamental truth of political ethics.

The defence of the Church’s freedom from unwarranted interference by the State is at the same time a defence, in the name of the primacy of conscience, of the individual’s freedom vis-

Post a comment

You may use the following HTML:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>