The Distinction Between Legal and Moral in Christianity

The essence of Christianity emphasizes the spiritual over the material and political aspects of life. Jesus’ words in John 18:36, “My kingdom is not of this world,” encapsulate this perspective.

However, the worldly often infiltrates these ideals. Recently, during Pope Leo XIV’s visit to France, he underscored the Catholic Church’s stance on critical moral issues like abortion and what’s termed “assisted” suicide, which in many scenarios resembles more of a “compelled” action. The image of the Pope comforting Marie-Garance Nöel—who has endured substantial suffering—conveys a depth that surpasses countless words.

During his time in France, the Pope expressed, “The motto of the journey was that the world may have life,” highlighting the gospel-oriented focus of his engagements. Although this might not seem overtly political, the term “life” carries weight. The Pope himself acknowledged this, stating, “I came to preach the Gospel. If that’s politics, I did that.”

Yet, he transcends the typical political scene. He calls us toward God’s greater purposes, steering clear of mere compromises. As he said, “What is legal is not necessarily moral.”

This raises some intriguing questions. If the distinction between “legal” and “moral” gained traction in society, how would things change? Which politicians might face uprisings against them?

To understand this better, we must evaluate the current state of Western politics, which largely revolves around a principle of civic neutrality regarding values—and we need to grapple with what that actually implies today.

For instance, the United States Constitution was crafted as a secular document, a reflection of the Framers’ intentions for religious freedom.

Importantly, they didn’t aim for freedom from religion. John Adams remarked in a 1798 letter from the White House: “We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion.”

The Framers believed that the Constitution’s minimalistic governance would remain effective only if the populace adhered to moral values rooted in religion and tradition. If individuals maintained self-discipline, there would be less need for extensive laws and enforcement.

However, Adams warned that without internalized moral guidance, human flaws like greed and revenge could dismantle constitutional order. In simpler terms, a lack of self-management necessitates a larger governmental structure for control, since chaos would be the worst outcome. If this occurs, the idea of limited government falters, resulting in the erosion of American freedoms.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People,” Adams concluded.

Thus, the Constitution’s explicit stance on civic neutrality always depended on the population’s implicit morality. The system functions effectively only if individuals fulfill their civic responsibilities.

Conversely, a society riddled with miscreants can’t enjoy the benefits of public spaces, as streets and parks may become unsafe or dilapidated. Ultimately, everything from voting to civic engagement can spiral out of control.

Regrettably, in today’s America, the political environment has permitted much misconduct to be legalized. Some cities even provide funding for activities such as drug use and grant housing to sex offenders.

Moreover, if any locality is engaged in such spending, federal assistance is likely backing those choices. The federal government spends a staggering amount annually on welfare programs, many of which inadvertently support harmful behaviors.

This brings to mind the Pope’s assertion that legality does not equate to morality. Adding to that, a policy that is fully legal might still be immoral.

Reflecting on events following the Pope’s departure from France—when riots erupted—offers perspective. Many point to uncontrolled immigration as a primary cause, but the rage exhibited by French youth seems more severe compared to their counterparts in Algeria.

This suggests a deep-seated issue within how French leaders have shaped their society. All the secularism, welfare, and libertinism enacted might be legal, but it hasn’t proven to be morally sound or wise.

The Pope could remind us that the Bible outlines various commonsense rules for social order, yet contemporary France appears to have disregarded these.

When the Pope speaks of morality as crucial to personal conduct, he implicitly criticizes the political situation not only in France but also in the U.S. and across many nations.

What if we tuned in more to the Pope’s insights? Not necessarily to elevate him to political status but to allow his moral teachings to resonate within our political discourse? How might this shape our political landscape and societal constructs?

A glimpse of this potential was evident in the Pope’s thoughtful encyclical regarding artificial intelligence released earlier this year.

Fittingly, Leo emphasized God’s vision for humanity and resisted the tech-centric belief that AI can replicate human qualities. Despite the wishes of tech advocates, the Pope firmly stated that AI is not a person and lacks a soul.

Furthermore, he made clear that only humans can create genuine art, declaring that “Algorithms lack the spark of humanity.” He expressed a desire for the Church to reconnect with artists to preserve our humanity.

This creates a recurring theme: everything the Pope articulates or does ties back to his mission of uniting the Creator with His most significant creation—humankind, reflecting the diversity of individuals made in His image.

Many believe this grand design cultivates a brighter future where, for example, children are cherished and youth are steered away from harm.

In the meantime, we continue learning—often through difficult experiences—that the path to positive outcomes is rooted in solid morality rather than mere legality.

Pope Leo consistently emphasizes holiness and criticizes emptiness:

“Brothers and sisters, we must acknowledge that nothing in this world can ever fully satisfy us. When we think our work is finally complete and our efforts rewarded, an inner emptiness often resurfaces, deeper than before. In our quest to fill that void, we may seek new pleasures, accumulate more possessions, or distract ourselves to quell that inner restlessness.”

He went on to say, “Yes, you thirst for God, for life, for truth, for unity, for peace, for communion and for happiness. You yearn to rediscover a horizon filled with light and to build a renewed nation upon roots nourished by faith.”

Such sentiments should resonate not just with believers; even non-believers might find value in the vision of peace and unity in a “renewed nation.” After all, we all share this world.

It’s a straightforward yet profound insight: while legality holds merit, morality reigns supreme. Anyone in political office might declare something legal, but true morality transcends human declarations.

The reality of human nature is that most of us strive for goodness, even though that pursuit can be challenging. Sociologists discuss an innate moral sense, while theologians attribute it to divine commandments.

While complete agreement may never be reached among individuals, both the Pope and John Adams would likely agree on this: a free and just society cannot be built solely on politically-constructed legality; we require morality grounded in a higher authority.

If this premise holds true, then the prevailing liberal-progressive framework has arguably not served us well. Thus, the Pope’s distinction between legal and moral cuts deeply. Those politicians who have taken immoral paths should be concerned about eventual accountability for the harm their choices have wrought.