I did not send this direct response to my deacon, but it fits pretty well with how I am feeling in the moment.

I firmly believe anyone that is ordained in any Catholic or mainstream Christian sect has earned authority. You went through an ordination process. In the case of the Catholic church, you were discerned and went through a discernment process for seven years or more. That’s earned authority. All that being said, I have some earned authority as a teacher and a volunteer catechist. My words and deeds have power when I am acting in those capacities.

It is incumbent upon me to exercise that authority with discretion and grace. Certainly, priests, deacons, and ministers are permitted to have their own viewpoints of how the words in our sacred scripture should be lived out in the modern world. Each church teaches its own way and each individual within that framework interprets those words for themselves. While I am acting in a position of authority it is not my place to insert my own interpretations into my teaching. Those in more direct ministry should do the same.

This brings us to the political side of the conversation. Most texts I know define economics as how we distribute scarce resources. There are so many people. There are fewer homes. So, how do we determine who gets the home and who doesn’t? A market economy is just one answer to that fundamental question. Depending on your point of view it might be the best answer.

We can extend this out to nearly every good you can think of. You can extend it out to services as well. If we are looking at the sanctity of life then one needs to determine what that all entails. Are we narrowly defining it as simply allowing someone to be born and to keep breathing? Do we attach any qualities to that? If one were to talk about dignity as it pertains to life then wouldn’t the inclusion of these basic needs be included in our discussion about life itself?

Therefore, any discussion of life must move beyond birth and move towards these more complex questions. What are the basics everyone must have in order to maintain their dignity? Once we agree to these principles then what is the most efficient and effective way to make sure everyone has access to these things? Does that mean everyone has access to three meals a day? Does it mean everyone has a warm bed and a roof over their head at night? Does it mean that everyone is clothed or has access to affordable health care?

I say all of this as a way to illustrate that just the issue of life itself is not easy and not settled. Even if we were to agree as to what dignity and sanctity looked like we would still not agree on the best way to achieve those ends. Therefore, any opinion on the matter cannot be labeled as sin. As long as people are entering into a conversation or dialogue recognizing the issues and making a good faith effort to solve them then they are not committing sin. In fact, the very notion of assuming we have all the answers is committing the sin of hubris.

It is especially sinful if I use my position as an authority figure to shove my views on these debatable issues to the people under my authority. That is an abuse of my authority. Now, certainly private citizens should debate these issues and those in government should as well. It is more that fair to ask us to do more or do our fair share to bridge these gaps in dignity.

Our faith or beliefs on ethics and morals should absolutely play a role in how we answer those questions, but at the heart of it all we must understand that a differing opinion is just that. It is not a sign of moral superiority. Earned or given authority in one domain does not make us an authority in another. It is wrong to use that authority as a way to leverage behavior in another.