I have just just come across the following quote from the Pope offered earlier this month:
Following Christ, the Church is called to engage herself, in other words, there is no room for the Enlightenment adage, according to which the Church must not meddle in politics. The Church must meddle in great politics because – I quote Paul VI – “politics is one of the highest forms of love, of charity".
I am not a Catholic. I am a Quaker, which is in many ways as far as you get away from Catholicism on the Christian spectrum. But I agree, wholeheartedly.
Rather more importantly I suggest that the Charity Commission and UK politicians take note. As charity commentator Andrew Purkis has said:
This is a very significant statement, not only about the scourge of modern forms of slavery, but about the nature of charity. It puts into perspective the sentiments of part of the UK's political class that are hostile to charitable advocacy and recent statements from the Cabinet Office describing charitable lobbying as the antithesis of good causes.
Again, I entirely agree.
I will live in faith and hope that charity might be liberated to do what is clearly at the heart of its purpose.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I assume you are thinking of advocacy against poverty. We can do without the Catholic church’s views on abortion, birth control, homosexuality and many of its other extremely illiberal and uncharitable beliefs. I’d rather the enlightenment view pertained- we currently appear to have a reasonable Pope, but there is no guarantee that will continue in the future.
I was interested in the idea
It’s always good to come across the Pope in the real world, taking things in hand like that and shaking them out whatever the fall out is important to raise hard things in the world.
Charity – politics? That’s the first time I’ve ever thought I would see those two words put together in one sentence!
If only, there were more charitable politicians who were in politics for something other than their own self-interest.
Politics has always been a lucrative business for the vast majority of politicians, not just the salary, pensions, perks and expenses but the much bigger game of controlling the rules of the game in the interests of your real paymasters who will look after you very generously in much more untraceable ways before, during and after your time spent in this most corruptible of careers.
I suspect that ‘The Vatican’ (as a metonym for the monied power of the Catholic Church) puts up with the Pope saying this – a good idea would be to get rid of all the gold in the Vatican and turn the place into a soup kitchen for the poor.
Whilst agreeing with your sentiment, Richard, until recently the Catholic Church meddled in politics purely for it’s own institutional benefit, including the persecution of Quakers and other dissenting groups. The Enlightenment’s espousal of the separation of Church and State was an antidote to two centuries of religious wars in Europe.
And times move on
The enlightenment no longer looks so enlightened now
Ideas are for their time. They do need to change. But I stress, not go back
I think you need to put a date on “recently”, David.
Indeed- there were some Quakers in the late 17th Century who travelled across Europe to convince the Pope that their (the Quaker) understanding of Christ meant that earthly power needed to be ceded. Needless to say these people were imprisoned and/or put into asylums and never seen again.
I think they did come back….
You are right, Richard, some did return. Came across this interesting reference to one Samuel Fisher who travelled to Rome in 1657 visiting synagogues in Amsterdam on the way.
(books.google.co.uk/books?id=2OklBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=Quakers+who+went+to+see+pope+in+late+17th+Century&source=bl&ots=pz-soeKe2m&sig=EW7qTliSLr2CED47Q1PnEOLEDAo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhrafZ26XNAhWiK8AKHanXAMgQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=Quakers%20who%20went%20to%20see%20pope%20in%20late%2017th%20Century&f=false)
Sorry, this is not a Quaker blog but couldn’t resist sharing this with Richard.
I will take a read
I was sure I recalled correctly
How interesting, and significant, that Pope Francis should rely on the testimony of Pope Paul VI, for the truth is that, despite adopting Paul VI’s name, in part, along with Pope John XXIII’s, by calling himself John-Paul II, JPII was actually quite hostile, or certainly many in his “camp” were quite hostile, to much of Paul VI’s thinking. Indeed, JPII almost certainly only adopted the name because JPI had done so – a Pope who probably WOULD have married together the insights of both his great predecessors.
Most people remember Paul VI as the “failed” author/promulgator of Humanae Vitae” on artificial contraception, TOTALLY overlooking his great “Progressio populorum” encyclical, which pleaded for greater solidarity and sharing between rich and poor nations, and which led to the setting up of Progressio”, now known as CAFOD, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, as well as the whole Catholic “Justice and Peace” movement.
Some in JPII’s faction saw this as almost “Marxist” in tone, though truth to tell it was more like Wilsonian Labour Party.
That Pope Francis apprars to be relying on this Pauline strand of Catholic teaching is a clear sign that he is returning to a focus on the admirable body of Catholic social teaching, paying attention to which as a key component of a truly humane sysyem of governance, should be the task of every Government here and globally.
Interesting topic with which to kick off the week. However, when speaking about ‘religion’ one should tread cautiously and differentiate between ‘institutionalised’ religion and ‘spirituality’. The two have rarely been compatible. I’ve always believed Quakers to be at the vanguard of religious groups applying their inner spirituality to resolve socio-political issues, more in the Buddhist tradition. With the constitutional separation of Church & State the baby probably went out with the bath water.
I’ll leave it at that now because this is probably not an appropriate forum in which to raise and discuss such a hugely complex and contentious topic. I’ll just end with what is probably an urban myth but is attributed to William Temple – one of the C of E’s most politically progressive primates (see his book ‘Christianity and Social Order’ 1942). When asked ‘does Christianity work?’, he replied ‘I don’t know. It’s never been tried!’.
That’s a bit like the old Quaker joke
A person unfamiliar with Quaker ways comes into a silent meeting and whispers to a person at the back ‘When does the service start?’ to which the reply was given ‘When the Meeting ends’.
I would say that the statement above is already in operation and appropriated for the ‘deserving’ rich who (ahem) do ‘Gods work’ – and has been for some time.
I don’t agree with this Richard. I know that you are always trying to new ways of looking at things and that is always appreciated. This seems odd to me though.
I have never been comfortable with the notion of charity. It seems too optional, a product of choice – subject to one’s passions and whims. It can all too easily just not be there.
I maintain that those in politics must see concepts like fairness, equality and justice as duties – commitments to society that must be maintained – not to be provided when one feels like it – which is what charity is to me.
I do not agree with higher rate tax subsidies for charity
I could even live with lifetime donation limits
But I do see a role for charity – many do great work
I assume what PSR is referring to is the more recent phenomenon of ‘charity’ as a replacement of social care by the state as democratic choice rather than crumbs from the table. We are returning to Victorian notions of charity based on the ‘The Rich man by His Castle…the poor man by his gate’ mentality.
The Tory bullshit of the ‘Big Society’ and the emergence of Food Banks ( supply side economics according to Lord Fraud) as well as many existing charities being stretched to their limits.
let’s remember that charitable giving is largely borne by the less well-off which is a scandal in itself.
Quite – why does UK charity exist if the government is fulfilling its role? I would suggest that it should not. But of course, as the current government is so ‘austere’ we need foodbanks these days, so charity – even when it begins at home – is unfortunately necessary and also predominantly supported (as Simon says) by those of us who are poorer.
The idea that government can ever be the sole possessor of purpose must surely be mistaken?
A cross fertilisation of ideas is essential. That is a real role for charity
I don’t understand the knee jerk antireligious response to your thoughtful post. This forum is meant to be a place for ideas, which may come from many areas. The catholic church does not claim perfection and Pope Francis questions and speaks out in a firstly human way. Let’s embrace any ideas that could help society as a whole.
Thanks, Lisa. As a practising Christian, I forebore from saying what you have said, knowing I would be rightly open to possible rebuke for saying so. But it really does seem to be knee-jerk to immediately trot out all the old chestnuts, when someone you’d like to disagree with shows he’s actually on your side, and understands. Tramlines? I think so.
Instead, picking up on Richard’s Quaker beliefs, we should recognise that “there is that of God in each of us”.
Or, if you are atheist, fine, then let’s say “there is that of real humanity in each of us!” Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto – I am a human being, so nothing human is strange to me (the playwright Terence, approx 190 BCE)
Thank you for noting this Richard.
I raised my eyebrows when I first read it, but this statement by the Pope sheds a welcome light on what politics is really all about.
The basic notion of charity is giving to people who are less well off than oneself. This is an act that involves some sacrifice, and in the Christian tradition, the giving is more important than the gift. If a millionaire gives a large donation to a third world orphanage we may hail that as a great act of charity, but equally significant is the gift from a person of more modest means, who gives from the income they might well need to live on.
Now it is quite easy to jump to the conclusion that all charity must be similar to this, a personal gift from one to another. Institutionalised charity, in the form of aid budgets and organisations like Oxfam, look like essentially the same thing on a bigger scale. However, the limitations of this type of charity should be apparent to anyone who has experience of working in the sector, and we should rightly suspect any kind of politics that promises to solve the world’s problems by appealing to individual acts of generosity. Individual charity is essentially a personal act.
That said, there is another, higher, form of charity which politics does have a claim to, and that is the politics of a just social order. Justice and charity go hand in hand, because without charity, justice is all too often subverted to the instrument of a class. This is both inevitable, because of human nature, and unavoidable, because complete, perfect justice is an unattainable ideal. The best we can hope for is to contain the greatest injustices, and to discourage the minor ones.
Charity, however, means that justice does not have the last word. It means that injustice can be overcome not by suppressing it, but by defeating its negative influence. In short, it is about reconciliation, forgiveness, and overcoming evil with love. The saying, turn the other cheek, does not mean letting oneself be used as a doormat, but rather recognising the existence of evil, and refusing to retaliate in kind. Retaliation just leads to counter-retaliation in an ever perpetuating cycle.
It may not be easy to recognise this higher form of charity in contemporary politics, because our charity is still imperfect. But deep down, the real motivation for politics is a desire to change the world for the better, and that is the seed of great love. The fact that many politicians have been led astray by other, conflicting desires, such as personal and professional interest, does not change the fact that the kind of charity they are engaged in is of the purest kind. And a recognition of this lofty goal should be welcomed, both to encourage the engagement of all with the political process, and to spur us on to find practical solutions to the pressing social and financial problems we face.
So yes, politics is one of the highest forms of love, of charity. And in a democratic society, we all have the chance to participate in it.
Thank you