The debate over the role the Catholic Church should take in public life has always been fierce. It’s no different today.

In an age where secularism demands strict “separation of church and state,” the insistence by the Church that faith should inform public policy is often painted as a threat to democracy.

Is this narrative fair—perhaps even dangerously simplistic?

The Catholic Church teaches that when morality is intertwined with public life, it does not undermine democracy or society at large. Rather, when moral convictions are woven into the fabric of the public square, it enriches both the political system and the culture.

The separation of church and state, as understood by the Church, is not a call for its faithful to check their values at the door, nor is it a cry to disengage from public discourse. Instead, the understanding of such an arrangement is to protect the rights of people so they can act on their values in public.

The consistent message of the Church: moral principles and political choices are inseparable for the faithful.

Secular critics argue that religious influence in politics is inherently problematic, fearing the imposition of “dogma” on a pluralistic society. It’s as if the secularist culture is afraid of something it knows nothing about.

Furthermore, the predominant religion of the secularists is Liberalism. One can object at their own discretion, but Liberalism is indeed a religion, though one lacking any deistic quality. The dirty secret is that American culture has been under the thumb of a Liberal theocracy for most of its existence.

Recall. In her confirmation hearing for the appellate court the Catholic, and now Supreme Court Justice, Amy Coney Barrett was told by the late Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that, “the dogma lives loudly within you.”

Passive-aggressive? Yes. Insulting? Perhaps. Ignorant? Certainly.

Are widely held values really supposed to be avoided when opining on public policy? Keep in mind, most of Barrett’s “dogmatic” beliefs of which Feinstein et al. object to are not exclusive to Catholicism.

Was Barrett supposed to kowtow to the beliefs of the San Francisco liberal establishment and, instead, encourage its devolved standard of ethics or its absence of traditional morality?

It matters not. Whether out of fear or ignorance, Feinstein was grandstanding.

Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin says, “Not everything the pope says is a dogma. Neither is everything you find in a Church document. Nor are all Church teachings. In fact, not even all infallible Church teachings are dogmas.”

Simply because someone in the hierarchy utters it, does not mean the statement is dogma. Look no further than one of social media’s most visible priests, James Martin. Any number of his beliefs and public statements run contrary to both Catholic teaching and dogma.

But, for the time being, Martin is still a priest in good standing. So where does that put him and his acolytes?

It’s an interesting question to ponder.

What is a dogma, anyhow? Akin tells us that a dogma is “a special type of infallible teaching. For something to be a dogma, the Church must infallibly teach not just that it is true but that it is divinely revealed (i.e., part of the deposit of faith given by God and entrusted by the apostles to the entire Church).”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.”

Akin further clarifies, “If the Church has not infallibly taught that it is divinely revealed, it may still be an infallible teaching, but it’s not a dogma.”

So why all the kvetching from Feinstein and her crowd?

These folks demand a public square scrubbed clean of religious conviction, as if neutrality means the absence of religious perspectives. But this is a false neutrality—one that privileges secular ideologies while silencing centuries of moral wisdom.

Plus, as previously stated, the “neutrality” of the Liberal is merely the promotion of its own godless religion at the expense of classical theism.

The Church is not attempting to become a “theocracy” as many Cassandras on the left drone on about. Likewise, it is not interested in supplanting the political process or dictating specific policies in any of the globe’s hundreds of independent polities (outside its own Vatican City). Instead, the Church urges Catholics to participate as informed citizens, guided by conscience and a commitment to the common good.

Such instruction is often misunderstood, however. In today’s modernist culture, an informed conscience is often confused with what—or how—one “feels.” Belief, knowledge, or certainty rarely enter the equation.

Meanwhile, the influence of the Church is most visible when it advocates for human dignity, justice (without any modifier), and the protection of life. These are issues that transcend partisan divides. Or at least they used to.

If the Church were to retreat entirely from public life, who would speak for the voiceless, the unborn, the marginalized? The real scandal is not that the Church speaks, but that so many wish it would remain silent.

Democracy, which is not even necessarily a Catholic value, does not thrive when voices are excluded, but it does when all—religious people included—are heard.

According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “The separation of church and state does not require division between belief and public action, between moral principles and political choices, but protects the right of believers and religious groups to practice their faith and act on their values in public life.”

The presence of the Catholic Church in public life is not an intrusion. To the contrary. It is a vital contribution to the moral fabric of society.

To demand its silence is to impoverish public debate and weaken the structures that uphold political sovereignty.

Can we afford a public square devoid of moral conviction or, is the wisdom of the ages insightful when it suggests that faith should indeed inform public policy?

As always,

Brian

P.S.– My pal and fellow Catholic, John DeRosa, has made it his life’s work—other than teaching high school mathematics—to discuss and answer many of the common objections to Catholicism over at ClassicalTheism.com

John says about the material he covers with his podcasts and blog: “The content consists of intermediate apologetics which aims to engage topics with a rigor above the popular level, yet below that of graduate school conferences… While some view Catholicism as outdated or childish, it is eminently reasonable and defensible in our modern age.”

John’s website hosts a huge catalog of podcast episodes and other resources available for FREE. In fact, his newest podcast just dropped this morning.

However, this being Lent and it being the season of prayer, fasting, and almsgiving, consider subscribing to John’s Patreon so he can better continue serving the public with his ministry.