God and Caesar

“Master, tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?” But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin used for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. Then he said to them, “Whose head is this, and whose title?” They answered, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Give therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Matthew 22:17-21

Money is Caesar's, we are God's
In Jesus' time, accepting to pay taxes to Caesar was equivalent to apostasy, for it implied accepting Caesar, not God as one’s Lord. As Jesus accepts and wants the separation of the two powers and that taxes should be paid because they aim at the common good, and the social distribution of wealth, to get out of the dilemma and at the same time to teach us a lesson, he asks for the coin of the tribute.

He was given one with the image of Caesar engraved on it. Now it was easy for Jesus to say that taxes must be paid to Caesar because the coins used to pay the taxes carried Caesar’s image. On the other hand, since Man is an imprint of His Creator, as we are all created the image and likeness of God, by saying to Caesar what is Caesar's, He is saying that the goods we have to spare belong to Caesar, and to God what is God's, He is telling us that we belong to God therefore we should give ourselves up to God.

Separation of Church and State
Unlike other great religions, Christianity has never imposed a revealed law on the state and society, it never imposed a legal system derived from a revelation. But it did appeal to nature and reason as the true sources of law... Benedict XVI

To Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's - There are duties towards God and duties towards the State. To simplify it without falling into simplism, the State governs our body, and God governs our soul. When God said, "Be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth" (Genesis 1:22), He gave man autonomy and independence in the governance of Creation. 

God has reserved for himself the exclusive governance of the heart of Man because it is His creation and bears His image. Throughout revelation by the prophets, and in these last days by his Son, God has never inspired men with science, technology, or ways of governing nations, but only with things that lead to peace, justice, love and understanding between peoples, and friendship with himself.

There is a legitimate distinction between the temporal and the spiritual. Rulers legitimately make laws, create taxes, and give society order. As Pope Benedict XVI said in a speech to the German parliament, Christianity has never subtracted or inferred concrete political laws from the gospel. There is no parallel in Christianity to Sharia, the set of laws taken from the Koran that govern the political, economic, financial, moral, and spiritual life of Muslims in some countries.

As Benedict XVI said, Roman law was inspired by Greek philosophy and not by Christian revelation to legislate and govern the people and to organize society and the State. The Church has nothing to say about the technical details of laws, about what to do and how to do them, only if the laws are just and ethical, and the policies are oriented towards the common good.

Contrary to what many people think, the Caesaropapism of the Middle Ages, along with its versions in the European and Latin American fascisms of the last century, was never even close to being the Christian version of Sharia. It was only a nefarious influence of the Church on politics and politics on the Church, to achieve absolute power. 

Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Men
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here." John 18:36

Jesus told Pilate that if his Kingdom were from this world, he would fight with the same weapons that the world fights with; in other words, he would send his armies and they would surely defeat the Roman hosts. But the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Jesus, is not from this world, Jesus is not interested in the things of this world, that is, in the aspects of the laws that govern the world.

During the campaign for the last referendum on abortion, a loud outcry was raised by some politicians against the Church’s role in this important life and death matter. In fact, they said that the Church should not meddle in party politics and in the ordinary, routine governing of the polis (city in Greek). Furthermore, the Church should not suggest that her faithful vote for this or that party, because there is no party that represents the gospel. 

However, the Church must always be the spokesperson for the poor, the victimized, and the unprotected that any political system creates as a by-product of its normal functioning. The Church must position herself as the reference point for justice, peace, and solidarity. In this sense, it is her duty to denounce injustices, as her founder already did, while recognizing Caesar's autonomy. 

Your Kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven – When praying the Lord’s Prayer, Christians are asking for the Kingdom of Heaven or the Kingdom of God to come in this world; this world will become the Kingdom of God when God’s will be done on earth as it is already done in heaven.

Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, able to discern between good and evil… (1 Kings 3:9). Instead of asking for wealth, absolute power over enemies and rivals, and a long life, like the politicians of all times desire, the young King Solomon on the eve of his coronation asked the Lord for wisdom and humility. Solomon ruled Israel, God ruled Solomon.

The Kingdom of God is not, therefore, a parallel power that rivals the kingdom of this world; like the yeast in the dough, the Kingdom of God works within the Kingdom of this World through its subjects, when their actions are motivated by justice, peace, solidarity, and fraternity.  

Since the Spirit blows wherever he wills, the citizens of the Kingdom of God are not only Christians, but all people of good will. Isaiah (45:1, 4-6) calls Cyrus, king of Persia, the Lord’s anointed, because he did the will of God, even though he was a pagan and did not belong to the people of Israel. 

Everything belongs to God, including Caesar
The Sharia like government of the people of Israel before the appearance of the first king are based on the fact that everything belongs to God, including Caesar. The fact that everything belongs to God because he is the Creator of all that exists, does not mean that God or his legitimate representatives should meddle in the particular and concrete governing of each people.

God is transcendent and immanent; because he is transcendent, he does not meddle in the particulars, in the formulation, in the letter of the law; because he is immanent and smaller than the smallest particle of matter, he is at the heart of everything, his action takes place at the level of the spirit of the law and within the moral conscience of the lawmakers. 

God did not write the Bible; he inspired those who wrote it. God does not make the actual laws but inspires those who make them so that they are just, and promote peace, accord, prosperity and the common good. 

Conclusion – Money belongs to whoever has his image printed on it. For the same reason, we belong to God because we are created in his image and likeness.

Fr. Jorge Amaro, IMC

Everything is relative

Throughout the history of thought, many have sought to simplify and synthesize the complexity of reality into a single concept. Thus, Moses came and said: "The Law is everything"; Jesus came and said: "Love is everything"; then Karl Marx declared: "Capital is everything"; Freud stated: "Sex is everything"; Adler added: "Power is everything". Finally, Einstein came and threw it all out the window, proclaiming: "Everything is relative." (Anonymous)

The Fallacy of Absolute Relativism
The statement "everything is relative" not only relativizes the absolute but also absolutizes the relative. That is, "everything is relative" ironically becomes a new form of absolute.

To say that "everything is relative" implies that nothing is absolute; however, if the concept of the absolute did not exist, neither would the concept of the relative — for both define themselves in opposition. The notion of “relative” only makes sense if there is something that is not. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that absolute realities and relative realities coexist.

"Everything is relative" is a generalization. And all phrases containing terms like "everything", "nothing", "always", "never" or "ever" tend toward abusive generalization. Indeed, there is nothing more false than a totalizing generalization — whether over time, by claiming something always occurred throughout human history; or over space, by claiming it occurred in every place and culture.

These expressions are often used to simplify reality. Yet, reality is far more complex than it seems. Unlike Newtonian mechanistic physics, quantum physics shows us that phenomena do not always occur in the same way. We speak, rather, of statistical probabilities. In other words, even in science, not everything is absolute.

Moral Relativism
It is in the realm of morality that this fallacy — "everything is relative" — has been most commonly and abusively applied. Moral relativism especially disorients the youth. By asserting that everything is relative, the individual places himself as the measure of all things, rejecting any authority beyond or above himself.

It is no longer Man (with a capital M) as the measure of all things, as Protagoras once said, but rather the isolated individual. Yet a society in which each person considers themselves the sole criterion of truth and value is doomed to fragmentation — like the Tower of Babel. A minimum of consensus is essential for human coexistence.

The human being is simultaneously individual and social. Freedom is a fundamental condition for individuality and must be promoted; but equality is an indispensable condition for social peace and must therefore be cultivated. A society with great inequalities can only sustain itself through dictatorships, armies, and repression. But no dictatorship lasts forever.
It is true that human values can show cultural, historical, and even personal nuances. However, a minimum degree of objectivity is indispensable. Take language, for example: if the meaning of words were purely relative, communication between people would be impossible.

There must therefore be a standard by which we can discern whether a behavior is right or wrong, appropriate or inappropriate. Eliminating that standard is to open the door to anarchy, which, as history teaches us, often leads to tyranny.

Even more: why is moral relativism almost always invoked to justify certain behaviors, but rarely used to condemn? Could it be because it serves more to excuse than to demand responsibility?

The Nature of Human Values
In an uncritical and ironic way, many have accepted "everything is relative" as if it were an absolute truth. In the face of this widely spread slogan, it becomes difficult to communicate strong and immutable truths, such as human values.

Human values do not change because they are rooted in human nature, which also does not change. Values such as justice, peace, generosity, solidarity, fraternity, and love remain unchanged through centuries and millennia. What was love in the time of Jacob and Rachel, was love in the time of Mark Antony and Cleopatra, and in the time of Romeo and Juliet — and will continue to be so a thousand years from now.

The way we live these values does not change their validity. The fact that certain people stop practicing them does not make them obsolete. Human values express the essence of the human being in the here and now; and since that essence is constant, so too are the values.

In the well-known fable by Aesop, The Fox and the Grapes, the fox, unable to reach the grapes, declares that they are sour. Something similar happens today with human values: unable to practice them — due to lack of will, effort, or sacrifice — modern man prefers to relativize them, declare them outdated, in order to avoid guilt or self-criticism.

Einstein and the Absolutes of Science
For Albert Einstein, not everything is relative. The speed of light, for example, is a universal constant and cannot be surpassed by any physical body. It is an absolute truth within the realm of physics. Not even the theory of relativity claims that everything is relative — only that the measurements of space and time vary depending on the frame of reference.

The Coexistence of the Absolute and the Relative
The life of another is, to me, an absolute value. My own life is also an absolute value, insofar as I have no right to end it arbitrarily. But that life becomes relative when compared to greater values — such as justice, peace, or love — for which, if necessary, I would be willing to die.

Our life (our time and energy) only finds meaning when dedicated to the cultivation of human values — from the most elevated, such as justice and love, to others more expressive like art or music. For those values, especially the first, many would be willing to give their lives.

Camões said: “Higher values are raised.” Values are not in contradiction with one another, but are articulated in a hierarchy. Life, love, peace, and justice are higher than painting, music, or literature. As the Gospel reminds us, the love of God stands even above love for parents or any other earthly reality.

The Immutability of Human Nature
Human nature does not change — neither over time (from generation to generation), nor across space (from culture to culture). Why have there been societies without science or technology, but never societies without religion? Because religious feeling is part of human nature.

This feeling manifested itself in similar ways in civilizations that never had contact with each other. In the Fertile Crescent and pre-Columbian America, for example, pyramids were built and human sacrifices were performed. These parallels are not explained merely by coincidence or necessity, but above all because the human being is essentially the same everywhere.

There are multiple cultures and civilizations, with differences shaped by geography, climate, or available resources. But these differences are superficial. There is only one model of human development — the one that culminated in Western civilization, responsible for the invention of the wheel, writing, gunpowder, electricity, the radio, television, computer, internet, mobile phone, among others.

Likewise, there is no alternative to Jesus as the way, the truth, and the life. Jesus is the only model of humanity lived in fullness, the only one who fully realized the human potential — moral, spiritual, and existential.

Conclusion - The popular slogan "everything is relative" turns out to be a contradictio in terminis, for it relativizes the absolute and absolutizes the relative. Human, cultural, moral, and spiritual reality is indeed made of nuances, but it rests on foundations that cannot be relativized without grave consequences. To recognize this tension between the absolute and the relative is an essential step toward understanding the truth — and toward living in peace with others and with ourselves.

Fr. Jorge Amaro, IMC