The Archbishop of Valencia, Enrique Benavent, values that the public commitment of Catholics "must be channeled outside of political parties. It would be desirable for social commitment associations not to depend so much on public powers." This was defended last Monday in a conference given at the Manuel Broseta Meeting Club that was published yesterday in the archbishopric's own media. A speech in which he adds that "the Catholic who commits himself to a party must be aware that he will find himself faced with the drama of being a politician and a Catholic."
In his speech, he stated that “the ethical debate in public life has been impoverished or is simply avoided. When you think that it is simply a religious issue, dialogue becomes impossible. "There is another fact that makes dialogue difficult: the identification of certain positions on issues of great ethical significance with certain political options."
In this text the prelate defends that "the politicization of the ethical debate and the political pigeonholing of people for defending certain positions that, in principle, are not necessarily linked to a political option, but that have become a political flag, can lead to "kill sincere dialogue on issues that deeply affect human understanding."
He adds that "if, furthermore, the parties' options on ethical issues are not based on a vision of the human being, but on electoral returns, then the ethical debate in order to achieve a more just society has died."
As he already pointed out in an interview with La Vanguardia, Benavent defends that "politics is not the Church's own mission, but Christians cannot ignore it, alone or in association. However, responsibility should not be attributed to the Church." The Catholic who commits himself to a party must be aware that he will find himself faced with the “drama of being a politician and a Catholic.”
Remember that “the presence of Christians who have entered political parties motivated by the Christian faith in their youth has been a constant. However, once one enters the dynamics of party life, on many occasions the renunciation of basic principles and values is imposed, which remain in the background."
In his opinion, the discipline of voting on issues that are not necessarily linked to a political option "has been imposed in such a way that the commitment of a Catholic in the life of a party can lead him to conflicts of conscience, to 'I do what I can' because of iron obedience to party discipline or 'if we weren't there it would be worse.'"
And he adds that "I don't know if this has a solution at the current time, but it is the reality in which we find ourselves. Greater space for personal freedom of decision in those issues that affect people's conscience would be more desirable."
For this reason, the Archbishop defended that the public commitment of Catholics must be channeled outside and outside of political parties. “You can help people outside political structures more directly than from within them. It would be desirable for the associations through which the social commitment of many Christians who do not feel comfortable with party discipline to be channeled not to depend so much on public powers.”
Along these lines he affirms that “the mission of the Church is not to get directly involved in political life by becoming a political party, but rather to offer its social doctrine, which has never pretended to be a set of norms. "It is about founding moral principles in reason that can be valid for everyone and discussing them."
Regarding Christians in institutions, he warned that “they cannot positively promote laws that question the value of human life, nor support with their vote proposals that have been presented by others. When it is not possible to repeal those that are in force or avoid the approval of others, making clear their absolute personal opposition, they can lawfully offer their support to proposals aimed at limiting the damage of these laws and thus reducing the negative effects in the field of culture and public morality.
Among its final conclusions it defends “a fair regulation of conscientious objection, which guarantees that those who resort to it will not be subject to social or labor discrimination. The preparation of a register of objectors should not be a risk in this sense for those who object. The 'institutional conscientious objection' to those laws that contradict its ideology is also legitimate. The State has the duty to recognize this right, if it does not do so, it endangers religious freedom and conscience.”
