Ukraine: A great lesson in thinking like a Catholic.

By Dr. Jeff Mirus ( bio - articles - email ) | Feb 27, 2015

The current competition for sovereignty in Ukraine is apt to bring out the worst in armchair quarterbacks. I’ve heard Catholics rant on all sides of this issue, but every position seems to me to be determined by preconceptions. The clearest thing about the conflict in Ukraine from a distance is how little we know and how much less we are in a position to understand.

We know little of the history, little of the motives at work, little about what might be best for those involved—assuming, which is doubtful, that everyone will be best served by the same solution. Moreover, if we are honest, we realize how little we really want to take any of this into account anyway.

We would rather decide according to a grand vision. Pick one: (a) Russia is an imperialist nation which has never abandoned the rapacious appetites manifested under Communism, and so clearly Ukraine must be protected from Russian encroachment; (b) Russian leaders are now far more moral—indeed, far more “Christian”—than their equivalents in the West, and so the increased influence of Russia and the decreased influence of the West in Ukraine is to be welcomed.

What any of this has to do with the lives of the real people on the ground remains a mystery.

We do know, of course, that the Ukrainian Catholic Church is firmly opposed to Moscow. Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk has been trying to convince the world that Ukraine is suffering nothing less than a foreign invasion, and it is fairly obvious that reincorporation into Russia would weaken the Catholic Church in that region. Shevchuk has a legitimate role in representing Catholic interests; we should take him seriously. But at the same time Catholic interests are only one part of a larger whole.

Catholic ecclesiastical interests, that is: The full Catholic interest is really the common good.

And so we must also ask: Is it really the role of a Catholic Archbishop to lay a moral responsibility on the people to be “united together” so that they can more effectively “resist aggression” by an “attacker”? Are we to imagine that the Ukrainian people are incapable of making their own judgments about what political arrangements make most sense going forward, or whether any of the arrangements on offer are worth significant sacrifice?

I get especially nervous about “Catholic” socio-political discourse when it is being led by bishops. Within the broad moral parameters taught by Jesus Christ through His Church, this is the province of the laity. The contrary is an inversion of Christian responsibility. Moreover, it is the kind of inversion which very fairly invites suspicion of the Church.

We may be excited about all this for reasons that are quite irrelevant. We may harbor a secret desire to pronounce on the matter definitively. We may insist that our own largely ill-formed inclinations represent Catholic judgment at its finest. We may even be angry at Pope Francis (as is Major Archbishop Shevchuk) for what we regard as uncharacteristic caution in the matter.

But we just don’t know, do we? Thinking like a Catholic does not mean making sure we grab hold of one side or the other, decisively joining the right political team. In prudential matters, thinking like a Catholic means admitting—first and foremost—what we do not know.