THE WHAT AND THE HOW

A good friend relayed to me the following story about a cross country trip he took several years ago.

“Early in my career, I taught history at a high school in United States. This interest in history, particularly in the history of the American West, prompted me to embark upon a tour of the American West in my automobile.  Passing through Phoenix, Arizona on a Sunday morning, I was anxious to find a Catholic church in order to attend Mass.  Fortunately, I observed a church on one of the main thoroughfares and noted that the church’s outdoor sign indicated that Mass would be commencing shortly. Quickly turning my car into the church parking lot, I parked my car and entered the church.

The church was constructed in a modern design with the altar in the middle of church and the congregation clustered around the altar. Though the design of the church confused me for a moment, since the design was quite different from the neighborhood church in my hometown; nevertheless it had a welcoming feeling to it.

My attendance at Mass at that church was one of those wonderfully enlightening and exhilarating experiences that one may occasionally encounter simply by chance.  Let me explain. For some time, I encountered difficulty in defining the exact scope of my obligation to follow and adhere to the various teachings of the Catholic Church, especially in regard to those moral issues that overlap into the political realm. I was just unable to make a distinction between that which was absolute and must be adhered to and that which was a suggestion and therefore could be or not be followed. During his homily, the priest who said the Mass provided me with an answer and methodology that contributed greatly to solving my dilemma.

It was clear from the priest’s introductory comments that some members of the congregation had requested that the priest explain the church’s position on some issues that were both moral and political hot buttons at that time. The priest masterfully cut to the quick by clearly stating that the Church’s role was to teach and explain the doctrines of the Church on faith and morals as provided by the Scriptures and Tradition. As such it did not have a role in creating concrete political solutions to specific issues. It was the obligation of the “body politic” to take the Church’s teachings and apply them to the individual political issues. The Church is concerned with “The What” and the body politic is concerned with “The How.” He added that once the Church entered the realm of “The How”, it would quickly take on the appearance of nothing more than another political party and therefore lose its moral standing. (The priest chuckled and asked if any of the congregation could name any political party that they would like to have as a guide to their moral consciences. The congregation roared with laughter, with most of the congregation emphatically shaking their heads to indicate the absurdity of such a thought.)

By way of example, the priest noted that everyone would agree that Christ clearly and frequently taught that all of us have an obligation to help our neighbors. No dispute here. But once we start talking about specific actions, then disagreements quickly arise and there can be differing approaches to helping our fellow man. The Church will state “The What” and then urge the citizenry to bring forward solutions. Some may want to rely on solutions that involve greater government aid through larger programs that may increase taxes; others may suggest that private aid would be more effective and less expensive. There could be many iterations and combinations of these two possible solutions. The one thing that the individual Christian could not do is to avoid one’s responsibility to help one’s neighbor.  The priest continued that, on occasion, if individual members of the clergy should suggest a political solution for helping their neighbor, it should be treated as a suggestion and can be accepted or rejected as one judged best. He quickly added that it was very dangerous for a member of the clergy to recommend specific political actions as it could easily jeopardize his position as a moral guide. He further added that it “would be a cold day in hell” before he would start down the road of offering solutions to political issues. He then hesitated for a moment and then scanned the congregation with his eyes, and emphatically stated, “Solutions to political issues, “The How” are your responsibility. My job is to be your moral guide to the “The What!”

During the remainder of my westward journey to California, my thoughts frequently returned to the priest’s homily. His approach to defining the role of the Church and politics into “The What and the How” has been my guideposts for decades now.  This approach has especially helpful in the first decade of the 21^st century as members of the clergy frequently support individual political parties and positions, making it more difficult to really understand  the basic teaching of Christ and his Church. I ask myself, “Is this particular issue “The What” and needs to be adhered to regardless on my current personal view or is it “The How” and can be assessed and judged accordingly?”

A chance stop at a church in an unfamiliar city led me to an approach to viewing important issues for me. It is likely that many people can look back with gratitude to an unexpected moment of insight or inspiration”.

My friend’s description of his experience with the sermon on the What and the How readily affected me. His guideposts for judging the appropriateness and applicably of remarks by members of the clergy have remained with me to this day.