By DONALD DeMARCO
Faith and Politics (2006) is Sen. John Danforth’s book title. Sen. Danforth is well-versed in both religion and politics. He is an ordained Episcopal priest, former three-term U.S. senator, and former ambassador to the United Nations. By “faith,” he is alluding to Christianity. He finds a serious problem, however, with that religion.
“If Christianity,” he writes, “is supposed to be a ministry of reconciliation and has become, instead, a divisive force in American political life, something is terribly wrong, and we should correct it.”
What the senator finds wrong, however, is not so much Christianity itself, but the division caused by the rift between the authentic Christians who seek reconciliation and the Pharisees who, in his view, do not. Danforth, nevertheless, fails to appreciate the pro-life efforts of authentic Christians. He contends that the pro-life view “is a religious argument based on the belief of some Christians that life begins at conception. This is grossly unfair to pro-life advocates who appeal to science that confirms that life begins at conception.
“That religious belief,” he goes on to say, “has provided all the energy of the pro-life movement.” Suffice to say, Danforth is being unjust to defenders of life. Yet, in making this unjust remark, and creating new divisions, he undermines his own position. His book is useful in the sense that it shows how difficult, if not impossible, it is to secure political justice for all solely on the efforts of imperfect, error-prone human beings.
Reflecting on this point, Jacques Maritain has stated in his book, Scholasticism and Politics: “When the objective is the earthly life of man, when it concerns earthly interests, earthly good, this or that ideal of common earthly good, and the ways and means of realizing it, the normal thing is for the unanimity whose focus is of the supra-temporal order to be broken, and for Christians who communicate at the same table to find themselves divided in politics.”
In disagreeing with Danforth, Maritain holds that the main division among Christians is between those who honor the spiritual aspects of politics and those who settle for its temporal values.
What is the role of God in the world of politics? For St. Paul, who is surely an authentic Christian, all authority derives from God as its primordial source. America’s Founding Fathers knew this and enshrined it in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These words are considered to be the most potent and consequential words in American history. They were reaffirmed by Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address, in particular, when he spoke of “this nation, under God.”
America was founded on the principle that it was under the supervision of God who is both their Creator and the original Author of the nation’s rights. Therefore, as it would be repeated time and again by presidents and members of the Supreme Court, “America is a religious nation.” The opening sessions of the Supreme Court begins with the invocation, “God save the United States and this honorable Court.” The words “so help me God” are included in every presidential oath since 1789.
John L. McDermott, JD, has provided a careful analysis of Supreme Court decisions justifying the title of his book, How American Law Lost God (2012). “In less than 150 years,” he writes, “America has taken an erroneous journey from a system of laws based on Christian principles and the natural law to morally vacuous law based upon legal positivism/relativism.”
At the mid-August 2020 Democratic Convention, two caucuses began with the Pledge of Allegiance, but with the deliberate omission of the words, “under God.” Many who commented upon the postings hailed the omission with approval and applause. Sr. Simone Campbell led a prayer but invoked “A Divine Spirit.” It seems that the notion of “under God” was problematic at this virtual convention because it refers to a God who is Protective, Sovereign, and Providential.
The liberal temper of today’s Democratic Party seems to prefer a God who does not rule, is not demanding, but one who is merely an accessory. As the notion of “liberal” reaches its zenith point, it liberates itself from any dependence on a Supreme Being. God has been reduced to a token.
Journalist Charles Lane has written an article entitled “One Nation ‘Under God’? More and More Americans Don’t Think So” (August 24, 2020). He contends that “in the United States, one of the most consequential cultural changes of our time may be the swift and seemingly accelerating decline of religious commitment.”
The Pew Research Center study published in October 2019 showed that the percentage of Americans claiming to have no religious affiliation had grown by 15 percent since 2007. Today, only 35 percent of millennials attend church services at least once a month.
In his encyclical, Divini Redemptoris, Pope Pius XI, concerning the rights of the human person, spoke of “the right to live, to bodily integrity, to the necessary means of existence; the right of man to tend toward his ultimate goal in the path marked out for him by God.” In so stating, Pope Pius was representing a political view that is based on the wholeness of the human being, both its political and spiritual dimensions.
If America loses sight of the primary importance of God, politics will not serve man but will multiply divisions and disagreements with no possible reconciliation or resolution. A Godless society is an unhuman society. Politics should be united with faith, but not with a faith that is anchored either in politics or politicians, but a faith that is founded in God.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress