The Church: Always spiritual, sometimes corporal, never political

By Dr. Jeff Mirus ( bio - articles - email ) | Jan 31, 2025

I enjoyed and benefited from Phil Lawler’s outstanding three-part analysis of the conflict between The Trump Administration and the US Catholic Bishops on immigration. The details of the situation in Part I and Part II were extraordinarily valuable, but (as my own readers know) I’m big on theory, so I considered Part III a triumph. That’s because Phil made two critical points, the first distinguishing Catholic charity arising from Catholic generosity from Catholic contract work arising from government funding; and the second explaining how little credibility the Church has today when she advocates for particular government policies.

The plain truth is that we have heard far more from the Catholic Church over the last fifty years about which prudential governmental policies to support than about which version of Catholic faith and morals to support. Or at least this has been predominately true throughout the West. We have even sometimes heard more about the right choice among political candidates than about the right choice between Satan and Christ. And if news reporting is any guide, there has been more episcopal criticism of Donald Trump recently than of Satan himself. (On the other hand, I grant that most news reporters are not interested in harming Satan’s reputation.)

My point is, and always has been, that the Church, from the Pope on down, must place its overwhelming primary emphasis on conversion to Christ, assent to all that His Church authoritatively teaches on faith and morals, and active participation in the sacraments. On this model, the moral and prudent voting pattern of properly formed and properly dedicated Catholics will take care of itself.

The advantages of charity

Another thing that will take care of itself is Catholic charitable works. I suppose that when the Catholic bishops take responsibility for administering federal poverty and immigration programs, at least some spiritual good is done. But how much more spiritual good would be done if a far more vibrant Church would, through her own members, fund and engage in charitable works as growing directly out of the love of Christ. Administering federal grants, while it can at times serve good purposes, is not charity; it is not primarily a work of Christ’s love. But the larger point here, of course, is that you cannot have a full love of neighbor without a love of Christ, and you cannot have a thorough, widespread and properly ordered love of Christ without the sacraments and the doctrines and indeed the sheer existence of the Church Christ founded.

This is so true that I believe it would be perfectly legitimate for Church leaders to stop lobbying and even stop making public pronouncements in favor of various partisan political objectives, and to do nothing more (or, more accurately, nothing less) than devoting all of their attention to the making of converts to Christ and the formation of saints within the Church herself. Lay groups might form within dioceses and parishes to address political issues—always through a legitimately prudential application of non-negotiable Catholic principles—but while popes, bishops, priests and religious might well influence political leaders personally, they have no need to be making public pronouncements on policies, establishing lobbying groups, or trying to determine the best political way to solve the practical problems of the society in which they live.

There is an old expression that if your only tool is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. Along the same lines, we may complain that if the Church’s only tool is secular manipulation, then everything begins to look like politics.

Moral vs. political judgements

The unvarnished truth is this: It is not the role of either the Church or her clergy, or even her lay employees, to make political judgments. Moreover, if the Church through her teachings and her internal policies would form her clergy, her sons and daughters in religious life, and her laity well, she would do far more good socially, economically, politically and charitably than she can do through national episcopal conferences operating on even a hundred times the scale on which they operate today. Such conferences, after all, barely existed before the twentieth century. The first one was established in Switzerland in 1863 without any political role at all. Even today, episcopal conferences do not necessarily concern themselves with politics; they exist primarily as a way for the bishops of a particular country or region to exercise their ecclesial responsibilities more uniformly and effectively in that region.

In other words, episcopal conferences are (or at least ought to be) rather like regular regional synods with a permanent office and a permanent staff. One could argue that individual bishops might take their apostolic character more seriously and govern their dioceses more effectively if permanent conferences did not exist. Still, it is certainly good for the bishops of a region to meet together to develop common commitments and common ecclesiastical policies. In this way, they can accentuate the unity of faith and practice within a region, as is proper to that region’s role and condition within the universal Church.

The point here is that it is not the purpose of bishops to make political judgments, but rather spiritual and moral judgments, and these without descending into arguments over either the prudential details or the extent of funding of various government programs. Bishops are ordained and consecrated for governing the Church, making Christ present through the sacraments, enhancing the spiritual life of her members, and making converts. Moreover, even popes are elected for the governance of the Church, not the governance of the world. We do not need popes, for example, to warn us about climate change. The clergy do not need to be known for the shrewd effectiveness of their political judgments and strategies. Their purpose is not to help to craft legislation and administrative policies for the secular governments in their regions.

Moreover, I am in complete sympathy with the questions Phil Lawler has raised about the Church’s administration of government contracts. This is a temptation to be avoided, and the more money involved, the greater the temptation. Let the Catholic Church be known as often as possible for the purity, self-sacrifice, human effectiveness and sheer grace of her own programs, even if they are sometimes on a smaller scale. And let the Catholic Church always be known, above everything else, as caring for the souls of those she assists materially. When the Church is healthy she steers clear of both government dependency and government control. And when a person in need is served by the Church, this service should not be an encounter with the government’s bureaucracy but an encounter with the Church’s Lord.

Jeffrey Mirus holds a Ph.D. in intellectual history from Princeton University. A co-founder of Christendom College, he also pioneered Catholic Internet services. He is the founder of Trinity Communications and CatholicCulture.org. See full bio.

Sound Off! CatholicCulture.org supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

  • Posted by: miketimmer499385 - Feb. 02, 2025 1:36 AM ET USA

    I'm thrilled to be in such august company. You've hit each bullet point that I've espoused locally, even to Lutheran friends who enquire about Catholic matters. Needless to say, I impress almost no one, But, to quote Adrian Monk, "I could be wrong, but I don't think so."

  • Posted by: Randal Mandock - Jan. 31, 2025 8:44 PM ET USA

    Thank you, Jeff.