Question number eight: When a religious group expresses a political position isn't this making the religion into a special interest group?
In the eyes of the writer the opposite is the case. The reason the Church speaks out is because in its judgement human rights, freedom, peace, protection of our environment and similar values for the common good have been violated. When this judgement is made the Church has to be on the side of the weak and the oppressed. These positions are not for the Church but for those they want to help.
This was the intention of the prophets of the Old Testament. The contents of the prophet's message was of two kinds; desist from idolatry and practice justice in society. These two were not seen as separate. Do not have strange Gods when you worship the one true God, this God is the God who is always on the side of the poor and oppressed was the message of the prophets and writers of the books of the Scriptures. Therefore the situation of the poor and oppressed when we are silent about their condition we are not being true to God.
Jesus put this together in his saying: "You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, with your whole soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment, the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments the whole law is based, and the prophets as well."
When we try to help the weak and oppressed and work for their common good we are acting in the role of prophet and loving our neighbor. In this role we are serving them and at the same time criticizing the aberrations and the structures of society that bring about this oppression.
There are those in society who see this work for the poor and criticize it as being more for the sake of religion than for the poor and oppressed. In Joy of the Gospel # 198, Pope Francis explains: "For the Church, the option for the poor is primarily a
theological category rather than a cultural, sociological, political or
philosophical one. God shows the poor 'his first mercy'.
This divine preference has consequences for the faith life of all
Christians, since we are called to have this mind… which was in Jesus
Christ' (Phil 2:5). Inspired by this, the Church has made an
option for the poor which is understood as a 'special form of primacy in
the exercise of Christian charity, to which the whole tradition of the
Church bears witness'. This option – as Benedict XVI has taught – 'is implicit in our Christian faith in a God who became poor for us, so as to enrich us with his poverty'. This is why I want a Church which is poor and for the poor. They have much to teach us. Not only do they share in the sensus fidei,
but in their difficulties they know the suffering Christ. We need to
let ourselves be evangelized by them. The new evangelization is an
invitation to acknowledge the saving power at work in their lives and to
put them at the center of the Church’s pilgrim way. We are called to
find Christ in them, to lend our voice to their causes, but also to be
their friends, to listen to them, to speak for them and to embrace the
mysterious wisdom which God wishes to share with us through them."
Question number seven: When one priest's utterance is mistaken as speaking for the Church don't we have a problem?
Last year a priest caused a great sensation for the sermon at a Mass concerning current affairs. All the citizens took an interest in what was said because of the extensive coverage by the mass media. The media was happy to see the attention given to the coverage. The central theme is what is important and was emphasized, but much of the mass media took one section of the sermon expanded and distorted the meaning in the report.
Jesus when he talked to the poor his words were gentle but when he talked to the the unrepentant leaders he used harsh language. If the government was communicating with the citizens, said the priest professor, there would be no need for these Masses and strong language used in the sermons. The irregularities committed by the government departments has aroused a lack of trust, and the failure to communicate with the citizens has engendered criticism in a segment of the population. This is difficult to deny.
Jesus has told us that those who have ears should listen. Whether a person accepts what a priest says in a sermon is up to the listener. He may agree or disagree. Jesus in what he said and did, however, we have examples of excess. In the temple purification incident Jesus wielded a whip and overturned the chairs and tables of those selling in the temple. Was this not a means to help the priests and pharisees see the stubbornness that was preventing them from becoming free.
In first Corinthians 13:7: Love is always ready to excuse, to trust, to hope, and to endure whatever comes." We often use the phrase 'to give another the benefit of the doubt'. It is a legal term and one we should use more often in our dealings with others: to understand the other and put ourselves in the other person's shoes. It would make for a different world.
In the Catholic tradition we have many axioms that come from the rules of law learned from the past.
"When the rights of either are obscure, the defendant is to be given the benefit of the doubt."
"Odious things ought to be restricted, while favorable ones ought to be extended."
"In obscure matters the minimum ought to be followed."
"No one can change his mind (judgement, advice, decision) to the detriment of another."
"He who is silent seems to consent."
Question number five: The
Church works for harmony, when it criticizes the government and is
involved in demonstrations it is fostering dissent. Shouldn't the Church
be praying for those in politics to be good servants of the people?
There are two kinds of prayer. Prayer that is followed by action and prayer
without follow-up. Jesus said: "None of those who cry out,'Lord, Lord,'
will enter the kingdom of God but only the one who does the will of my
Father in heaven" (Matt 7:21). Jesus wants us to work to realize what
we pray.
Each
Sunday at Mass we have the Prayer of the Faithful, where we remember
the Church, evangelization, peace, environment, pray for our leaders,
for the sick for the parish and our families etc. Each one of these
intentions requires that we do something to bring about that for
which we pray. Those who pray for our politicians and statesmen for a
change of life and do nothing to implement that for which they pray, want those that are doing something, to quietly go and pray.
In
the book of Exodus: we read that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh.
This does not mean that God took away his freedom and will power and
controlled his actions. Pharaoh who considered himself the son of the
Sun God, in the thinking of those in the Old Testament, was in the hands
of God, and expressed ironically, he was obstinate and stubborn and choose the way to destruction. God by means of Moses was
destroying this stubbornness. God does his work through human beings.
God was urging the Kings and people to repentance through the
prophets.
When
the politician so something wrong we pray that they act correctly and
help them. When they continue to do wrong we pray for a change in their
actions and speak out about their actions and ask them to change. This
is doing something with our prayers.
If
Moses only prayed for the Pharaoh we would not have had the Exodus. If
the prophets only prayed for the sovereign and the people, would we
have the books of the prophets in the Old Testament? We do not read the
books of the prophets, and only select the books that make us feel
comfortable. Isn't this an area in which we have to confront ourselves?
Question number four: The Church criticizes the government's policies, and doesn't raise its voice against the human right abuses and nuclear plans of the North. Are we not making it easy to misunderstand the Church as 'followers of the North'?
We have to understand what is meant by 'follower of the North'. They used to call us 'Reds' but that is no longer workable so the word has evolved to a 'follower of the North'. A word that has become popular.
Sin and wounds are what prevents individuals and communities from receiving the graces of God. We are freed from sin by repentance and wounds need healing. When, however, to achieve one's goal one makes the wounds of the other greater, we are acting contrary to the God of healing.
Korea was wounded greatly with the Korean War. To heal the wound needs a great deal of effort, time and the grace of God. The governments of the North and South have to work together to heal the wounds. Are not the governments actually using their power to increase the wounds of division? The use of 'follower of the North' is causing the wound to throb.
If not a follower why the silence about human rights abuses and the working on nuclear armaments in the North? A segment of the mass media dislikes the position of religion and uses the word 'follower of the North'.
The professor uses an example to make his point clear. In a class room there are students that are harassed. The class president does not pay attention and one of the students brings it to the president's attention and wants something done. All would
see this as a good. However, those harassed, point their finger to the neighboring class room: "Why are you only concerned about us the neighboring class has more problems them we have?" What are we to make of that? Because it is another room doesn't mean that it has no relation with us; we should not use the other room to dilute what we should be doing. Why silent about human rights in the North? Those speaking in this way are they really concerned about the human rights issues of those in the North and is it coming from a love of these people?
Human rights in the North and nuclear experiments are a serous problem but our problems in the South should not be of secondary interest or of less importance. We are dealing with a closed society and there is a limit to what we can do.One of our government's policies, is working to have the North open their doors and this should be a continuing work of all the international communities.
Question number three: When
you have a difference of opinion on social issues, and a portion of the
citizens criticizes the Church for being followers of the North and leftist, is it
not better to be neutral?
The
professor says the word neutral has a naturally good meaning. However,
it is not a word we use when we are concerned with right and wrong. When
we are neutral in the face of good and evil, we are saying evil is OK.
When it is a question of justice and injustice neutrality is tolerating
injustice. We are not living according to the Gospel.
There
is a need for all of us to be acquainted with the Social Gospel of the
Church to deal with the problems that we have in society. The Social
Gospel is concerned with politics, economics, human rights, labor,
peace, environment, human life issues as seen in the light of the
Gospel. This is not something we can believe or not believe; it is not a
matter of choice but an obligation. "In so far as it is part of the
Church's moral teaching, the Church's social doctrine has the same
dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic
magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it" (Compendium
of the Social Doctrine of the Church #80).
Pope
Francis mentions in the Joy of the Gospel the importance of the Social
Message. "This Exhortation is not a social document and for reflection
on those different themes we have a most suitable tool in the
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, whose use and study I
heartily recommend " Joy of the Gospel # 184). The Compendium of the
Social Doctrine of the Church was published in 2004 and is composed of
teachings from the encyclical and Church Documents from the time of Leo
XIII.
Pope
John Paul II gave the work of compiling the Compendium to the Vietnamese
Cardinal Nguyễn Văn Thuận who spent 13 years in prison under the
Communists. He died in 2002 and will be beatified shortly. His successor
was Cardinal Renato Martino, who finished the Compendium.
The current
state of affairs and the way the Church views them and the actions taken are based on the teachings found in the
Compendium. Many Catholics are not familiar with the teachings of the
Church on these issues, and label those who are following the teachings
as pro-North and leftist. If they are going to use these labels, they
will have to include the popes and the whole of Catholicism.
The second question: In our Catholic Catechism we are told that pastoral workers should not be involved in politics. Is this not the realm of the lay person? Number 2442 of the Catechism: "It is not the role of the Pastors of the Church to intervene directly in
the political structuring and organization of social life. This task is part of
the vocation of the lay faithful, acting on their own initiative with their
fellow citizens. Social action can assume various concrete forms. It should
always have the common good in view and be in conformity with the message of the
Gospel and the teaching of the Church. It is the role of the laity to animate
temporal realities with Christian commitment, by which they show that they are
witnesses and agents of peace and justice."
This paragraph does not prohibit the speaking about political matters but that the realm of politics is the mission of the lay person. The paragraph is often used wrongly. Public office, party politics or taking a leading role in labor unions is what is being noted as not the work of pastoral workers, but the work of the laity.
Canon law 285 # 3: Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices, which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power. This is prohibiting the clerics from participation in political activity, although permission may be given. Expression of one's opinions is not prohibited. In this area, there is no difference from the rights of the lay person. "It is only right that at all times and in all places, the Church should have true freedom to preach the faith, to teach her social doctrine, to exercise her role freely among men, and also to pass moral judgment in those matters which regard public order when the fundamental rights of a person or the salvation of souls require it. In this, she should make use of all the means—but only those—which accord with the Gospel and which correspond to the general good according to the diversity of times and circumstances" (Pastoral Constitution #76).
In the Joy of the Gospel we hear: "Consequently, no one can demand that religion should be relegated to the inner sanctum of personal life, without influence on societal and national life, without concern for the soundness of civil institutions, without a right to offer an opinion on events affecting society... An authentic faith – which is never comfortable or completely personal – always involves a deep desire to change the world, to transmit values, to leave this earth somehow better that we found it. We love this magnificent planet on which God has put us, and we love the human family which dwells here, with all its tragedies and struggles, its hopes and aspirations, its strengths and weaknesses. The earth is our common home, and all of us are brothers and sisters. If indeed 'the just ordering of society and of the state is a central responsibility of politics', the Church 'cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice' All Christians, their pastors included, are called to show concern for the building of a better world." (#183)
Separation of Church and State is understood in Korea, but many have problems with the meaning. Not only in society but within the Church, we have a serious difference of opinion. No need to agree with what Catholics say or do but to deny religion a place in the public square is not the correct response.
A series of articles in Bible & Life treats the issue with 11 questions and answers on the place of the Church in our present society. A seminary professor has examined the objections he has found in the press and has given answer. The next blogs will treat the other questions.
The first question: Since by law we have separation of Church and State is there not a need to separate the Church and the World? If this is true is it not wrong to get involved in political issues? Separation of Church and State does not mean they have nothing to do with one another but that there is not to be collusion. If we look at the opposite of the statement, we have some clarity. Unity of Church and State is obviously what the separation wants to avoid.
In the Korean Constitution, all citizens enjoy the freedom of religion, and no state religion may be recognized. Church and State are to be separated. Some feel there should be no relationship between the two. The original understanding was to have a healthy tension between the two. Example: If one religion by their convictions were to inflict injury on another religion or damage their buildings, the State has to stop this. On the other hand, if the State was doing something against the peace and happiness of the citizens and not working for the common good, it would not be proper for religions to be silent or give consent to the actions.
During the Japanese occupation of Korea some of the leaders in the Korean Catholic Church, embarrassingly, understood the meaning of separation of Church and State to be against resistance to Japanese rule and didn't join actively in the March First Independence Movement. In the vortex of the times, Ahn Jung-geun (Thomas) with a Gospel understanding was a part of the independence movement. Shooting Horibundo Ito was for patriot Ahn a religious act.
Either, one understands the actions of Ahn the way the Japanese Government would see it or the way Patriot Ahn saw it. Which side would you choose?
