This article has been imported from our web archive. As a result, it may contain formatting errors, broken links or images, or other inconsistencies from the original publication.
Jesus is apolitical
By Michael Coren
September 5, 2012
Michael Coren
I grew up with socialism. No, not a genetic disease or childhood ailment but a political affiliation. East London, dad a cab driver, working-class, half-Jewish family. Mum’s MP when she was a teenager was Phil Piratin, a Communist. Dad was in the RAF in 1945 and enthusiastically voted Labour. I was a Young Socialist, and used to join in fist fights against fascists marching through immigrant areas. Then I put away childish things, and came into the Church in 1985.
The reason I mention this is that some people seem to confuse left-wing politics with Roman Catholicism, which is just as irksome as confusing Catholicism with the right. If Christ is political, He is a mere conduit or token and matters no more than a great ideologue or statesman. We worship Him for what He is, not for what He signifies. Nor does He signify anything political, and to think otherwise is to apply banality to His brilliance.
Yet this is what frequently happens, as we see with many activists in our ostensibly Catholic teachers’ union, politicians who deny Jesus most of the time but exploit His name when they want to hide behind ersatz faith and, in the American context, when rival candidates ask for votes and are identified as Roman Catholic.
Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan is a sincere believer who has championed Catholic causes for many years. Yet as soon as he was nominated groups of liberal Catholics — and the term is philosophically oxymoronic — telephoned their friends in the media to announce that Ryan’s economic policies were contrary to Catholic teaching. It’s deeply significant that when various Democrats cut back spending or closed factories we heard not a word from these people.
They were being used of course, but they also volunteered for exploitation because they detest what Ryan and his followers stand for. This has nothing to do with Ryan the libertarian or Ryan the reader of Ayn Rand, but everything with him being a conservative Catholic. He is a product of the urban working class and understands working-class life and aspirations far more deeply and authentically than a Jesuit in a polo shirt making fun of papal teaching at Georgetown. Believe me, I’ve met enough of them to know it to be the case.
What Ryan, and other Catholics who increasingly identify with the U.S. Republicans, does believe is that life is sacrosanct and family and marriage a fundamental of Catholic belief. Economic ideas are negotiable, unless they are designed to hurt the most vulnerable, and — please, be serious — no mainstream politician is demanding that. The defence of the unborn and traditional marriage, however, are not negotiable and Catholic politicians are not in good standing with the Church if they allow, encourage or simply remain silent in the face of abortion and the perversion of marriage.
You do not have to believe this, but you do not have to be Catholic either. Frankly, I’ve never understood why this is so troubling for politicians. There are lots of other churches you can join, other religions, even the Rotary Club, who offer, I’m told, a fine lunch and excellent golf tournaments. The Roman Catholic Church is a little different, a little more demanding.
In the United States there was a time when serious Catholics were welcomed. Then they were in a minority but still had a voice. Now they are an eccentric fringe at best, and it is no accident that Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York was immediately accepted by the Republican convention to lead them in prayer, but only given approval by the Democrats at the last moment, after being told he was not welcome.
If a child is not allowed to be born in the first place, Washington’s economic policies will be somewhat irrelevant. If marriage defined by Christ and Church is disregarded and mocked, and children are raised in a purposefully dysfunctional family, no social platform will repair and save society. I don’t know Paul Ryan, I believe social democracy was at one time essential, I will never be wealthy, I have no investments or stocks, and my faith demands that I care for the poor. But I am no fool, and I see hypocrisy and dishonesty in diamond-bright clarity.
The reason I mention this is that some people seem to confuse left-wing politics with Roman Catholicism, which is just as irksome as confusing Catholicism with the right. If Christ is political, He is a mere conduit or token and matters no more than a great ideologue or statesman. We worship Him for what He is, not for what He signifies. Nor does He signify anything political, and to think otherwise is to apply banality to His brilliance.
Yet this is what frequently happens, as we see with many activists in our ostensibly Catholic teachers’ union, politicians who deny Jesus most of the time but exploit His name when they want to hide behind ersatz faith and, in the American context, when rival candidates ask for votes and are identified as Roman Catholic.
Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan is a sincere believer who has championed Catholic causes for many years. Yet as soon as he was nominated groups of liberal Catholics — and the term is philosophically oxymoronic — telephoned their friends in the media to announce that Ryan’s economic policies were contrary to Catholic teaching. It’s deeply significant that when various Democrats cut back spending or closed factories we heard not a word from these people.
They were being used of course, but they also volunteered for exploitation because they detest what Ryan and his followers stand for. This has nothing to do with Ryan the libertarian or Ryan the reader of Ayn Rand, but everything with him being a conservative Catholic. He is a product of the urban working class and understands working-class life and aspirations far more deeply and authentically than a Jesuit in a polo shirt making fun of papal teaching at Georgetown. Believe me, I’ve met enough of them to know it to be the case.
What Ryan, and other Catholics who increasingly identify with the U.S. Republicans, does believe is that life is sacrosanct and family and marriage a fundamental of Catholic belief. Economic ideas are negotiable, unless they are designed to hurt the most vulnerable, and — please, be serious — no mainstream politician is demanding that. The defence of the unborn and traditional marriage, however, are not negotiable and Catholic politicians are not in good standing with the Church if they allow, encourage or simply remain silent in the face of abortion and the perversion of marriage.
You do not have to believe this, but you do not have to be Catholic either. Frankly, I’ve never understood why this is so troubling for politicians. There are lots of other churches you can join, other religions, even the Rotary Club, who offer, I’m told, a fine lunch and excellent golf tournaments. The Roman Catholic Church is a little different, a little more demanding.
In the United States there was a time when serious Catholics were welcomed. Then they were in a minority but still had a voice. Now they are an eccentric fringe at best, and it is no accident that Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York was immediately accepted by the Republican convention to lead them in prayer, but only given approval by the Democrats at the last moment, after being told he was not welcome.
If a child is not allowed to be born in the first place, Washington’s economic policies will be somewhat irrelevant. If marriage defined by Christ and Church is disregarded and mocked, and children are raised in a purposefully dysfunctional family, no social platform will repair and save society. I don’t know Paul Ryan, I believe social democracy was at one time essential, I will never be wealthy, I have no investments or stocks, and my faith demands that I care for the poor. But I am no fool, and I see hypocrisy and dishonesty in diamond-bright clarity.
Michael Coren