Being a christian in politics and public administration

Basic principles of catholic social doctrine

‘Faith without works is dead,’ as the Apostle James said (James 2:26). Anyone who hears the Word of God must also put it into practice (cf. James 1:22). Numerous New Testa­ment passages point to virtues and all that is worthy of pursuit for a Christian.
But what does this mean in politics and public administration?

The overarching framework for this is the command­ment of love for one’s neighbour, love not understood as a ‘feeling’ or ‘sympathy’ - which can, in fact, become a basis for favou­ring certain individuals and institutions and thus for injustice - but as self-sacrificing love, as commit­ment, always founded on truth. ‘What is truth?’, Pilate asked; he did so in order to brush the question aside with a shrug (John 18:38). Seeking truth in this sense presupposes that there is an objective reality, a star­ting point against which the admissibility or appropriateness of administrative decisions is assessed and through which justice and fairness are objectified. “Doing good and avoi­ding evil” - that is what it means to be a Christian, inclu­ding in politics and governance. In a democracy, there is no politics without compro­mise. Many issues involve weighing up the options and see­king the right balance; in other matters, one must stand by one’s principles.

I BASIC PRINCIPLES

1. The fun­damental principle

In Catholic social teaching, that fun­damental principle is the absolute dignity of the human person. One must not intentionally kill an innocent person, for example to save an animal. Another related aspect is the common good. This naturally implies, amongst other things, that a law or administrative measure must be consi­dered ‘in the broadest sense’, taking into account the rights and duties of every individual and the harmonious coexistence of all citizens.

2. Truth

“Without truth, love slips into senti­mentality” (Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in veritate (2009), n. 3). A particular situation may, for example, appear deeply pitiful, lea­ding us to be inclined to go along with a suggested solution, but it is necessary to take a step back and move beyond the emotional aspect to consi­der how a particular ‘solution’ fits within the framework of justice and the common good of all. “The search for truth is an essential ele­ment of democracy, which in itself is a way of contribu­ting to the common good” (Pope Leo XIV, Encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, no. 134).

Truth here means that something corresponds to objective reality and the nature of things. There are many more subjective conceptions of truth, ran­ging all the way to “something is true if I think so”. That might still be tolerable if someone were to treat their own taste as an absolute - “fish is tasty” - but when it comes to fake news, for example, it can become highly problematic. Truth then no lon­ger serves as a fixed foundation and star­ting point, but becomes something determined solely by situations and circumstances. The search for objective truth is fun­damental to justice.

3. The dignity of the human person

Within the Church’s social teaching, truth corresponds to the dignity inherent in the human person. This is, of course, sometimes difficult to determine, and answe­ring that question leads to differences of opinion in the political and administrative spheres. What constitutes human dignity? What is required to protect it? The decisive factor here is how that dignity is defined. Some, for example, will prioritise the right to self-determination, and there are therefore those who say - or in fact believe - that a person’s dignity depends on the extent to which that person can determine their own life.

The Church’s social teaching rightly steers clear of these views. Dignity, as understood in the Church’s social teaching, is intrinsic to the very essence of being human. There is therefore no gradation in dignity depen­ding on a person’s personal abilities or health, for example. If one were to accept such a gradation of human worth, the weaker and ‘disabled’ would lose out. Moreover, there is no authority - such as a civil govern­ment - which, from the perspective of the Church’s social teaching, may place itself above people and their dignity. Authorities and govern­ments exist to serve people. The spectre of a govern­ment that ignores this is aptly captured in George Orwell’s *1984*. We have long since passed that year, but the spectre has not disappeared. Trends aimed at undermi­ning the central role of human dignity in society are very much present. Moreover, there is a strong ten­dency never to think or plan from a firm foundation when draf­ting laws (cf. Pope Leo XIV, Encyclical Magnifica humanitas, no. 56; Pope Francis, Encyclical Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), no. 208).

The social teaching of the Catholic Church has always maintained that there are certain insights into the human person, that there is a truth about the human person which does not depend on one’s faith or on whether one is a Christian, but which one can arrive at through reason. It is from this that human rights derive their ‘firmness’.

4. A human being is a social being

It is therefore fun­damental that the human person is, or ought to be, at the centre of every society, and that every form of or­ga­ni­sa­tion within a society serves this purpose.

Translated in Christian terms: the human person is the image of God (cf. Gaudium et spes 12). This ser­ving nature of institutions within a society, in the service of the human person, is reflected in the well-known principle of subsidiarity.

However, it is not an individualistic view of humanity that is outlined here, but a social one: ‘human beings are ... social by their very nature, and without ties to others they cannot live nor develop their talents’ (Gaudium et spes, n. 12). Human beings are therefore naturally called to live together with others. At least in the sense that they need other people. This gives rise to two other principles of social teaching: the common good and the principle of solidarity.

5. Justitia

In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI published the Encyclical “Caritas in veritate” (Charity in Truth), and that title immedia­tely captures the principle at the heart of the Church’s social teaching. “Charity in truth”: a principle that takes concrete form in criteria which guide moral action. We shall consi­der some of these criteria.

The minimum require­ment of caritas, of charity, is justitia (justice). Ubi societas, ibi ius: there is no society without law. The law must guarantee justitia in a society. But this is a minimum: love transcends that minimum, even though there is no love without justitia (cf. Caritas in veritate 6).

6. Human Rights

It follows from the dignity of the human person that a human being has rights. Popes have therefore spoken highly of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) (e.g. *Magnifica Humanitas*, n. 54; Pope John Paul II, Address to the 50th General Assembly of the United Nations (5 October 1995), n. 2; IDEM, Address to the 34th General Assembly of the United Nations (2 October 1979), n. 7).

Human rights are inherent to the human person; they are not some sort of extra addition. Through the human rights that flow from the dignity of the human person, that human person becomes the foundation for laws and regulations in society. And because these rights are intrinsically inherent to human beings, they are inviolable. They cannot simply be ‘set aside’ for any reason whatsoever and therefore apply to everyone (Magnifica humanitas, nos. 54-55). It is therefore to be welcomed that, for example, greater attention has been paid to the rights of minorities (Magnifica humanitas, no. 57).

7. Absolute moral require­ments or weighing up the situation

Of course, there are trade-offs to be made in this regard. There are choices that directly contravene the dignity of the human person and their rights. If a govern­ment permits the torture of refugees, this constitutes a direct violation of human dignity. This is unacceptable at all times and under all circumstances.

However, when making choices regar­ding policy decisions and other measures, weighing up the situation does play an important role. The situation is not simply black and white. Funda­mental political choices, and also, for example, Christian convictions, must be put into practice in a concrete situation, in which various aspects need to be weighed up. For example, in the refugee crisis, the Christian response may seem to be that the Bible recommends love for one’s neighbour and also hospitality (cf. Rom. 12:13; Heb. 13:2; 1 Pet. 4:9). Caring for refugees and welco­ming stran­gers (cf. Matt. 25:35; the parable of the Good Samaritan, Luke 10:25-37) are seen as positive things, but does this mean that we should not set any limits based on Christian conviction? No one would argue that hospitality must be boundless, without any restrictions. Concrete consi­derations and solutions cannot often be derived directly from a biblical passage or the Church’s social teaching. Much therefore depends on the issue at hand: a direct violation of human dignity is quite different from the practical arrange­ments for protec­ting that dignity.

8. The personal responsibility of politicians and admini­strators

As regards the latter and the political decisions associated with it: the Catholic Church recognises the personal responsibility of politicians and policymakers and does not wish to interfere with their freedom of opinion on the matter (CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Doctrinal Note on some questions regar­ding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life, 24 November 2002, n. 6) . It is not the Church’s role to offer specific political solutions or to declare that a particular solution is the best, but rather to set out the values on which such solutions should be based. When the Magisterium of the Catholic Church com­ments on matters of policy, it therefore concerns human dignity and the rights and principles (such as the fun­damental principles of social teaching) that flow from it, or violations of that human dignity and human rights, but not specific political decisions other than those which directly violate people’s rights and their dignity.

The freedom of a Christian politician is therefore affirmed by the Catholic Church. This affirmation does not imply that every view of the human person is equally valuable and true; political freedom is much more about the fact that there are all manner of different situations in which one wishes to formulate policy on the basis of a Christian view of the human person.

Such situations call for careful consi­deration, and this may therefore mean that, star­ting from the same underlying Christian view of the human person, one may arrive at different conclusions (cf. Doctrinal Note, n. 3).

9. The Church and democracy

Democracy is the best guarantee of citizens’ direct participation in political decisions, provided that human dignity is properly understood and serves as the foundation of society (Doctrinal Note..., n. 3). Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Diuturnum illud 1881 (Encyclical Collection, vol. 3, nos. 227ff.) and subsequent popes have stated that Church teaching is not opposed to democracy. Pope Paul VI stated (Octogesima adveniens 1971) that democracy best corresponds to Catholic social teaching. The principle of subsidiarity - which is, in fact, democratic - dates from 1931 (Quadragesimo anno).

Tra­di­tio­na­list groups which present themselves as Catholic but reject democracy and religious freedom do not, therefore, reflect a Catholic perspective.

II SOME SPECIFIC ISSUES

In conclusion, a few remarks on some specific issues

10. The universal destination of the earth’s goods

The universal destination of the earth’s goods concerns a fun­damental right: land, water, air and natural resources are given for the life of all humanity (Magnifica Humanitas 65); it is important that the fun­damental rights ari­sing from this are protected, inclu­ding through declarations, treaties and legislation.

11. Parents, upbrin­ging and education

The natural right (and duty) of parents to bring up their children is an inalienable right, recognised by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Doctrinal Note, n. 4); and “since they have the primary right and duty to bring up their children, parents must also have genuine freedom in the choice of school” (Gravissimum Educationis, n. 6, cf. n. 3). A school monopoly is contrary to human rights, as it disregards the right to an education in accordance with one’s own convictions. Freedom of choice of school is in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.

12. Just war?

The concept of ‘just war’ (De bello iusto) has undergone consi­derable change. St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) once descri­bed this concept as follows: war is a last resort; violence must be proportionate, avoid unnecessary harm and be aimed at resto­ring justice (Summa Theologica II, sec. 2, q. 40, a. 1). This view has come under some strain. Not because it is no lon­ger valid, but because wars have changed so much due to the use of weapons of mass des­truction. In 1963, Pope John XXIII published the Encyclical Pacem in terris and emphasised dialogue, a path of justice and reconciliation. In kee­ping with tradition, he condemned total war. The Second Vatican Council condemned the arms race. It proposed stri­ving for treaties that would banish wars and establishing a global authority to resolve conflicts. Whilst the Second Vatican Council was still in session, Pope Paul VI therefore visited the United Nations to call for a strengthe­ning of the UN’s authority. “No more war!”, the Pope proclaimed there.

13. Respect for human life

The or­ga­ni­sa­tion of society is therefore centred on the human person. The fact that society serves people is a principle that both religious and non-religious politicians should be able to share. The right to life is therefore fun­damental, a basic principle. A politician has a serious and clear obligation to oppose any law that threatens the right to human life from conception to natural death (Doctrinal Note, n. 4; Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Evangelium vitae, 73). In this regard, abortion and euthanasia are non-negotiable, as is the protection of the rights of the human embryo (Doctrinal Note, n. 4). But note this: there are laws that directly permit something, or even recognise as a right, which is in itself evil; and a Christian politician, acting in accordance with a well-formed conscience, cannot vote in favour of such a law; guided by his Christian conscience, a politician will not vote for a law that enshrines induced abortion as a right in the Constitution. However, there are also laws which, whilst tolera­ting an evil or not making it a criminal offence, do not in themselves condone it. This is the case in many countries with regard to pros­ti­tution. Something similar has also occurred with our Dutch abortion law, which contains a ground for exemption from punish­ment stipula­ting that inducing an abortion is not a criminal offence if a doctor performs the abortion in accordance with the rules laid down by the law. It was this kind of wor­ding that persuaded some Christian politicians to vote in favour of the law, in the hope of thwar­ting a worse draft bill. The law was then passed in both houses by a majority of just one vote. Some Christian politicians have, understandably, struggled with their consciences over that vote for a long time.

A politician should therefore not support a law that permits euthanasia, abortion or experi­ments on human embryos, but this does not apply to a bill that restricts the scope of exis­ting laws. A politician could vote in favour of such a bill in good conscience, even if, from a Christian perspective, the law is not perfect but merely limits the evil (Doctrinal Note, n. 4).

The situation is different still if a govern­ment were to decide to ban extraordinary medical treat­ments, which may be costly and only prolong life slightly. This can, if proportionate, be morally quite legitimate (cf. Doctrinal Note, n. 4).

Conclusion

There is, of course, much more to be said. I have almost exclusively referred to ‘Christians’ because today’s discussion concerns values and views that stem from a view of humanity which Christians can share across denomi­na­tio­nal boundaries.

Key sources from the Catholic Church remain: the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Com­pen­dium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. For a number of themes, more recent Church do­cu­ments are essential, such as Laudato Sì (2015) and Laudate Deum (2023) on the climate crisis, Fratelli tutti (2020) on the brotherhood of human­kind, and Magnifica humanitas (2026) on AI. Also of interest is the speech delivered by Pope Leo XIV on 8 June this year to all Spanish parlia­mentarians.

Within the Catholic Church, the patron saint of politicians and statesmen is St Thomas More, who was always averse to making false compro­mises. For him, conscience was sacred. He himself was conscientious and true to his convictions. Pope John Paul II said of him that, through his life and death, he showed that one cannot separate a human being from God, and that one cannot separate politics and governance from morality. His life in the public sphere was dedicated to the human person, especially the weak and the poor (John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio Proclai­ming Saint Thomas More Patron of Statesmen and Politicians, 4: AAS 93 (2001), 76). May Thomas More continue to inspire us; may he be an intercessor for us all.