Whispers in the Wasteland

Obedience, Part I

I've been tangling with my friend John at Zillas again. John's words are indented italics.

"I still don't mix faith and politics"

Despite the concern that I'll reinforce the persistent idea that I've some sort of insight on the judgement of God (or the idea that I believe I do), I feel obliged to write that this is a tepid statement of faith. Oh, I understand all the arguments about the separation of church and state, but I don't understand the separation of individual from morals. When you examine the statement above in its most charitable sense (i.e., he will refrain from imposing his religous beliefs on others), you are left with the most hollow sense of faith.

I can't imagine that I could separate my sense of faith/morals/religion from myself. I am an integrated, whole, functioning human being. I can't imagine acting in any way that is not informed by my faith (excepting of course when I sin). The most classic example of the extension of John's thinking is the politically leftist Catholic who claims that his personal beliefs on abortion have no bearing on his legislative voting record.

Another way of stating it is: my faith is part of me.

This parched statement is related to the above:

"As to organized religion... there are those who feel the whole thing is a false choice - Benjamin Franklin epitomized that feeling. He believed in God, just not the fallible institutions that professed belief in Him."

Surprisingly, I agree with this. The Church is the Body of Christ. The Church should not be confused with the visible fallible human members who make up that body, and it should be remembered that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. So, yes I believe in God, and not in fallible institutions.

But I also know that John will fail to grasp this. His expertise in American politics pollutes or twists his thinking in other areas. Everything must fit into that particular template of thinking. Now, I stress that George Weigel is an expert in Church politics, because in America, everyone seems to be in love with the idea of experts (including, sadly, American bishops).

Here's his take of the next conclave.

Consider, for example, what are often reported as the most controversial matters in the pontificate of John Paul II: abortion, homosexuality and ordination of women to the priesthood. The assumption is that, in the next conclave, the cardinal-electors will sort themselves out in conventional "conservative" and "liberal" camps around these questions. In fact, it won't work that way. John Paul II hasn't been teaching the personal opinions of Karol Wojtyla on these matters, he's been teaching the settled doctrine of the Catholic Church. That doctrine isn't going to change in the next pontificate, or in the 10 pontificates after that, because popes are the servants of doctrine, not its masters. What are frequently thought to be "the issues" in the next conclave aren't issues at all.

In the highly individualistic United States, it's difficult to understand that anyone is a servant of anything. So the pope and bishops are viewed as a rulers of an institution, rather than as shepherds to the faithful. Failing to see that even popes must obey, the call to obedience chafes against John's American ideal.

Disobedience was the original sin. And obedience to individual conscience is a nonsense phrase.