Love and Freedom

Are you a conservative Catholic or a liberal Catholic? Are you a "social-justice" Catholic or a "Rad-Trad" Catholic? These terms are quickly rejected by most “informed” Catholics (seemingly becoming its own breed of dichotomizers), on the basis that they find their definition in the secular world, and not in the Church. However, the Church has often taken in aspects of secular society to make sense of a number of the phenomenon which it seeks to proclaim- the placement of the celebration of Christmas and numerous other feast days of saints serve as ample example (tehe- ample example . . . it rhymes). This should not be shocking or rattling to our faith, for central to the mission of the Church is to reach out to the world, and proclaim the Gospel to it through any means necessary. And yet, the aforementioned adjectives used to further describe what it means to be “Catholic” are certainly inadequate in their understanding of the noun they are attributed to. For after all, there is but one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church- and her members cannot (or rather should not) be divided into further ideological sects, to which such opposing adjectives could be appropriately placed.

However, when we look at the circumstances in the modern American Church- its hard to argue that these adjectives don’t have at least some grounding. Whether it be Nancy Pelosi or Paul Ryan, the political swing over what “Catholic” means seems to be a little too broad for my taste (and I suspect I’m not alone). The problem seems to be a particular hermeneutic of understanding justice that is simply contrary towards Christianity, especially Catholic Christianity. The hermeneutic adapted by the American political sphere is that of Freedom. This is not a new phenomenon, for it is indeed the foundation on which this country was built. From the Boston Tea party, to the Declaration of Independence, throughout much of its history, and unto today, this notion of Freedom  has been placed before all else in the American psyche as the ultimate good.

By contrast, the Church approaches justice with a hermeneutic of Love. For the record, this does not mean that the Church is opposed to freedom, or that “love” and “freedom” should in anyway be seen as counter-posed to one another (in this post or in general). For to truly love, one must first be free and to be free, one must be open to love. This is a fundamental teaching of the Church- that the two must be seen as united to one another. However, it is the understanding of the relation between freedom and love that is the fundamental difference between the Catholic understanding of these of justice, and the secular understanding. In Karol Wojtyla’s (Pope John Paul II) book Love and Responsibility, he spells the proper relationship between these two terms clearly:

“Freedom that is unused, not employed by love, becomes precisely something negative-it gives man a sense of emptiness and unfulfillment. The will tends to the good, and freedom belongs to the will, and therefore freedom is for love, for through love man most fully participates in the good. This is the essential basis for the primacy of love in the moral order, in the hierarchy of virtues, and in the hierarchy of the healthy longings and desires of man. Man longs for love more than for freedom- freedom is the means, whereas love is the end.”

Freedom is at the service of love, and only when it is in this service, is it truly justified. Freedom in the service of love is a good, for it allows the individual to love freely and fully, to do what is right and good to its fullest capacity. But a freedom which serves itself is a perversion, and usually leads to perversion, if not immediately then over an extended period of time.

This fundamental understanding of the relationship between Freedom and Love, and America's divorce from this concept in the 21st century can be clearly understood through many "hot button" topics (two in particular) in contemporary politics. The first of these, abortion, spells this distortion out on clear terms. The common title for somebody who is in favor of the legality of abortion is "Pro-Choice", and a person of the aforementioned opinion holds that a woman who has become pregnant, should have the freedom to decide whether or not that person formed inside of her should be born or not. Given that the process of the child's formation within the mother's womb will produce life changing effects to her social life, career, health, financial stability and more, it is certainly sound to believe that a mother should have that right- if indeed freedom is perceived as the ultimate good, to which all other goods must ultimately submit. However, if one were to hold that love is the ultimate good, and that freedom must ultimately submit, than the exchange of human life for an individual's personal freedom appears not only to be morally wrong, but a matter of grave evil. Such a view is not necessarily defended by religious belief (an atheist can certainly choose the notion of "love" over "freedom"), but is often seen as such, because this ideology is so often found in peoples of religious belief, and so rarely found in people without them.

Another, perhaps less obvious expression of this misconception of the relationship between freedom and love is that of welfare. Quite often "conservative" Catholics believe that the disparity of wealth is a perfectly acceptable, and even natural consequence of any society's economic stability. Some would even go so far as to say that it would be better if the poor were to starve under a system which did not impose systemic limitation of such a freedom, then to require to offer them the very basic necessities of human life. Again, this is contrary to the Christian understanding of freedom, which must be at the service of love. Gaudium et Spes spells this out on clear terms:

"(8) Whatever the forms of property may be, as adapted to the legitimate institutions of peoples, according to diverse and changeable circumstances, attention must always be paid to this universal destination of earthly goods. In using them, therefore, man should regard the external things that he legitimately possesses not only as his own but also as common in the sense that they should be able to benefit not only him but also others.(9) On the other hand, the right of having a share of earthly goods sufficient for oneself and one's family belongs to everyone. The Fathers and Doctors of the Church held this opinion, teaching that men are obliged to come to the relief of the poor and to do so not merely out of their superfluous goods.(10) If one is in extreme necessity, he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of others."

Yes, ideally people on their own volition would share their wealth (talents, goods, etc.) with others for their own sake, but at the same time we are fallen, effected by original sin, and not everyone of their own volition is willing to give what is owed and necessary to the poor. So then the question becomes whether it is better to allow for a systemic limitation of freedom, or a high potential for the limitation of life. As in the previous paradigm on abortion, the question of life vs. freedom, when seen through the understanding that love is the ultimate good makes clear what is the right thing to do.

I recognize that these are cursory views of both debates, and I could spend a whole blog post on both of  these topics individually and still not touch on all the rhetorical nuances. However,  my focus is not to call just or unjust either circumstance, but rather to illustrate how our common ways of argumentation in the political sphere as Catholic Christians should be counter-posed to the common American paradigm that places freedom as the ultimate good. Freedom is indeed a good, and one necessary for the true ultimate good- that being love- but acting upon that freedom, in love, often requires a limitation of itself for the sake of the other. That limitation, when seen in a Christian context- whose Lord Himself readily gave up His very life for the impoverished state of humanity- should be welcomed as one's duty and privilege to participate in.

God Bless,