As the old saying goes, “Never discuss politics or religion in polite company.” This is not to say religion and politics are to go unheard, but rather that discussing these subjects require a sort of rational delicacy and a consciousness of one’s surroundings. Both being essential parts of the human experience, religion and politics should, indeed must, be debated. Why this saying bears truth, however, is because of the incredible divisiveness in both subjects. However, sometimes religion or politics are endemic to certain situations. The campaign trail requires political dialogue, and a Catholic Mass is (and this should be no surprise to anyone) by its very nature religious. The question becomes what the relation between religion and politics should be when the two are mixed. In this article, I intend to make the case for why, in a Mass setting, overt partisan politics must be avoided. To put a slight twist on the classic maxim, “Never discuss religion and politics as one during Mass.” A core part of the Catholic Church’s mission is to create a community of believers in the Catholic faith, and community requires a sense of belonging and being welcome. In the celebration of the Eucharist, the faithful come into communion with both Christ and the Catholic community. Particularly in the political environment of today, infusing partisan politics into a Mass serves only to divide that community.
Politics and Mass most commonly mix during the preacher’s homily. In an interview with The Fenwick Review, Fr. James Flynn of St. Matthew’s Parish in Southborough, Massachusetts, explained that a homily is meant to remind parishioners of the teachings of Christ, and to provide a thought evoking analysis of the Word of God as per Sacred Scripture. Homilies should certainly address the issues of the day, but should do in a non-partisan manner, and merely attempt to find what Christ would say. Fr. Flynn also explained that the homily is not a place for the preacher to attempt to provide his personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture. The responsibility of scriptural interpretation lies with the magisterium of the Catholic Church alone. Homilies are not simple stories, and require careful consideration by the preacher, for they are teaching laypeople about the Word of God. To try to frame that in a partisan political manner puts an unwarranted restraint on the teaching of the Lord. God is not bound by the fickle nature of earthly politics, and to posit that He would support a particular point of abstract political policy is simply ridiculous.
In understanding what a homily is supposed to be, it can now be explained why one infused with politics is so incredibly harmful. Politics by its very nature is divisive. In the political environment of today, one would be hard-pressed to find a political issue that is widely agreed upon. Given this environment, it should hardly be surprising that bringing politics into Mass is a bad idea. The House of God should be reserved for the worship of God alone, not the preaching of the petty politics of the Earthly City. As Fr. Flynn explains, when this occurs, it is the inevitable result that people in the community of worshipers will be alienated. This runs completely contrary to a core mission of the Catholic Church: the unity of believers. The Church has a responsibility to carry out God’s will for One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and it is a failure of the preacher when that unity is unnecessarily undermined.
It is worth delving deeper into what it is meant by ‘politics,’ because the necessity of its exclusion from Mass is not absolute. There are two kinds of political policy - one that serves as the only means of resolving an issue, what I will call direct policy, and one that is among many proposed ways of solving a problem, what I will refer to as indirect policy. When Catholic doctrine is explicitly opposed to a certain situation that involves a direct policy solution, the preacher has every right (and responsibility) to make that clear. Abortion can be categorized among these kinds of issues. The Church is categorically against the taking of an innocent human life, and there are no questions on that front. Additionally, there are no other options to avoid the killing of a child aside from a strictly anti-abortion stance. There is simply no alternative policy ground to stand on. Given this, the preacher is in the right to proclaim the inherent evil in the practice of abortion, and the need for its restriction. By contrast, for an issue like poverty, there are a plethora of proposed policy solutions. This would be an example of indirect policy. There are many streams of political theory on how to mitigate poverty, ranging from increased freedom in the market to an increase in government support. It is in a situation like this that the preacher has the responsibility to avoid pushing a particular policy point. He does not have the authority to dictate which policy path God would desire, and for him to do so would be tantamount to presuming to know the Will of God. One could say that the preacher is merely suggesting a solution, but this is not necessarily the case. In his role as pastor, he has a particular religious authority, and this authority includes a responsibility not to abuse it. There are few issues that fall into the category of direct policy, and many that fall under indirect policy, and it is in the latter that preachers most often get into trouble. This is not to say that the preacher should not address an issue that involves indirect policy, he should. In addressing it, he should explain the result that we can determine is God’s Will according to Sacred Scripture, and that we should move towards that end. On the issue of climate change, for example, the preacher certainly has a duty to advocate for the protection of God’s creation, but he should not do so in the context of a particular policy solution, for that (being indirect policy) should be left to the temporal world of politics. In following these guidelines, the preacher can best serve his flock. His goal should be the continued unity of the Catholic Church, and that can not be achieved if the congregation is unnecessarily divided on grounds of temporal politics.
Participation in a Catholic Mass (or any Christian religious ceremony) should be a time for unity in the Light of God. Partisan politics only serves to artificially break this unity. The preacher has the ultimate responsibility to guide his parish to being disciples of Jesus and evangelists of the Church. While this may at times include political elements, the preacher has the added duty to refrain from unnecessarily divisive rhetoric. The best practice for a preacher when walking into the dangerous realm of politics is simply to urge the faithful to form their own opinions in light of God’s teaching. If Sacred Scripture is taught properly, the faithful should be more than capable of coming to a conclusion without the need for partisan preaching.