Political ideology and
religious doctrine are distinct, yet confusion can justifiably exist because
ideology can seep into doctrine or be claimed to be such when it is not. This
interlarding of political ideology into religious doctrine, or theology, is perhaps
best demonstrated in Christian liberation theology, which includes political
(e.g., justice) and economic (e.g., equality of income or wealth) prescriptions
in the future Kingdom of God manifest on Earth. Generally speaking, political
(and economic) ideology can legitimately be viewed as being human, all too
human, and thus as fundamentally distinct from religious revelation and even
doctrine (though even these may be influenced and even distorted on our end by
the taint of human nature). Put another way, the source of revelation and even
doctrine comes from “above,” whereas political (and economic) ideology are
human artifacts. Therefore to infuse such artifacts into religious doctrine
risks polluting it such that the religious
or spiritual auspices are impaired. David Hume suggests in his Natural History of Religion that the
human mind cannot long hold onto the divine idea manifesting purely as
simplicity, so we attach other ideas—anthropomorphic ones—to our conceptions of
the divine. Such ideas are of human traits or characteristics, hence “from
below.” Sadly, we rarely recognize this human activity; rather, we take God to
have such characteristics.[1] The criticism of Pope Francis by “ultraconservative”
American Catholics, including some notable clergy, illustrates just how
problematic the admixture of political ideology and religious doctrine can be.
“Faced with sustained
opposition from Catholic conservatives in the United States who accuse him of
driving traditionalists to break with the church, Pope Francis said on
[September 9, 2019] that he hopes it doesn’t come to that, but isn’t afraid of
it either.”[2]
He said he was praying that there would not be any schisms, but he was not
afraid. With the priorities of his papacy including “reaching out to the poor,
advocating justice for migrants and other marginalized people and protecting
the environment from capitalism run amok,” the pope had “alienated some
conservatives—especially in the United States—who [were saying that he was]
promoting an anti-American, anticapitalist agenda and drifting from the core
teachings of the Church.”[3]
Interestingly, both the papal priorities and the criticism contain both
doctrine and ideology. Regarding the priorities, reaching out to the
marginalized resonates with Jesus’ preaching and example, whereas protecting
the environment from harmful economic externalities fits squarely with a
political ideology. If religious doctrine is indeed distinct from the domain of
political ideology, the pope had gone overstepped from his basis in the
distinctly religious domain. Yet so too had his critics who criticized not just
the pope’s handling of religious doctrine—especially the doctrines on marriage
and homosexuality—but also his “anti-American, anticapitalist agenda.” The pope
“lamented that politicized ideology had seeped into doctrine and driven some of
the critiques in the American church and beyond.”[4]
I wonder if the pope included his own doctrine! The plank is always bigger in
the other person’s eye than one’s own.
Even so, the pope’s pastoral
care of divorced and gay Catholics was part of his effort to emulate Jesus with
regard to the marginalized; it was thus doctrinal rather than part of the pro-gay
political agenda. In fact, the pope also emulated Jesus in helping enemies—a
Commandment rarely seen in operation even in the religion of love founded by
Jesus. In the interview on September 9, 2019, the pope “suggested that some of
his most ardent critics were working out their own problems by lashing out. ‘We
have to be gentle, gentle with the people tempted by these attacks, by these
things,’ he said. ‘Because they are going through problems and we should
accompany them with gentleness.”[5]
This pastoral care extended even to enemies
lies at the core of Jesus’ preaching and example—far more important than
getting into the Kingdom of God than any immigration position or economic
ideology. Francis’s critics in the American clergy could have responded by stepping into the religious domain by
offering pastoral care to the pope. Instead, Cardinal Raymond Burke criticized
the pope’s “emphasis on inclusiveness” for confusing Catholics on doctrine.[6]
Carlo Vigano, a bishop, went so far as to blame Pope Francis for the child
sex-abuse scandal because of the pope’s pastoral care of gays, even though the sainted
Pope John Paul II ignored the problem and his fellow conservative Pope Benedict
actually was part of the scandal.[7]
It is admittedly tempting to
anthropomorphise religion by including political ideology; holding onto the
idea of God as transcending what we can think of and perceive (and feel) is
difficult.[8]
It is easy, in other words, to craft the Kingdom of God on Earth as distinctly
like they ways of our world, rather than turning those ways upside-down as in
caring for a detractor or even enemy (without giving in). Both Pope Francis and
his American detractors have treated political ideology and religious doctrine
as if they were closely related and in the religious domain where the Church has
a nativist legitimacy. I submit, therefore, that both sides would have done
better by first willowing down the papal priorities and content of the
criticism to religious doctrine. Besides realizing that the papacy sets the
Church’s priorities, the critics could have followed their pope by emulating
Jesus too.
[1] Pseudo-Dionysus,
or St. Denis, of the 6th century argued that because God transcends
the limits of human cognition and perception, characteristics of this world,
including human attributes, do not go far enough.
[2]
Jason Horowitz, “Pope
Francis: ‘I Pray There Are No Schisms,” The
New York Times, September 10, 2019.
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
Ibid.
[5]
Ibid.
[6]
Ibid.
[7] As
archbishop of Munich, that pope urged in a letter (published by the New York
Times) that a pedophile priest be transferred to another parish (where he would
work as a youth minister!) because the taint of defrocking that priest would
harm the reputation of the universal Church. American conservative Catholic
clergy and laity were silent in response. One volunteer at a Catholic church in
Illinois told me she thought the newspaper had fabricated the letter.
[8] I
suggest in Spiritual
Leadership in Business that focusing on religious experience that
transcends is something that we can hold onto, although the requisite intensity
of concentration delimits the amount of time per session.
