On the laity and the prudential application of moral principles
- Jan 29
- 4 min read
On the laity and the prudential application of moral principles
Absent clear, sufficient, and compelling evidence of grave injustice, Catholic bishops and priests should respect the proper role of the laity and exercise restraint in the political sphere.
In the prescient 1980s BBC comedy series Yes, Prime Minister, Prime Minister Jim Hacker must choose the next Anglican bishop of Bury St. Edmunds. His choice is between an atheist and a socialist. The prime minister’s adviser dryly observes, “It’s interesting, isn’t it? That politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk about politics.”
Catholics may notice a similar pattern today.
While bishops are entrusted with teaching binding Catholic moral principles, the prudential application of those principles in political and military affairs properly belongs to the laity, and clerical overreach into contingent judgments risks obscuring that essential distinction.
By virtue of ordination, popes, bishops, and priests are the principal custodians of Catholic doctrine and moral teaching. This is an inherent dignity conferred by Holy Orders. The laity, by virtue of Baptism, bears responsibility for applying those principles to the concrete circumstances of political, economic, and social life. This inherent dignity also carries with it a weighty responsibility.
For this reason, absent clear, sufficient, and compelling evidence of grave injustice, Catholic bishops and priests should respect the proper role of the laity and exercise restraint in the political sphere. Allowing for limited overlap, the clergy do not orchestrate the prudential judgments required of the laity, who must weigh contingent facts, competing goods, and uncertain outcomes. Lay Catholics bear this burden daily, mindful that circumstances and intentions cannot render an intrinsically evil act good, yet also aware that not every political decision involves an act of intrinsic evil.
Archbishop Timothy Broglio has joined many lay Catholics and non-Catholics in expressing concern about aspects of President Trump’s foreign policy. Here is an excerpt from a recent news article:
The archbishop told the BBC’s Sunday that U.S. troops “could be put in a situation where they’re being ordered to do something that’s morally questionable” if deployed to Greenland to carry out Trump’s annexation threats. He continued to suggest that it might be “very difficult” for a soldier or a marine or a sailor by himself to disobey an order” that “within the realm of their own conscience it would be morally acceptable to disobey.” He also insinuated that the Trump administration did not choose “the proper way and the moral way to respond to these situations,” in reference to both U.S. military strikes in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific as well as military annexation threats to Greenland.
The archbishop appears here to invoke familiar elements of Catholic moral tradition, including just-war doctrine and the primacy of conscience properly formed by Church teaching. Few Catholics would object to those principles as such. Yet the optics include the articulating and applying moral principles in reference to specific instances, even suggesting that the archbishop himself—not Church teaching—is granting the requisite moral permission.
To illustrate the concern, one might consider a parallel application of similar language to other regions of the world. Would an American bishop suggest that a potential military intervention in the Middle East—whether involving Iran, Iraq, Israel, or Saudi Arabia—would likely place service members in a situation where disobedience would be “within the realm” of conscience?
If the remarks concerning Greenland are intended primarily as statements of principle, then they would appear to apply broadly to nearly any contemporary military operation undertaken by any nation. Yet one can easily imagine an outburst of indignation if appearances suggested that an American archbishop opposed, for example, American attacks on Iran.
Except in cases where violations of justice are manifest, grave, and supported by clear evidence—such as the moral certitude surrounding the crimes of Nazi Germany—statements by the clergy that move from principle toward implied application risk encroaching upon the rightful responsibility of the laity. Identifying Christian moral principles is relatively straightforward; applying them faithfully in uncertain situations is far more challenging.
The graces of Holy Orders do not confer superior competence in prudential matters. Nor is a prelate in a position to grant personal permission for a person’s valid prudential decisions. Indeed, the Church has long recognized the need for a division of responsibility between the teaching office of the hierarchy and the practical judgment exercised by the laity in secular affairs. This distinction preserves the integrity of the Church’s moral witness and acknowledges the innumerable choices available to the laity in applying Christian principles.
Moral principles are universal regardless of geography, political alignment, or media attention. Bishops and priests best preserve their authority by exercising intellectual discipline—clearly distinguishing binding Church teaching from personal judgment, and moral doctrine from contingent application.
A brief restatement of relevant Catholic principles may help clarify the proper framework for evaluating such questions:
Military personnel must follow a well-formed conscience. “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience” (CCC 1790). “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions” (CCC 1782).
Military personnel may refuse laws or commands that are unjust: “The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order” (CCC 2242). Soldiers and sailors must refuse to obey immoral orders.
Moreover, “Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who, for reasons of conscience, refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way” (CCC 2311).
At the same time, the authority to wage war does not belong to individuals or private groups. “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good” (CCC 2309).
Clerics may speak as citizens on prudential political questions, but they should generally refrain from taking sides. Public partisanship both divides the faithful, where good Catholics may disagree, and confuses moral authority with political opinion.
Bishops in particular have a solemn obligation before God to teach authentic Catholic doctrine and moral principles that require assent. Amen.
The faithful laity can take it from there.
Comments