The Church And Democracy - by Averthanus L. D’Souza

GOA, Sept. 23, 2009, 10.30 Hrs (Averthanus L. D’Souza):

Some recent articles and letters to the Editor have disparagingly stated, or at least insinuated, that the Catholic Church is not ‘democratic.’ Some even seem to be asserting that democracy and the Church are mutually incompatible. They have demanded that there should be more democracy in the Church. The assumption underlying these arguments seems to be that one is either a democrat or a religious fundamentalist. The recent public debate on whether there should be a law to “protect” church properties, which was instigated by a disgruntled politician and abetted by an equally disgruntled retired Judge of the Supreme Court, only fuelled the controversy without any apparent benefit either to the government or to the church. These intellectual discontents not only betray their complete lack of understanding of what constitutes religion, they also expose their ignorance of what democracy is all about. They have elevated the system of democracy to the level of ultimate human achievement. In doing so, they ignore the fact that democracy is simply one system of governance among many other systems of government, and that its has its own advantages and limitations – both in concept and in practice. To glorify and idealize democracy as is being proposed by these worthies is both vacuous and ingenuous. Political systems are crafted by men under specific social or economic environments. They differ from place to place and from time to time. They take on peculiar contortions depending on the ideologies which inform them e.g. democracy in the erstwhile German Democratic Republic or in the Soviet Union was not the same as democracy in the U.S.A. or in Britain. Democracy in ancient Greece was not the same as modern democracy. In Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands and some of the Scandinavian countries, democracy incorporates monarchy. Democracy as practised in Switzerland is not the same as democracy as it is practised in the rest of Europe. Political systems can only be compared with one another or with an ideal system of government. They cannot be compared with any “religion.”

Rules or ‘norms’ of human behaviour are derived from an understanding of the nature of Man. Whether in his personal or in his behaviour in society, Man is “expected” to obey certain ‘norms’ or rules. Conformity with these norms is sought to be enforced – in the sports arena, e.g. by the Referees/Umpires, and in society by “law enforcement” agencies. Breach of these norms generally incurs some penalty. All known human societies from the beginning of history have devised such norms and have institutionalised systems for their enforcement.

These norms, or laws, are not arbitrary; nor are they unreasonable. We would never have had ‘law abiding’ societies if the laws were unreasonable. There would have been a state of anarchy and complete mayhem if there were no law and order. Even in sub-human species, we can discern certain norms in operation. The difference, of course, between the laws as they operate in ‘Nature’ and as they are formulated in human societies is that humans are intelligent and free and can see the need for regulating human behaviour – both individual and social.

Which brings us to the question of the source of all laws. Misinformed (or insufficiently informed) politicians, journalists, and even some lawyers behave and talk as if all laws are concocted by human beings. There are, of course, man-made laws, which are designated as Positive Laws. These laws may vary from place to place and from time to time: e.g. some countries require drivers to keep to the left of the road whereas other countries insist that they keep to the right of the road. There are a variety of laws regarding weights and measures. However there are some laws which have a more universal character and are seen to be valid all over the world. These universal laws are derived from an understanding of human nature and are often referred to as “the” Natural Law. Practitioners of the law are known to appeal to this Natural Law when certain situations within the legal system do not provide for a clear basis either for acquittal or for conviction of people, or when there is a lacuna in the law.

It is impossible, within the limitations of space in a newspaper article, to provide a more elaborate explanation of the history of Natural Law and how it came to be formulated and codified. Volumes upon volumes have been written on this subject, and those who have the interest or the motivation to delve deeper into this subject will know how to access the information. Suffice it to say that all law has its basis in morality, and that religion has always been the custodian and the exponent of morality. This is true not just for the Christian religion, but for all religions. All religions have influenced the way in which laws have been formulated and practised; some have given greater emphasis to compassion – such as in Buddhism; or to tolerance – such as in Hinduism; or to obedience to God – as in Islam; or to justice and mercy – as in Christianity. But one thing remains indisputable – that law and legal systems derive from religion and morality. Therefore to argue, as some are doing, that religion must be completely divorced from politics is to propagate utter nonsense. These confused persons need to re-examine their own basic beliefs.

Mahatma Gandhi, who is acknowledged to be the Father of the Indian Nation, was unambiguous that the Indian political and legal system should be grounded on morality. Our national emblem boldly displays the slogan “Satyameva Jayate.” Gandhiji’s entire life – personal, social and political, as recorded in his autobiography was grounded in his encounter with and struggle to propagate Truth. In fact his autobiography is called “My encounter with Truth.” The freedom movement, guided and spearheaded by him used only the instrument of truth. Satya-graha, as any school child knows, means, using only truth as a weapon – not violence. Gandhi abhorred violence of any kind. This “moral” approach to gaining freedom was embraced by Nelson Mandela in South Africa, by Julius Nyerere in East Africa, by Martin Luther King in the U.S.A. and by many others. There can be no better evidence to show that true freedom is obtained only by use of moral means as distinct from ‘political’ means. Politics, as it is commonly understood, is simply too inadequate to guarantee personal, social, economic or political freedom. Politics, in order to be good politics has to be infused with morality; and this has been explicitly acknowledged by all leading social and political thinkers.

The Catholic Church is not (repeat not) a political system which is inspired by any ‘ideology.’ The Church transcends all ideologies and all political systems, whether they be monarchical, aristocratic, plutocratic, or democratic. The church is completely outside this framework of reference and cannot be used as a point of reference. The church is a Way, a path to God; and its mission, inter alia, is to proclaim the sanctity of all human life – from the very moment of conception to the moment of natural death. The human “Person” is sacred and inviolable. His rights are inalienable, irrespective of the systems of government, or economics or cultures within which he lives his life. The human Person has an eternal destiny which has to be recognized and respected by any and all systems of government. This is why the Church, even though she is not a democracy, operates in a democratic way – respecting the dignity of each individual person and providing the means - both administrative and sacramental – for the individual to express himself both socially and morally.

To view the church from the extremely limited perspective of politics is to do grave injustice to the church; it is not only a falsification of the reality of the church, but it does violence to the nature and the purpose for which the church was instituted by God. No one is forced to accept this “reality” of the church; but sound common sense requires that the claim should at least be examined objectively and without prejudice. It is very unfortunate that of late, there have been expressions in the Press, specially by so-called Catholics, including pseudo-historians, which betray colossal ignorance of the nature of the church. The least that they can do, before rushing into print, is to inform themselves about the nature of the church, of which they claim to be members. Of course, if they do not accept the nature of the church as it has been instituted by Jesus Christ, they are free to opt out.

Averthanus L. D’Souza