THE premise for this article is that man is the end and purpose of every social organization and not the other way round. From this, we infer that the family, professional and other organizations, and the political state exist for the good and benefit of man. In short, the human person is the foundation and purpose of political life.
Individuals and family groups create associations and organizations for cultural, social and economic purposes. Our present civilizations have come about in this manner, for as population grew, the need for a political society came about, and with it the demands of a social organization to secure the common good of the people. Government and laws are therefore the result of this need—the State enacts and implements and enforces laws in order to benefit the large civil society.
The Church has often been criticised as “interfering” with matters of State. The separation of Church and State must start with the roles of the government and the church. The government deals with the “secular”—secular comes from the Latin secula, which means time. Government’s role is thus time-oriented. The role of the Church, on the other hand, is about preparing people in this world who live in time for when they are no longer living in time.
The separation of Church and State is good, as neither should interfere in matters that belong to the other—that is, the State is concerned with the secular, while the Church is concerned with the spiritual, although both are concerned with the welfare of the same object: the human person. The role of the Church is to shine the light of conscience on its faithful, and has to do with the values that flow from faith, and how people are to relate to certain secular acts.
Since the human person is the foundation and purpose of the political community, this means that the state must recognize and respect human dignity, and defend and promote fundamental and inalienable human rights. For example, in the case of abortion: while it is denied that the State favors this, couching this in innocuous terminologies such as “a woman’s right to choose,” what the Church is saying is that there is another human right: The right of the unborn individual to his life.
So when may the Church not interfere? And when may the State say, “this is our turf”?
The Church may not, for example, tell people to vote or not to vote for specific individuals, or to condemn specific individuals as being corrupt, or for their beliefs. The Church, however, has the duty to inform, to shine the light of truth about wrongdoing, because not to speak up means allowing such wrongdoing to be perpetuated.
Neither can the State demand that the Church stay only within the bounds of telling people to go to Mass, say the rosary, etc. and to keep out of acts which the Church considers as flouting of moral values. The Church is duty-bound to “form the conscience” of individuals, from which consideration they may therefore act or react. The Church has the right to shine the bright light of truth so that individuals are able to exercise their rights, fulfill their obligations, be able to express their opinions on public matters, speak out on their own political sentiments that would lead to the common good, in light of their God-given dignity.
Political authority is but an instrument to direct and coordinate means by which individuals, government, and civic bodies may move toward an order in which relationships, institutions, legislation, and procedures are placed at the service of integral human growth. Thus, the State must always exercise its political authority within the limits of morality and on behalf of the common good, according to its laws, which citizens are conscience-bound to obey.
Authority must be guided by moral law. The political community exists to achieve the full development of each of its members, who, in turn, must cooperate to attain the common good.
For feedback, send an e-mail to Mercedes B. Suleik at merci.suleik@gmail.com.