Firstly, does it sound like the Apocalypse? No. If you consider the seemingly innocuous but really loaded question they asked Jesus. An adapted saying from Shakespeare’s The Tempest—“politics makes strange bedfellows” best describes this elite group—both Herodians and Pharisees, hell-bent on tripping Jesus. So, they set Him a trap. Initially, they praised Him hoping to catch Him off-guard. Interesting though the conversation may be, the central point of this riposte between Jesus and the powers that be, is to be found in the meaning of obligation. Yes, it is in our duties that we find the connexion between the here and now with the there and after. It is indeed apocalyptical.
“Render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God”.
The recent Confirmation hearing of a nominee to Supreme Court in the United States is possibly an instance of this principle at work or how it seems to be absent in the line of questioning from some of the Senators. At the heart of the principle is the question of worship. Where do we worship, and Whom do we worship? To which altar do we go and at which altar are we at home with?
In the said confirmation hearing, a lot had been remarked about the faith of the nominee, Amy Coney Barrett. She, being a Catholic, was for many of the Democrats a source of angst, making her out to be a religious freak or fanatic. It was not even a subtle attempt as it was a blatant effort to silence, shame or even harass as a bigot, anyone who even dared to think outside the progressive view held by some people. Perhaps, like Jesus she held to the line between God and Caesar.
Between God and Caesar, there is a distinction or a separation. What belongs to God must be rendered to Him and what belongs to the secular realm, as Christians and Catholics, we have a duty to support. In our Catholic understanding, the boundary is pretty clear and to dare to insist that there is actually a line, one has to be ready to be called a fanatic. But, in terms of our day to day experiences as citizens of a country, we are subject to the authorities because they are representatives of God. We owe our duly elected government our loyalty to collaborate with it in order that our public and social life can function. We have a duty to love and serve our country. This includes paying our taxes. The Catechism clearly teaches this.
This distinction is the reason why we also have a conscience. When the laws of the land conflict with our moral obligation, then in conscience, we are free to disobey such laws. In other words, what is legal is not necessarily moral. In the disagreement with Henry VIII, St Thomas More gives us an example of what it means to serve both God and Caesar: I die the King’s good servant but God’s first. Indeed, we must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29)
But is this where our problematic lies? We can be certain that the State, properly speaking, despite its hegemony is not as insistent that there be no line drawn. Instead, there is a far greater power that does not want to draw any line. In fact, this power tries to obfuscate the boundary as we witness more and more confusion in the moral realm. There is that much unclarity that it has become difficult for us to judge between the good and the bad, the right and the wrong. For example, as long as there is love between two people, that is good enough to warrant it as a marriage. However, where is the morality of love between a man and a woman in the context of marriage as determined by Sacred Scripture? This question is enough to invite some woke responses or even provoke a cancel order for daring even to ask this question. In fact, Miriam Webster Dictionary, in response to the use by the SCOTUS nominee of the term “sexual preference” has decided to list it as offensive.[1]
In other words, there are powerful forces in the mainstream media and the technocratic world that are far more absolute than the state. They are determined to set the line or rather to blur the line between God and Caesar. The boundary they have drawn has excluded God or cancelled Him out of it. There is no God except the preference of these prevailing powers that be. In other words, morality is now decided by an atheistic narrative that we are expected to bow before or submit to.
Take another instance. In some countries, foetuses in utero diagnosed with Down Syndrome are systematically aborted. The science dictating this action is way ahead of the moral or ethical discussions about this. Imagine a medical student in one of the universities of such a country who has the audacity to hold this ethico-moral view that all life is sacred—even a deformed foetus is precious in the eyes of God. Would that student have passed if he or she does not submit to the predominant “science”?
It is easy to be labelled a fanatic today. Especially if you dare to stand on the side of God. Nobody in the right frame of mind wants to be shamed but the Gospel today is here for a reason because the line between heaven and hell is that thin and we can go to hell for less than 30 pieces of silver. I say this not as a judgement of you as cowards because it is as much about me. I am afraid to draw the line for God. I am afraid of being cancelled or called a bigot etc. Imagine if a priest has no backbone, how does one expect the sheep to draw the line?
The chasm between God and Caesar is as important as the separation between deliverance and damnation. Within this divide our conscience is the compass of the Apocalypse, of the end time. That means we need lines drawn in order that our conscience can be guided. It is not easy to sift through the competing claims that are floating around. Thankfully, the Church gives us foundational signposts to steer us in the right direction. There are values which, if we claim ourselves to be Catholic, cannot be violated. The sanctity of life is one case. Sanctity of marriage is another and the preservation of religious freedom to mention a third. These principles upon which we organise our moral lives are foundational in our effort to build a city of man where God is present. These moral principles form the integral good of who we are as human beings made in the image and likeness of God.
In short, our path to heaven is already marked out. We have not been left to wonder about and to wander around searching for a place to go. We know where we are heading. Christ left us His Church to show us how to get there. The principle is pretty clear. If there is no distinction between God and Caesar, then God becomes no more than a crutch and the Church nothing more than a spa. We come to feel good about ourselves. But, if that is not the case, then we need to give back to God what belongs to Him because we owe it to Him and ourselves. Which is why we also give back to Caesar because we are social beings living amongst others and we have a duty to society to make it a better one. However, between God and Caesar, God’s law must always triumph over whatever human laws we make. In a world that is trying to blot God out, it would be to our credit if we dared to make a stand for Him.
[1] Apparently, the term is anti-gay simply because it speaks of one’s orientation as a matter of choice or preference when the current narrative demands that we accept orientation as a key part of a person’s identity. It is not a matter of choice.
