Introduction
The relations of Church and secular society have been a matter of discussion for centuries. Both spiritual and civil aspects are important for society. Scholars debate on how to bring them together without running to extremes. There are two dangerous approaches to the relations between church and state, which are privatization and politicization. The first one treats religion as “a matter of heart,” while the social policy is considered insignificant. The second one presupposes that religion is permitted to govern social and legal issues. The current research will deal with the approaches to the religious presence in the public sphere of Millburn J. Thompson, Janet Jakobsen and Ann Pellegrini, and John Courtney Murray.
Values and Principles that Guide the Church’s Approach to Public Policy
Catholic social thought is a big field for investigation. Most of its researchers consider it a must to publish their ideas. Among these “Introducing Catholic, Social Thought” by Millburn J. Thompson should be studied. The author gives much attention to the development of Catholic social thought. Still, the most significant part of Thompson’s book is “Values and Principles that Guide the Church’s Approach to Public Policy.”
The first principle is Human Dignity, Realized in Community. The author presents the biblical approach to human dignity, which is theocentric. The human being is God’s creation, in the image of God, so human dignity is not something acquired but given with creation. Still, people are social creatures, depending on each other, so the social component is inherent. Thus, human dignity is realized in the community.
The second mentioned principle is “The Common Good.” Catholic social teaching considers the common good the primary aim of humanity. The concept of the common good reveals the connection between the good of an individual and that of the society, which presupposes general responsibility.
The third principle stated by Thompson is ”Participation.” In fact, participation is the way to achieve the common good. Everyone, being engaged with the life of society, contributes to its improvement and development.
One more principle to follow is “Solidarity, Subsidiarity, and Socialization.” This idea means that all people are bound and interdependent. Thus, solidarity is a suitable approach to living in the big world. The principle of “Social Sin and Structures of Injustice” reminds that the world is unjust and oppressive. The people live in the circumstances of guilt, affected by the so-called original sin and the sin of the world.
“Option for the Poor” comes next in the list of principles. It is related to economic injustice and expects society to help the poor and defenseless. The last principle of “Human rights” traces its roots back to the Enlightenment. Human rights, in their modern interpretation, are supposed to lead to social justice.
On the whole, Thompson’s principles reflect a relatively peaceful coexistence of church and society, without too much interference. Still, Christian values are widely introduced into social life and tend to make it better.
Love the Sin
A different approach to the connection of religion and society is described in work “Love the Sin” by Janet Jakobsen and Ann Pellegrini. According to the authors, the secular and religious spheres have a common constitution. They consider that these two parts of life are not independent and they cannot be separated. Instead of neglecting religious constituent of the society and attempting to isolate religious and secular, which is a characteristic of classic secularists, Jakobsen and Pellegrini insist that religion may help practice freedom, thus opening a variety of ethical opportunities.
The American society, which is the object of investigation, is famous for its tolerance and religious freedom. The religious practice which is different than that of the majority in the society is not an obstacle to participation in public life on equal conditions. Religious freedom also includes the possibility of not being religious at all. Country-wide, the government agreed not to support religion. This fact, of course, does not mean that it has to be eliminated from public life. The idea is to separate religion from the state.
As for the privatization of religion, it is a part of religious freedom in the United States. The diversity of religions is agreeable in case it does not go further than the private sphere. This fact arises arguments of both, Christians and religious minorities, who consider the privatization of religion harmful to religious practice, for it minimizes the religious input into the social life of the American society.
The authors mainly discover the connection between religious and sexual freedom. As well as diverse religions are tolerated in society, the sexual difference should also be accepted with tolerance. Although the tolerance to something different is important, the possibility of being other and still treated equally is the main aim.
Religious Freedom, Morality, and Law
In the context of religious freedom, law, and morality, the principles promoted by John Courtney Murray should also be considered. He introduced the new approaches to the interaction of the Catholic Church and the American Government. He suggested considering Catholicism not as a source of danger to the state, but as an opportunity to learn from its long tradition. Moreover, Murray’s ideal prompted the movement of the Catholic Church in the direction of religious freedom.
Murray’s ideas of religious freedom contradict the concepts of secular treatment of public life and the necessity of religion’s privatization. The church intends to implement its moral values into social life, while society fights for freedom. The stumbling blocks here are mainly same-sex partnerships and abortions, which contradict the Catholic values. Protecting the morals, the Church eagerly opposes the government. Still, the connection of the moral norms and the law is a matter of discussion.
Conclusion
On the whole, the three mentioned approaches to interrelations between religious and public spheres have a common idea. All of them recognize the penetration of one sphere into another. Still, they have some differences. The study of Thompson gives the idea of the peaceful coexistence of church and society. The theory of Jakobsen and Pellegrini does not separate religious and secular spheres, applying religious freedom to other areas of life. The position of Murray of Church as a source of knowledge for the state and as a moral controller also has its followers. Thompson’s approach appeals to me most of all. No one would argue that religious and social spheres are connected and interdependent. This connection should be used for the good of society. Religious freedom is necessary, and the choice of belief cannot be imposed. The church may be engaged in promoting moral values, but not interfering in every sphere of life.