NewWorld

Why It’s Dear To Us
Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete answers questions on “What We Hold Most Dear,” the U.S. Communion and Liberation judgment
on the upcoming Presidential Elections

edited by Santiago Ramos

The first public statement on a political judgment that was born of the charism of Communion and Liberation occurred in 1956 and it dealt with the Soviet incursion into Hungary. Since then, the Movement has never shied away from making judgments on the political reality that its members live. This is also true in the United States. For the 2008 Presidential election, the judgment is titled “What We Hold Most Dear.” Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete, Responsible for the Fraternity of Communion and Liberation in the United States, answers some questions about this new judgment.

Almost by way of introduction, the statement reads, “We do not hope for salvation from politics or politicians.” What do you mean by salvation, and what do you mean by politics? What is the danger in seeking salvation from politics? What is politics good for?
“Salvation” means the removal of all obstacles that stand in the way of reaching the fulfillment of all that makes us human, to reach the destiny for which we were created, to be all that we are meant to be. We say we need to be saved because there is a mysterious, irrational resistance in us to follow the path that leads to this fulfillment. There is a fear in us that makes us try to possess and manipulate what attracts us. This irrational opposition to the deepest desires of the human heart cannot be overcome by our own efforts. We need to be saved from this contradiction.
As for politics, I refer you to what the then-Cardinal Ratzinger said to the secularist philosopher Juergen Habermas: “The task of politics is to structure the use of power in a meaningful manner.” The question is: What does “in a meaningful manner” mean? Who decides what is or what is not meaningful? Meaningful means in accordance with some purpose, some ideal, some goal. A political proposal is to be judged by the goal around which it proposes to restructure the use of power. This goal will depend on what we consider human fulfillment to be. To say that we do not expect salvation from politics means that we do not expect any structuring of power to be able to bring the total fulfillment of what our hearts desire. We recognize the importance of politics, but we must also recognize its limits.

The statement identifies two fundamental criteria for judging political proposals, and, ultimately, for judging whom to vote for. The first is freedom of religion. The statement makes the claim that freedom of religion is “a guarantee of freedom for everyone, not only for Christians.” Can you explain how this is so?
The truth about man, about what it means to be human, the truth that should guide our political choices, requires us to recognize in us an attraction to infinity, the search for a Mystery that corresponds to the desires of the human heart. All religions are based on this recognition. A truly human politics, therefore, is one that will respect and promote the freedom to pursue this search. The recognition of the freedom of Christians to pursue this search according to our faith cannot but help individuals and religious communities to do likewise, because it is the recognition of the freedom to pursue what we all have in common, namely, the search for the truth about the Mystery that responds to our attraction to infinity.

Under the same point, the statement asserts, “Political power must recognize faith’s undeniable contribution to the defense and broadening of human reason and its promotion of authentic human progress.” How does faith defend and broaden reason? How would you argue this to the significant, though smaller, minority of secular-minded citizens in the United States, who feel that, if not opposed to reason, religion at least lies beyond it?
The reduction of faith to ethics or spiritual inspiration is one of the great errors of the culture that surrounds us. Rather, faith is a reasonable form of knowledge of reality that keeps reason open to the totally new, to the unforeseen, to the manifestation of a truth that corresponds to our need for meaning and purpose in life. Instead, today we face a relativism that suppresses this thirst for truth by calling it an irrational, immature, presumptuous, or even dangerous need. As Pope Benedict said in his address prepared for La Sapienza University in Rome: “This means that reason ultimately folds up from the pressure of interests and the attractiveness of utility.” On the contrary, Faith as a form of knowledge defends and broadens reason by urging all “to keep alive the sensitivity to truth, for goodness, for God” (ibid.).

The second fundamental criterion is the common good. Can you explain what the common good is? What are the social conditions required in order to help the citizens of a state “reach fulfillment more fully and more easily,” as the Catechism puts it? Would you go so far as to say that the state should provide certain positive rights–like the right to public education, or public health care–in order to help the common good? Or should it only make sure that certain rights are not violated?
The question about the common good is tied to the insistence on freedom of religion. In a sense, the pursuit of the common good involves the removal of those obstacles that make it difficult to pursue the search for this Mystery upon which our thirst for infinite happiness depends. Some of these can and should be removed by the human effort to create a just, peaceful, and compassionate society that will help us enjoy the freedom to pursue our religious quest. This certainly includes the guarantee of the positive rights that you mention. The U.S. Bishops emphasize the need to address politically the human rights “to the basic goods that every human person needs to live and thrive… basic needs such as food, shelter, healthcare, education, and meaningful work… Catholics must seek the best ways to respond to these needs” (#25).

What makes the non-negotiables non-negotiable? Why are they so important?
The “non-negotiable concerns” mentioned by the Pope refer to the defense of rights that indeed make possible, and just, the defense and promotion of these other human rights just mentioned. Without recognition of these rights, it is simply impossible to defend and promote all the other rights that the dignity of the human person requires. These fundamental rights are expressions of how we are made, of what it means to be a human person that has the right to live in a just and compassionate society. There may be authentic differences of opinion about how to recognize and defend the right to health, work, decent housing, food, etc., but if the rights to life, to a family founded on the marriage of a man and a woman, and to be educated within that family are denied–this is what we affirm as a truth discovered by reason. All these other rights cannot be defended and promoted.

Why is subsidiarity such an important principle? What does solidarity mean in this context?
Subsidiarity is important because it allows for freedom; the person receives more close attention, more concrete attention. It is superior to a large program that only approaches people in terms of statistics. Solidarity ensures that we make sure that every person is taken care of, and that, when the local authority cannot do so, we expand the care. This is why we say that subsidiarity cannot annul solidarity.

What guides a Christian when he enters the voting booth?
We are guided by the desire to affirm and defend that beautiful vision of the dignity of each human person that we have discovered by our faith in Christ.