Shakespeare’s Measured State
July 25, 2011
Gabriel Torretta
“Law is framed as a rule or measure of human acts,” says Thomas Aquinas, and “different things are measured by different measures.” Human “measures” or laws direct men to the common good; the divine law undergirds it, indicating what it means to be and to be good.
Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure is about what happens when the human measure usurps the role of the divine measure, when the state tries to be church for its people. The result is a darkly comic vision that eerily mirrors the swelling governmental bureaucracies of the Western world.
The play opens on a lax Vienna, whose carefree ruler, Duke Vincentio, has allowed morals to grow flabby by not enforcing vice laws. The Duke realizes he can’t rein in the wild horses he let loose, so he appoints the unimpeachably upright Angelo to corral the city’s roving morals. The Duke then vanishes but stays in the heat of the action, disguised as a Franciscan priest.
Unfortunately for Vienna, Angelo proves himself both merciless and corrupt. He decides to make an example of Claudio, an ardent young man who has gotten his fiancée in the family way, by condemning him to death for violating the fornication law. Claudio’s sister Isabella, a postulant in a convent of Poor Clare nuns, gets an unwelcome surprise when she pleads for mercy for her brother: Angelo will only give Claudio his freedom if she gives Angelo her virginity.
Here the disguised Duke steps in, carefully guiding the course of events by acting as spiritual advisor to all and sundry, orchestrating an oh-so-Shakespearean riot of faked executions, mistaken-identity nighttime trysts, and role reversals, culminating in a public David-and-Nathan revelation where Angelo’s lies are revealed, Isabella’s chastity is preserved, Claudio’s life is spared, the Duke returns to his throne, and everyone ends up married to everyone else.
The superficially happy ending does not resolve the moral tensions of the play, however. At any moment during the preceding five acts, the Duke could have revealed himself and stopped the agonizing chaos of betrayals, threats of death, and trials of virtue, but instead he plays the puppeteer, dancing the characters along to the ends he desires. The play sheds light on the Duke’s moral ambiguity by emphasizing the dangers of dying unshriven, when the Duke’s priestly imposture endangers the souls of the condemned men whose confessions he plays at hearing.
The crises of the play are driven by the Duke’s desire to be both church and state to his people. He creates moral dilemmas that can only be resolved by the combined action of his two personas: priest and ruler. The result is seemingly the best of both worlds—the justice of the state and the mercy of the Church.
But in the end the state cannot give true mercy—only measure for measure. The Duke wears the robes of the Church but can only act according to human notions of justice, making sure everyone gets his just deserts. The play’s one act of true Christian mercy—when Isabella pleads for the Duke to spare the life of Angelo, who she believes has killed her brother—also gets suborned to the power of the state when the Duke closes the play by extending a curious offer to this postulant nun: matrimony with him. Although the play does not divulge her answer, the Duke assumes the affirmative.
The Duke must bring all things into the natural realm that he controls—even Isabella and her free Christian mercy. Everything must be done measure for natural measure, which requires all couples to be paired off in matrimony.
But is this a happy event? Considered superficially, the play has a comic ending—all the characters are joined in marital bliss, there are no unjust deaths, the innocent are freed, the guilty are duly punished, and a just and righteous ruler returns to the throne wiser for his absence. But a dark shadow looms over the joy, as the Duke’s actions seal the total dominance of the state in the life of the Viennese; the Church, morality, and even individual freedom are only tools grasped in what Philip Shaff once called “the cold step-motherly arm of the nominally Christian state.”
This is where America finds itself today. Now that separation of church and state has come to mean a public square naked of all religious claims, the state has filled in the gaps by arrogating to itself the functions of a religion. The state is the premier moralizer of the day, as any resident of New York knows, proclaiming the new morality with banal new revelations like taxes on cigarettes to the tune of seven dollars a pack, bus stops plastered with public service announcements about safe sex for “eldersexuals” (don’t ask), and restaurants blissfully purged of those murderous trans fats.
But the state no longer rests content with regulating moral issues; the last few decades have seen a spate of governmental attempts to tinker with reality itself. Consider any of the state’s blithe pronouncements redefining what it means to be human: a fetus is not a human until it’s illegal to abort it, terminally ill people are happier dead than alive, humans are able to be satisfied by any conceivable sexual coupling, marriage is whatever the state says it is, and on and on. Man’s measure has subsumed God’s measure.
The risk for us is the same as it was for the Viennese in Shakespeare’s play. Even when the state claims divine authority, it can only act in fallible, human ways. No amount of legislation can actually change what it means to be human, but the more a state tries to alter our nature by legal fiat, the harder life becomes for ordinary citizens, who now must act as if a life in utero were not a life, or as if the union of two men were the same as the union of a man and a woman.
Man must live by two measures, human and divine. The Duke’s world and ours—in which the human has subsumed the divine—seems free and easy at first glance, but behind the comic veneer lies a dark realm of unresolved suffering, as man’s laws alone cannot heal the frailness of man’s nature. As the troubled, vicious Angelo opines, paraphrasing St. Paul:
A lack, when once our grace we have forgot,
Nothing goes right: we would, and we would not.
Gabriel Torretta, OP is a summer fellow at First Things and is studying for the priesthood in the Dominican Order.
RESOURCES
Monica R. Weigel, Entertaining Shakespeare: The Storm Theatre’s As You Like It
Robert Miola, Searching for the Soul of Shakespeare
Thomas Hibbs, Julie Taymor’s Tempest
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
7.25.2011 | 11:28am
Tony says:
Thank you Gabriel for your lucid reflections. That the state acts as religious authority is a central fact in ourWestern democracies. I suspect very few of those advocating a separation of religion from state see the irony in the state becoming religion.
As to David Nickol's bumbling narrative, I'll just bite my tongue.
Cheers from Canada.
Tony
As to David Nickol's bumbling narrative, I'll just bite my tongue.
Cheers from Canada.
Tony
7.25.2011 | 11:43am
Kari S says:
@David Nickol:
I don't believe you are correct; at least in matters of inheritance, did not (and do not still) all jurisdictions recognize a fetus in utero as a child of its father who died before its birth, and entitled to a share of the estate once born?
As far as the gov't concerning itself with public health - Health IS the newest god of our day. These advertisements aren't couched in cost-saving terms, but moral terms. All someone has to say is "it will help you live longer or healthier" and "it" is instantly Good.
However, in the case of marriage, I do recognize that Protestant churches, including my own, have essentially abandoned Jesus' view of marriage for decades now, so we shouldn't be surprised when the State won't take our eleventh-hour protests seriously.
I don't believe you are correct; at least in matters of inheritance, did not (and do not still) all jurisdictions recognize a fetus in utero as a child of its father who died before its birth, and entitled to a share of the estate once born?
As far as the gov't concerning itself with public health - Health IS the newest god of our day. These advertisements aren't couched in cost-saving terms, but moral terms. All someone has to say is "it will help you live longer or healthier" and "it" is instantly Good.
However, in the case of marriage, I do recognize that Protestant churches, including my own, have essentially abandoned Jesus' view of marriage for decades now, so we shouldn't be surprised when the State won't take our eleventh-hour protests seriously.
7.25.2011 | 11:43am
Todd says:
Another problem with this connection is that Shakespeare lived in a pre-Democratic age. In a country like the US, we likely surpass Will's world in terms of population and complexity of life. We elect local, state, and national governments (in theory, unless we want to concede we live in a post-Democratic age) to limit lawlessness, and attempt a certain accountability as a citizenry of individuals and groups too powerful to otherwise be expected to comply with the rules of moral behavior (not selling things that kill, not robbing the powerless of resources, etc.).
It seems to me that the state in Shakespeare's England was far more capricious, random, and unlikely to be reformed than the Imperial Presidency or even the corporatocracy of today.
The reason why I lean strongly against trusting neoconservativism on this issue is that I don't think they have the cujones to protect society from Bank of America and other modern highwaymen. I appreciate the point of view that government could/should do less, but I'm more concerned abut Big Business doing more.
It seems to me that the state in Shakespeare's England was far more capricious, random, and unlikely to be reformed than the Imperial Presidency or even the corporatocracy of today.
The reason why I lean strongly against trusting neoconservativism on this issue is that I don't think they have the cujones to protect society from Bank of America and other modern highwaymen. I appreciate the point of view that government could/should do less, but I'm more concerned abut Big Business doing more.
7.25.2011 | 11:46am
Ayodele says:
@ David Nickol,
Some corrections. The TRUE church is not a "religious organization". It is THE body of Christ. It does not "claim" divine authority, this is bestowed upon it by Christ, via Peter and the apostles. The church not only has the authority and the right to exercise divine authority, it has a duty to God and the world in this respect. As Paul said in 1 Cor 9:16, "....woe is unto me , if I preach not the gospel!"
One thing that is often overlooked in the tussle between church and state is that it is precisely the sanctifying presence of the church in the world that that has kept the moral order from total collapse. Between the fallible human state, and the Body of Christ, I would choose the latter each and every time. The history of the world shows that the true church has endured and will endure for much longer than any human government.
Some corrections. The TRUE church is not a "religious organization". It is THE body of Christ. It does not "claim" divine authority, this is bestowed upon it by Christ, via Peter and the apostles. The church not only has the authority and the right to exercise divine authority, it has a duty to God and the world in this respect. As Paul said in 1 Cor 9:16, "....woe is unto me , if I preach not the gospel!"
One thing that is often overlooked in the tussle between church and state is that it is precisely the sanctifying presence of the church in the world that that has kept the moral order from total collapse. Between the fallible human state, and the Body of Christ, I would choose the latter each and every time. The history of the world shows that the true church has endured and will endure for much longer than any human government.
7.25.2011 | 11:52am
David Nickol says:
Tony,
You say, "That the state acts as religious authority is a central fact in our Western democracies." Sorry you choose to bite your tongue, since I am bewildered about this assertion and would like to hear some justification.
You say, "That the state acts as religious authority is a central fact in our Western democracies." Sorry you choose to bite your tongue, since I am bewildered about this assertion and would like to hear some justification.
7.25.2011 | 11:53am
Peter Leavitt says:
Most states until recent years held abortion to be illegal. Mr. Nickol is mistaken in his view that states have long and consistently taken birth as the moment a person comes into existence.
That some renegade priests have signed a letter and lobbied in favor of same-sex marriage hardly obviates the clear language of the Catechism that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, contrary to natural law, and under no circumstances can they be approved.
Fr.Gabriel Torretta's application of Shakespeare to the present parlous vacuum of religion in the Public Square is original and brilliant.
That some renegade priests have signed a letter and lobbied in favor of same-sex marriage hardly obviates the clear language of the Catechism that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, contrary to natural law, and under no circumstances can they be approved.
Fr.Gabriel Torretta's application of Shakespeare to the present parlous vacuum of religion in the Public Square is original and brilliant.
7.25.2011 | 12:37pm
David Nickol says:
Peter Leavitt:
You say, "Mr. Nickol is mistaken in his view that states have long and consistently taken birth as the moment a person comes into existence."
It is not necessary to consider an unborn child a legal person in order to outlaw abortion. In American law and common law, abortion was never considered to be the killing of a person, even when abortion was a serious crime.”
**********
Although Bracton [thirteenth-century judge and contemporary of Aquinas] said that abortion of a quickened fetus was homicide, later writers insisted that it could not be homicide at common law. The proposition that abortion cannot be homicide is reiterated by practically every major writer on English criminal law, from William Staunford and William Lambard in the sixteenth century, through Edward Coke and Matthew Hale in the seventeenth century, to William Hawkins and William Blackstone in the eighteenth century. Homicide was agreed to require the prior birth of the victim. Murder might be charged, according to Hale, if the woman on whom an abortion was performed died as a result. Murder also might be charged, according to Coke, if a botched abortion injured a fetus that afterwards was born alive and then died from its prenatal injuries. But where a fetus, even a quickened fetus, was killed in the womb, resulting in stillbirth, whatever the crime, it would not be homicide at common law.
**********
http://law.jrank.org/pages/445/Abortion-Abortion-in-English-law.html
You say, "Mr. Nickol is mistaken in his view that states have long and consistently taken birth as the moment a person comes into existence."
It is not necessary to consider an unborn child a legal person in order to outlaw abortion. In American law and common law, abortion was never considered to be the killing of a person, even when abortion was a serious crime.”
**********
Although Bracton [thirteenth-century judge and contemporary of Aquinas] said that abortion of a quickened fetus was homicide, later writers insisted that it could not be homicide at common law. The proposition that abortion cannot be homicide is reiterated by practically every major writer on English criminal law, from William Staunford and William Lambard in the sixteenth century, through Edward Coke and Matthew Hale in the seventeenth century, to William Hawkins and William Blackstone in the eighteenth century. Homicide was agreed to require the prior birth of the victim. Murder might be charged, according to Hale, if the woman on whom an abortion was performed died as a result. Murder also might be charged, according to Coke, if a botched abortion injured a fetus that afterwards was born alive and then died from its prenatal injuries. But where a fetus, even a quickened fetus, was killed in the womb, resulting in stillbirth, whatever the crime, it would not be homicide at common law.
**********
http://law.jrank.org/pages/445/Abortion-Abortion-in-English-law.html
7.25.2011 | 12:38pm
Todd says:
"Mr. Nickol is mistaken in his view that states have long and consistently taken birth as the moment a person comes into existence."
I think Mr Nickol is closer to the truth here. Abortion was a crime against the family, and especially the father of the child.
As for " ... the clear language of the Catechism that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered ..." then the issue should be this: why aren't bishops and other conservative moralists lobbying for the criminalization of these acts? Most of the benefits of civil marriage are actually morally good, if not neutral. Visiting a partner in the hospital, sharing medical decisions, making legal contracts, and so on--there's nothing immoral about these at all. If the sexual act is the problem, then any sexual act outside of marriage should be illegal. Right?
I think Mr Nickol is closer to the truth here. Abortion was a crime against the family, and especially the father of the child.
As for " ... the clear language of the Catechism that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered ..." then the issue should be this: why aren't bishops and other conservative moralists lobbying for the criminalization of these acts? Most of the benefits of civil marriage are actually morally good, if not neutral. Visiting a partner in the hospital, sharing medical decisions, making legal contracts, and so on--there's nothing immoral about these at all. If the sexual act is the problem, then any sexual act outside of marriage should be illegal. Right?
7.25.2011 | 1:46pm
Mark VA says:
Let me congratulate Brother Torretta for scoring a bull's eye with this article. Many of the bard's plays are very topical here and now, even if our experience, and the experience of the recusants (and those sympathetic to them), are not of the same degree.
When it comes to the view from the stage, I would like to propose this: free men tend to see satire as a species of humor, and the absurd as an eccentricity. Captives appreciate satire for the effect it has on their rulers, and the absurd for the freedom of thought it can bestow.
It is not by accident that the Czech theater of the absurd, for example, was one of the few lucid and public voices at a time when only the insane were officially permitted to speak publicly.
When it comes to the view from the stage, I would like to propose this: free men tend to see satire as a species of humor, and the absurd as an eccentricity. Captives appreciate satire for the effect it has on their rulers, and the absurd for the freedom of thought it can bestow.
It is not by accident that the Czech theater of the absurd, for example, was one of the few lucid and public voices at a time when only the insane were officially permitted to speak publicly.
7.25.2011 | 2:10pm
David Nickol says:
Kari S,
You raise a point that, interestingly, was mentioned in Roe v Wade. (I didn't know that until I stumbled on it earlier today.) For those who don't want to read the whole thing, the concluding sentence is, "In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Now, of course many disagree with Roe v Wade, and I even might agree that it was wrongly decided. But I do believe that statement is a legal fact. In our legal tradition, although some limited rights were recognized, generally only in cases where the child is born alive, the unborn have never been recognized as persons with full rights. My argument here is not that the unborn should not be recognized as full-fledged persons with rights. I am simply saying they never have been, and speaking of the "state’s blithe pronouncements redefining what it means to be human" is incorrect, since Roe v Wade did not make any new pronouncements on what it means to be human. The new pronouncement, *legally speaking*, would be that personhood and the "right to life" begin at conception. But although that is part of the rhetoric of the pro-life movement, there actually does not seem to be a significant movie to write laws based on that view. If Roe is overturned and the states may criminalize abortion, it is highly unlikely that abortion will be outlawed as the killing of a human being. If a person exists legally from the moment of conception, embryonic stem-cell research and much of what goes on in fertility clinics would have to be considered homicide.
**********
In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth. For example, the traditional rule of tort law denied recovery for prenatal injuries even though the child was born alive. That rule has been changed in almost every jurisdiction. In most States, recovery is said to be permitted only if the fetus was viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained, though few courts have squarely so held. In a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries.
Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.
**********
You raise a point that, interestingly, was mentioned in Roe v Wade. (I didn't know that until I stumbled on it earlier today.) For those who don't want to read the whole thing, the concluding sentence is, "In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Now, of course many disagree with Roe v Wade, and I even might agree that it was wrongly decided. But I do believe that statement is a legal fact. In our legal tradition, although some limited rights were recognized, generally only in cases where the child is born alive, the unborn have never been recognized as persons with full rights. My argument here is not that the unborn should not be recognized as full-fledged persons with rights. I am simply saying they never have been, and speaking of the "state’s blithe pronouncements redefining what it means to be human" is incorrect, since Roe v Wade did not make any new pronouncements on what it means to be human. The new pronouncement, *legally speaking*, would be that personhood and the "right to life" begin at conception. But although that is part of the rhetoric of the pro-life movement, there actually does not seem to be a significant movie to write laws based on that view. If Roe is overturned and the states may criminalize abortion, it is highly unlikely that abortion will be outlawed as the killing of a human being. If a person exists legally from the moment of conception, embryonic stem-cell research and much of what goes on in fertility clinics would have to be considered homicide.
**********
In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth. For example, the traditional rule of tort law denied recovery for prenatal injuries even though the child was born alive. That rule has been changed in almost every jurisdiction. In most States, recovery is said to be permitted only if the fetus was viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained, though few courts have squarely so held. In a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries.
Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.
**********
7.25.2011 | 4:01pm
Peter Leavitt says:
Mr. Nickol, cut the legal blather. Blackstone regarded abortion as a heinous crime; in America, as soon as it was established in the nineteenth century that from conception the fetus was a human being, beginning in Maine it became a serious crime to abort a fetus.
Why don't you address Fr. Torretta's basic point that Shakespeare's Measure for Measure at its deepest level is about the danger that comes when human law loses its vital connection with moral law?
Why don't you address Fr. Torretta's basic point that Shakespeare's Measure for Measure at its deepest level is about the danger that comes when human law loses its vital connection with moral law?
7.25.2011 | 5:02pm
patricksarsfield says:
David Nickol writes:
"It may be true that "[e]ven when the state claims divine authority, it can only act in fallible, human ways," but given the abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, one example of which is the recent revelations in Ireland and another the resignation of Cardinal Rigali in Philadelphia and his replacement by Archbishop Chaput to clean up the mess there, it seems clear to me that even when religious organizations claim divine authority, they can only act in fallible, human ways."
Putting aside his misunderstanding of the reason for Card Rigali's resignation (he submitted it on his 75th birthday like any other bishop), I will address this deus ex machina that anti-Catholics now use when they want to beat back an argument based on Catholic Morality howerver unrelated to the Abuse issue it might be.
If the State (or practically any other entity that acts through people) were judged similarly, none would have any moral authority. We could even write a song about abuse: "Rabbis do it, ministers do it, even cops, teachers and prison guards do it...." (not to mention Congresspeople like the latest: Cong. Wu).
Of course, the usual response to that undeniable truth is: "yeah, but the really bad thing about the Catholic Church is that they tried to settle cases under non-disclosure agreements and otherwise hid the problem..." To which the response is: "Jews do it; protestants do it; even School Boards and Governments do it...."
In truth, when female teachers rape their charges, jokes are made on TV and when male teachers rape their charges, no report is made at all because there is usually nothing sexy enough about the teacher's picture and the media would not want to offend the biggest contributor to the Democratic Party--the Teachers' Union.
And the evil of the state's conduct with respect to the intra-prisoner rape that goes on in its prison institutions is not limited to the abusers. The state uses prisoner rape as a tool of its control over the general public. Instead of putting in measures to eliminate rape in their prisons, the states' prosecutors and cops routinely threaten suspects with rape if they won't cooperate. Not that the cops themselves would do the raping but if the suspect does not cooperate, the Government would be happy to abandon the suspect to the tender care of a putative cellmate named Bubba. IOW, rape has become an instrument of control by the state.
Yet, no one ever questions the legitimacy of our states (or the other religions that likewise have rogue employees who rape those in their care).
"It may be true that "[e]ven when the state claims divine authority, it can only act in fallible, human ways," but given the abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, one example of which is the recent revelations in Ireland and another the resignation of Cardinal Rigali in Philadelphia and his replacement by Archbishop Chaput to clean up the mess there, it seems clear to me that even when religious organizations claim divine authority, they can only act in fallible, human ways."
Putting aside his misunderstanding of the reason for Card Rigali's resignation (he submitted it on his 75th birthday like any other bishop), I will address this deus ex machina that anti-Catholics now use when they want to beat back an argument based on Catholic Morality howerver unrelated to the Abuse issue it might be.
If the State (or practically any other entity that acts through people) were judged similarly, none would have any moral authority. We could even write a song about abuse: "Rabbis do it, ministers do it, even cops, teachers and prison guards do it...." (not to mention Congresspeople like the latest: Cong. Wu).
Of course, the usual response to that undeniable truth is: "yeah, but the really bad thing about the Catholic Church is that they tried to settle cases under non-disclosure agreements and otherwise hid the problem..." To which the response is: "Jews do it; protestants do it; even School Boards and Governments do it...."
In truth, when female teachers rape their charges, jokes are made on TV and when male teachers rape their charges, no report is made at all because there is usually nothing sexy enough about the teacher's picture and the media would not want to offend the biggest contributor to the Democratic Party--the Teachers' Union.
And the evil of the state's conduct with respect to the intra-prisoner rape that goes on in its prison institutions is not limited to the abusers. The state uses prisoner rape as a tool of its control over the general public. Instead of putting in measures to eliminate rape in their prisons, the states' prosecutors and cops routinely threaten suspects with rape if they won't cooperate. Not that the cops themselves would do the raping but if the suspect does not cooperate, the Government would be happy to abandon the suspect to the tender care of a putative cellmate named Bubba. IOW, rape has become an instrument of control by the state.
Yet, no one ever questions the legitimacy of our states (or the other religions that likewise have rogue employees who rape those in their care).
7.25.2011 | 5:03pm
Ayodele says:
@David Nickol,
The position of the common law that an unborn child has never been regarded as a legal person, while legally correct, is contextually incomplete, and rather misleading.
The basis for this position of the law is simply due to the limitations of state power. The state, being an artificial entity is by necessity limited to retroactive recognition of facts already in existence. You may call this the de jure doctrine of state powers. States and authorities always have to act de jure, never de facto. This is the basis of our jurisprudence.
This is evident in every sphere of human activity and every facet of life. Legal recognition is ALWAYS conferred after the fact. This is why you are awarded a degree after completing a course of studies and passing the requisite examinations. Once you complete the curriculum requirements, you ARE (de facto) qualified, and everyone knows this, even prior to the award of your certificate.
Evidently therefore, legal recognition does not affect the nature of the beneficiary(ies) in any way. It neither adds to, nor removes anything from its intrinsic nature or value. It is merely a declaration of that which already exists (except in the case of artificial persons, who are entirely creations of statutes, a different matter altogether). When a couple go to the marriage registry to obtain a marriage license, they are already in a relationship. The marriage certificate and subsequent legal recognition of the marriage did nothing to CREATE the relationship.
So it is with the unborn child - he or she exists prior to any legal announcement or recognition because we know this de facto. This is why the Hippocratic oath for centuries contained the injunction: "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion."
The position of the common law that an unborn child has never been regarded as a legal person, while legally correct, is contextually incomplete, and rather misleading.
The basis for this position of the law is simply due to the limitations of state power. The state, being an artificial entity is by necessity limited to retroactive recognition of facts already in existence. You may call this the de jure doctrine of state powers. States and authorities always have to act de jure, never de facto. This is the basis of our jurisprudence.
This is evident in every sphere of human activity and every facet of life. Legal recognition is ALWAYS conferred after the fact. This is why you are awarded a degree after completing a course of studies and passing the requisite examinations. Once you complete the curriculum requirements, you ARE (de facto) qualified, and everyone knows this, even prior to the award of your certificate.
Evidently therefore, legal recognition does not affect the nature of the beneficiary(ies) in any way. It neither adds to, nor removes anything from its intrinsic nature or value. It is merely a declaration of that which already exists (except in the case of artificial persons, who are entirely creations of statutes, a different matter altogether). When a couple go to the marriage registry to obtain a marriage license, they are already in a relationship. The marriage certificate and subsequent legal recognition of the marriage did nothing to CREATE the relationship.
So it is with the unborn child - he or she exists prior to any legal announcement or recognition because we know this de facto. This is why the Hippocratic oath for centuries contained the injunction: "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion."
7.25.2011 | 5:51pm
David Nickol says:
Peter Leavitt,
You say, "Mr. Nickol, cut the legal blather."
No need to be uncivil.
Some matters in the abortion debate are hotly contested, but some are facts. It is a fact that in British and American law, abortion was never treated as homicide. Gabriel Torretta referred to the "state’s blithe pronouncements redefining what it means to be human." The state has not redefined what it means to be human. The definition has not changed for hundreds of years. Abortion has been, off and on and off again, a serious crime. It has not been homicide. As far as I can tell, no state plans to make it homicide if Roe is repealed. And no state plans to place any legal restrictions on pregnant women who seek abortions or to punish women who procure abortions. Not even a $1 fine.
You say, "Mr. Nickol, cut the legal blather."
No need to be uncivil.
Some matters in the abortion debate are hotly contested, but some are facts. It is a fact that in British and American law, abortion was never treated as homicide. Gabriel Torretta referred to the "state’s blithe pronouncements redefining what it means to be human." The state has not redefined what it means to be human. The definition has not changed for hundreds of years. Abortion has been, off and on and off again, a serious crime. It has not been homicide. As far as I can tell, no state plans to make it homicide if Roe is repealed. And no state plans to place any legal restrictions on pregnant women who seek abortions or to punish women who procure abortions. Not even a $1 fine.
7.25.2011 | 6:23pm
pmains says:
Gabriel, I am confused about one point of your summary. If the immorality of the Viennese was caused by lax enforcement of vice laws, then wasn't the government acting as a quasi-religious authority prior to the action of the play? If so, how can we interpret the play as a criticism of the melding of church and state? I feel like I'm missing something here.
7.25.2011 | 6:37pm
David Nickol says:
patricksarsfield,
Actually, Cardinal Rigali submitted his resignation on his 75th birthday, which was in April 2010. I suppose it's fair to say that it is only speculation that Pope Benedict XVI accepted it now and replace him with Bishop Chaput because of the abuse scandal. I know that bishops are required to submit their retirement at 75, but I don't know if there is any standard time period during which their retirement is accepted.
I actually didn't intend to imply the Church has no moral authority as the result of the abuse crisis. My point was that all institutions, both governments and religious institutions, are human and fallible. (Even for those who maintain the infallibility of the pope, 99.99% of the time, the Church is still fallible.) I do feel the abuse crisis is used too frequently as a stick to beat the Church with. However, I would add that when we are talking about government and Church, it does look to me like the very powerful influence of the Church in Ireland has some lessons in it regarding church and state. Governments can't always look to churches to be told what is right for government to do. Of course government must always be moral, but this does not mean doing everything the Church dictates.
I really do think, even given what I have said above (about the Church being human and fallible) that people (and especially Catholics) have a right to hold the Catholic Church to a higher standard than the public schools, or even other denominations, when it comes to sex abuse by its members. But I would certainly not say the Church has no moral authority to speak against abortion because of the sex abuse crisis.
I agree with you the prison rape is a serious issue that has been dealt with very poorly. Also, sex abuse in the military is a terrible problem.
Actually, Cardinal Rigali submitted his resignation on his 75th birthday, which was in April 2010. I suppose it's fair to say that it is only speculation that Pope Benedict XVI accepted it now and replace him with Bishop Chaput because of the abuse scandal. I know that bishops are required to submit their retirement at 75, but I don't know if there is any standard time period during which their retirement is accepted.
I actually didn't intend to imply the Church has no moral authority as the result of the abuse crisis. My point was that all institutions, both governments and religious institutions, are human and fallible. (Even for those who maintain the infallibility of the pope, 99.99% of the time, the Church is still fallible.) I do feel the abuse crisis is used too frequently as a stick to beat the Church with. However, I would add that when we are talking about government and Church, it does look to me like the very powerful influence of the Church in Ireland has some lessons in it regarding church and state. Governments can't always look to churches to be told what is right for government to do. Of course government must always be moral, but this does not mean doing everything the Church dictates.
I really do think, even given what I have said above (about the Church being human and fallible) that people (and especially Catholics) have a right to hold the Catholic Church to a higher standard than the public schools, or even other denominations, when it comes to sex abuse by its members. But I would certainly not say the Church has no moral authority to speak against abortion because of the sex abuse crisis.
I agree with you the prison rape is a serious issue that has been dealt with very poorly. Also, sex abuse in the military is a terrible problem.
7.25.2011 | 6:49pm
Mark VA says:
I'm of the opinion that the law, for better or for worse, should be based on the core values of the culture it serves, and that the state's job here is to codify these core values. One also hopes that such a culture is at least aware of the natural law, and is increasingly practicing it.
The fact that our culture, with the aid of modern technology and pro-life arguments, is becoming increasingly aware of the humanity of the unborn child, is ecouraging. Hopefully, our law will one day reflect this growing consensus.
For these reasons, I see Mr. Nickol's arguments as rather neither here nor there.
The fact that our culture, with the aid of modern technology and pro-life arguments, is becoming increasingly aware of the humanity of the unborn child, is ecouraging. Hopefully, our law will one day reflect this growing consensus.
For these reasons, I see Mr. Nickol's arguments as rather neither here nor there.
7.25.2011 | 6:53pm
David Nickol says:
Ayodele,
I am failing to understand your argument. Certainly the law could recognize a right to life starting at conception if it wanted to. There are now "fetal homicide" laws that do grant to the unborn the status of persons under certain circumstances (an attack on the mother, for example). Certainly one of the reasons birth is the moment a legal person is considered to come into existence is that the moment of conception is almost always unknown. It would be difficult in many cases if citizenship were given to those conceived in the United States instead of born in the United States. I see no reason (if Roe were overturned completely) why a state law couldn't be passed declaring that an unborn child had a right to life from the moment of conception and that abortion was murder. But I don't see how the pro-life movement could justify punishing an abortionist as a murderer and letting the woman who procured and paid for the abortion get off scott free.
I am failing to understand your argument. Certainly the law could recognize a right to life starting at conception if it wanted to. There are now "fetal homicide" laws that do grant to the unborn the status of persons under certain circumstances (an attack on the mother, for example). Certainly one of the reasons birth is the moment a legal person is considered to come into existence is that the moment of conception is almost always unknown. It would be difficult in many cases if citizenship were given to those conceived in the United States instead of born in the United States. I see no reason (if Roe were overturned completely) why a state law couldn't be passed declaring that an unborn child had a right to life from the moment of conception and that abortion was murder. But I don't see how the pro-life movement could justify punishing an abortionist as a murderer and letting the woman who procured and paid for the abortion get off scott free.
7.25.2011 | 9:43pm
Michael says:
David,
Perhaps you could clarify what you mean. I take you to be saying that we pro-lifers cannot claim that abortion is murder because neither the church nor the state has ever treated abortion as murder. And by that you mean that neither the church nor the state has meted out the same punishments to women who abort their babies as they punish women who have killed their infants or as they punish adults who murder other adults. Do I get this part right?
As far as I can tell, you're right in making these claims, but I'm not sure what significance they hold for you. I think you're asking us either to dial down the rhetoric or to live up to it and prosecute abortion as vigorously as we do murder.
But I also feel like you're accusing us of something deeper, some kind of hypocrisy, that we don't really mean it when we say that abortion is murder. Am I right in hearing that implicit accusation?
Perhaps you could clarify what you mean. I take you to be saying that we pro-lifers cannot claim that abortion is murder because neither the church nor the state has ever treated abortion as murder. And by that you mean that neither the church nor the state has meted out the same punishments to women who abort their babies as they punish women who have killed their infants or as they punish adults who murder other adults. Do I get this part right?
As far as I can tell, you're right in making these claims, but I'm not sure what significance they hold for you. I think you're asking us either to dial down the rhetoric or to live up to it and prosecute abortion as vigorously as we do murder.
But I also feel like you're accusing us of something deeper, some kind of hypocrisy, that we don't really mean it when we say that abortion is murder. Am I right in hearing that implicit accusation?
7.26.2011 | 12:12am
edmond says:
How we lionize government.... It works within its self-imposed limitations and we expect this limited understanding to explain life away, including things that it cannot fathom in the faintest sense. As in St. Augustine's story, trying to fit the whole ocean in a hole....
7.26.2011 | 7:43am
patricksarsfield says:
David Nichols writes:
" I suppose it's fair to say that it is only speculation that Pope Benedict XVI accepted it now and replace him with Bishop Chaput because of the abuse scandal. I know that bishops are required to submit their retirement at 75, but I don't know if there is any standard time period during which their retirement is accepted."
In fact, there is no standard time period for the acceptance of bishops' resignations. It used to be that bishops served until their deaths. Recently, the Vatican has required resignations from all bishops at age 75. One of the consequences of the Roman Church's incredibly flat pyramid structure (where three thousand plus ordinaries report in directly to the Roman Bishop is that that produces hundreds of resignations among his direct reports every year, which take some time to process (although archbishops and nuncios help in queuing up the replacements through the terna process).
Under JPII, that resignation deluge led to multi-year delays in processing replacements. Pope Benedict is making an extraordinary effort to shorten that time frame. If you want to catch up on the progress of Pope Benedict's efforts, a review of a few of the bishop announcements on Whispers in the Loggia will cure any suspicions you have that the time for the Philadelphia replacement was unusual.
BTW, I am not being critical of the "incredibly flat" structure of the Roman Church's structure. Most corporations have very limited "spans of control" where bosses supervise a mere handful of direct reports. That has been the subject of change in the last twenty years. The Roman Pontiff's broad span of control, in which a single "boss" has supervised hundreds (and now thousands) of direct reportees for two thousand years is proof that broad spans of control CAN work.
" I suppose it's fair to say that it is only speculation that Pope Benedict XVI accepted it now and replace him with Bishop Chaput because of the abuse scandal. I know that bishops are required to submit their retirement at 75, but I don't know if there is any standard time period during which their retirement is accepted."
In fact, there is no standard time period for the acceptance of bishops' resignations. It used to be that bishops served until their deaths. Recently, the Vatican has required resignations from all bishops at age 75. One of the consequences of the Roman Church's incredibly flat pyramid structure (where three thousand plus ordinaries report in directly to the Roman Bishop is that that produces hundreds of resignations among his direct reports every year, which take some time to process (although archbishops and nuncios help in queuing up the replacements through the terna process).
Under JPII, that resignation deluge led to multi-year delays in processing replacements. Pope Benedict is making an extraordinary effort to shorten that time frame. If you want to catch up on the progress of Pope Benedict's efforts, a review of a few of the bishop announcements on Whispers in the Loggia will cure any suspicions you have that the time for the Philadelphia replacement was unusual.
BTW, I am not being critical of the "incredibly flat" structure of the Roman Church's structure. Most corporations have very limited "spans of control" where bosses supervise a mere handful of direct reports. That has been the subject of change in the last twenty years. The Roman Pontiff's broad span of control, in which a single "boss" has supervised hundreds (and now thousands) of direct reportees for two thousand years is proof that broad spans of control CAN work.
7.26.2011 | 7:58am
patricksarsfield says:
David Nickols writes:
"My point was that all institutions, both governments and religious institutions, are human and fallible. (Even for those who maintain the infallibility of the pope, 99.99% of the time, the Church is still fallible.)....
I really do think, even given what I have said above (about the Church being human and fallible) that people (and especially Catholics) have a right to hold the Catholic Church to a higher standard than the public schools, or even other denominations, when it comes to sex abuse by its members. But I would certainly not say the Church has no moral authority to speak against abortion because of the sex abuse crisis."
Then why did you confuse the issue by bringing up the irrelevant issue of the sex abuse crisis when we were talking about the Church's ability to speak on abortion in an authoritative way (" it seems clear to me that even when religious organizations claim divine authority, they can only act in fallible, human ways")?
Bottom Line: The Church can speak authoritatively on matters of faith and morals--not because its personnel are without fault but--because it was commissioned to teach all nations to observe all that Christ commanded (Matt. 16:18; Matt 28:18-20) and because it has been given the task of tending Christ's sheep. John 21:15 et seq.
BTW, it would be intriguing to explore your basis for claiming that people have a right to hold the Catholic Church to a standard higher than they hold other denominations when it comes to sexual abuse but that would be irrelevant to this discussion.
"My point was that all institutions, both governments and religious institutions, are human and fallible. (Even for those who maintain the infallibility of the pope, 99.99% of the time, the Church is still fallible.)....
I really do think, even given what I have said above (about the Church being human and fallible) that people (and especially Catholics) have a right to hold the Catholic Church to a higher standard than the public schools, or even other denominations, when it comes to sex abuse by its members. But I would certainly not say the Church has no moral authority to speak against abortion because of the sex abuse crisis."
Then why did you confuse the issue by bringing up the irrelevant issue of the sex abuse crisis when we were talking about the Church's ability to speak on abortion in an authoritative way (" it seems clear to me that even when religious organizations claim divine authority, they can only act in fallible, human ways")?
Bottom Line: The Church can speak authoritatively on matters of faith and morals--not because its personnel are without fault but--because it was commissioned to teach all nations to observe all that Christ commanded (Matt. 16:18; Matt 28:18-20) and because it has been given the task of tending Christ's sheep. John 21:15 et seq.
BTW, it would be intriguing to explore your basis for claiming that people have a right to hold the Catholic Church to a standard higher than they hold other denominations when it comes to sexual abuse but that would be irrelevant to this discussion.
7.26.2011 | 10:47am
David Nickol says:
Michael,
You say: "But I also feel like you're accusing us of something deeper, some kind of hypocrisy, that we don't really mean it when we say that abortion is murder. Am I right in hearing that implicit accusation?"
I would not say hypocrisy. I'd say inconsistency. The two are very different. And some reasons for inconsistency (or the appearance of inconsistency) are understandable. As has been said to me (and I agree), there is nothing that says civil law must be modeled on canon law. Some in the pro-life movement speak in purely religious terms, and others speak in terms of civil law. Just because some pro-lifers speak of abortion as murder, and claim the killing of a 9-week-old fetus is morally equivalent to the killing of an adult, does not necessarily mean civil law should classify abortion as first-degree murder.
However, the contradictions are still there. One very big one for me is that canon law makes procuring an abortion the offense, and the abortionist is excommunicated on the grounds of a separate canon that classifies him or her as an accomplice. I can see, from a pragmatic point of view, a legal approach that prosecutes an abortionist as the principal wrongdoer, but for the life of me I can't understand an approach that holds women to be not responsible in any way, shape, or form. As I said above, not even a $1 fine. And many in the pro-life movement argue that the women who procures an abortion should not merely be legally innocent. They argue that she is not morally culpable. Maintaining that abortion is murder and that women who procure abortion (though excommunicated by the Catholic Church) are not morally responsible makes no sense to me. And yes, I know that various conditions must be met for something to be a mortal sin. And yes, I know that one purpose of excommunication is to motivate the excommunicated person to repent. But this does not resolve the inconsistency.
You say: "But I also feel like you're accusing us of something deeper, some kind of hypocrisy, that we don't really mean it when we say that abortion is murder. Am I right in hearing that implicit accusation?"
I would not say hypocrisy. I'd say inconsistency. The two are very different. And some reasons for inconsistency (or the appearance of inconsistency) are understandable. As has been said to me (and I agree), there is nothing that says civil law must be modeled on canon law. Some in the pro-life movement speak in purely religious terms, and others speak in terms of civil law. Just because some pro-lifers speak of abortion as murder, and claim the killing of a 9-week-old fetus is morally equivalent to the killing of an adult, does not necessarily mean civil law should classify abortion as first-degree murder.
However, the contradictions are still there. One very big one for me is that canon law makes procuring an abortion the offense, and the abortionist is excommunicated on the grounds of a separate canon that classifies him or her as an accomplice. I can see, from a pragmatic point of view, a legal approach that prosecutes an abortionist as the principal wrongdoer, but for the life of me I can't understand an approach that holds women to be not responsible in any way, shape, or form. As I said above, not even a $1 fine. And many in the pro-life movement argue that the women who procures an abortion should not merely be legally innocent. They argue that she is not morally culpable. Maintaining that abortion is murder and that women who procure abortion (though excommunicated by the Catholic Church) are not morally responsible makes no sense to me. And yes, I know that various conditions must be met for something to be a mortal sin. And yes, I know that one purpose of excommunication is to motivate the excommunicated person to repent. But this does not resolve the inconsistency.
7.26.2011 | 11:01am
David Nickol says:
patricksarsfield,
You say: "BTW, it would be intriguing to explore your basis for claiming that people have a right to hold the Catholic Church to a standard higher than they hold other denominations when it comes to sexual abuse but that would be irrelevant to this discussion."
I'll answer that because it can be done quickly. The Catholic Church presents itself as the one true Church, the authentic continuation of a movement begun by Jesus, God Incarnate, that operates under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For Catholics who believe that, why should they not hold the Church to a higher standard than any other denomination or religion? And even for those who do not believe those claims, why should they not expect a religious organization that dares to make such claims to be a cut above the rest? Honestly, shouldn't Catholics *want* to be held to a higher standard? They don't claim to be just another organization, like the public school system or the Church of Scientology.
You say: "BTW, it would be intriguing to explore your basis for claiming that people have a right to hold the Catholic Church to a standard higher than they hold other denominations when it comes to sexual abuse but that would be irrelevant to this discussion."
I'll answer that because it can be done quickly. The Catholic Church presents itself as the one true Church, the authentic continuation of a movement begun by Jesus, God Incarnate, that operates under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For Catholics who believe that, why should they not hold the Church to a higher standard than any other denomination or religion? And even for those who do not believe those claims, why should they not expect a religious organization that dares to make such claims to be a cut above the rest? Honestly, shouldn't Catholics *want* to be held to a higher standard? They don't claim to be just another organization, like the public school system or the Church of Scientology.
7.26.2011 | 6:00pm
patricksarsfield says:
David Nickols,
Our latest exchange:
patricks: ""BTW, it would be intriguing to explore your basis for claiming that people have a right to hold the Catholic Church to a standard higher than they hold other denominations when it comes to sexual abuse but that would be irrelevant to this discussion."
davidn: "I'll answer that because it can be done quickly. The Catholic Church presents itself as the one true Church, the authentic continuation of a movement begun by Jesus, God Incarnate, that operates under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For Catholics who believe that, why should they not hold the Church to a higher standard than any other denomination or religion? And even for those who do not believe those claims, why should they not expect a religious organization that dares to make such claims to be a cut above the rest?"
Putting aside the facts that 1) Jews claim to have a religion founded by God too; and 2) Protestants claim also to be part of the True (albeit invisible) Church of Christ, your argument still makes no sense. What a weird world you would oversee! One where Jewish rabbis and Protestant ministers are held to a lesser standard than Catholic priests on the issue of flock rape because their flocks were silly enough to pick a religion that does not make bold enough truth claims. So their ministers should be held to a lesser standard when it comes to abuse? That is a nonsensical argument, particularly for someone who went out of his way to assure us of the fallibility of all institutions: "even for those who maintain the infallibility of the pope, 99.99% of the time, the Church is still fallible."
As I said above, the Abuse Issue is irrelevant to this discussion even though you insist on injecting it no matter its irrelevance.
Our latest exchange:
patricks: ""BTW, it would be intriguing to explore your basis for claiming that people have a right to hold the Catholic Church to a standard higher than they hold other denominations when it comes to sexual abuse but that would be irrelevant to this discussion."
davidn: "I'll answer that because it can be done quickly. The Catholic Church presents itself as the one true Church, the authentic continuation of a movement begun by Jesus, God Incarnate, that operates under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For Catholics who believe that, why should they not hold the Church to a higher standard than any other denomination or religion? And even for those who do not believe those claims, why should they not expect a religious organization that dares to make such claims to be a cut above the rest?"
Putting aside the facts that 1) Jews claim to have a religion founded by God too; and 2) Protestants claim also to be part of the True (albeit invisible) Church of Christ, your argument still makes no sense. What a weird world you would oversee! One where Jewish rabbis and Protestant ministers are held to a lesser standard than Catholic priests on the issue of flock rape because their flocks were silly enough to pick a religion that does not make bold enough truth claims. So their ministers should be held to a lesser standard when it comes to abuse? That is a nonsensical argument, particularly for someone who went out of his way to assure us of the fallibility of all institutions: "even for those who maintain the infallibility of the pope, 99.99% of the time, the Church is still fallible."
As I said above, the Abuse Issue is irrelevant to this discussion even though you insist on injecting it no matter its irrelevance.
7.26.2011 | 6:45pm
David Nickol says:
patricksarsfield,
You say: "What a weird world you would oversee! One where Jewish rabbis and Protestant ministers are held to a lesser standard than Catholic priests on the issue of flock rape because their flocks were silly enough to pick a religion that does not make bold enough truth claims."
You make it sound like I am advocating more sex abuse among Jews and Protestants than among Catholics! Of course, the incidence of sex abuse for Jews, Protestants, Catholics, public schools, the military, and prison *should* be zero. When I say "hold to a higher standard," I am not advocating different levels of sex abuse among the various groups. I am talking about what one would expect. Would you not expect it reasonable that there would be a lower rate of sex abuse in Catholic schools than in federal prisons? I would.
As far as I know, at least among the groups we are talking about, the Catholic Church is the only one that claims guidance by the Holy Spirit and (at some level) infallibility. Maybe you don't expect an organization that makes that claim to be any better than the public schools, but I do. I have doubts about the concept of "actual grace," but is it unreasonable of Catholics to expect that their priests and bishops, by reason of the sacrament of Holy Orders, would be just a little bit special?
I see no reason to be ashamed of expecting more from the Catholic Church than from, say, the Church of Scientology.
You say: "What a weird world you would oversee! One where Jewish rabbis and Protestant ministers are held to a lesser standard than Catholic priests on the issue of flock rape because their flocks were silly enough to pick a religion that does not make bold enough truth claims."
You make it sound like I am advocating more sex abuse among Jews and Protestants than among Catholics! Of course, the incidence of sex abuse for Jews, Protestants, Catholics, public schools, the military, and prison *should* be zero. When I say "hold to a higher standard," I am not advocating different levels of sex abuse among the various groups. I am talking about what one would expect. Would you not expect it reasonable that there would be a lower rate of sex abuse in Catholic schools than in federal prisons? I would.
As far as I know, at least among the groups we are talking about, the Catholic Church is the only one that claims guidance by the Holy Spirit and (at some level) infallibility. Maybe you don't expect an organization that makes that claim to be any better than the public schools, but I do. I have doubts about the concept of "actual grace," but is it unreasonable of Catholics to expect that their priests and bishops, by reason of the sacrament of Holy Orders, would be just a little bit special?
I see no reason to be ashamed of expecting more from the Catholic Church than from, say, the Church of Scientology.
7.26.2011 | 7:15pm
Don Roberto says:
Brother Gabriel, this essay is very much in line with my thinking (though far more imaginative and original). Thanks. Whether as individuals or as a society, we cannot dispense with God, try as we might. If we reject the true God, we end up worshipping something else—there are few if any true "atheists." Our society's hopeless efforts to follow a logic in the law beyond just rationalizing the will of the majority (which always seeks to "have its cake and eat it too") result from the false allegation/ confused belief that there can be objective good in the absence of an eternal, moral anchor. We're kidding ourselves, and the brazenly illogical results are increasingly bizarre.
Godspeed!
†
Godspeed!
†
7.27.2011 | 8:31am
patricksarsfield says:
David Nickols,
After a very full exchange in which I demonstrated the illogic (as well as irrelevance) of your argument that the Catholic Church's teaching should be disregarded on moral questions because it is fallible like every other church but should be held to a higher standard on the irrelevant issue of sexual abuse because it claims infallibility, you try to change the subject by writing:
"You make it sound like I am advocating more sex abuse among Jews and Protestants than among Catholics! "
This, David, is a prime example of a strawman. You would change the subject so your prior illogic gets lost in a different argument that you set up so that you can seem more reasonable. I am not going to pursue this strawman, though, because it is even more irrelevant than the Sexual Abuse red herring you threw in earlier.
After a very full exchange in which I demonstrated the illogic (as well as irrelevance) of your argument that the Catholic Church's teaching should be disregarded on moral questions because it is fallible like every other church but should be held to a higher standard on the irrelevant issue of sexual abuse because it claims infallibility, you try to change the subject by writing:
"You make it sound like I am advocating more sex abuse among Jews and Protestants than among Catholics! "
This, David, is a prime example of a strawman. You would change the subject so your prior illogic gets lost in a different argument that you set up so that you can seem more reasonable. I am not going to pursue this strawman, though, because it is even more irrelevant than the Sexual Abuse red herring you threw in earlier.
7.27.2011 | 3:21pm
David Nickol says:
patricksarsfield,
You say: " . . . your argument that the Catholic Church's teaching should be disregarded on moral questions because it is fallible like every other church . . ."
I don't believe my argument was that the Church's teachings on moral issues should be "disregarded." My point was that even though the Church claims (maybe even has) divine guidance, it is still a human, fallible organization.
And you say: ". . . . but should be held to a higher standard on the irrelevant issue of sexual abuse because it claims infallibility . . ."
Nor did I argue that the Church should be held to a higher standard "because it claims infallibility." My point was that the Church claims to be guided by God in a way no other organization does. The Church makes very exalted claims for itself (among them infallibility in very narrowly defined circumstances) and I don't think anyone need feel it is strange to expect a Church that makes such claims to live up to the standards those claims imply.
It is very easy to demonstrate illogic in someone's arguments when you recast and distort them.
I don't want to start a battle of denominations here, but I do indeed expect better of the Catholic Church than I do of other religions. I am having a hard time figuring out whether you are a Catholic or not, but it is difficult for me to understand why (if you are a Catholic), you would scoff at the idea that the Church should be held to a higher standard than other churches.
You say: " . . . your argument that the Catholic Church's teaching should be disregarded on moral questions because it is fallible like every other church . . ."
I don't believe my argument was that the Church's teachings on moral issues should be "disregarded." My point was that even though the Church claims (maybe even has) divine guidance, it is still a human, fallible organization.
And you say: ". . . . but should be held to a higher standard on the irrelevant issue of sexual abuse because it claims infallibility . . ."
Nor did I argue that the Church should be held to a higher standard "because it claims infallibility." My point was that the Church claims to be guided by God in a way no other organization does. The Church makes very exalted claims for itself (among them infallibility in very narrowly defined circumstances) and I don't think anyone need feel it is strange to expect a Church that makes such claims to live up to the standards those claims imply.
It is very easy to demonstrate illogic in someone's arguments when you recast and distort them.
I don't want to start a battle of denominations here, but I do indeed expect better of the Catholic Church than I do of other religions. I am having a hard time figuring out whether you are a Catholic or not, but it is difficult for me to understand why (if you are a Catholic), you would scoff at the idea that the Church should be held to a higher standard than other churches.
7.27.2011 | 3:38pm
David Nickol says:
By the way, yesterday the US Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a letter, which I applaud, on the debt crisis.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/economy/upload/budget-debate-letter-to-house-2011-07-26.pdf
I wonder how many here who want government to pay heed to religion are in agreement with the letter or even believe bishops should involve themselves with such things. I can't help but feel that when bishops express opinions that don't seem to look kindly on conservative Republicans and/or the Tea Party, many here would prefer the bishops to stick to denouncing abortion and same-sex marriage.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/economy/upload/budget-debate-letter-to-house-2011-07-26.pdf
I wonder how many here who want government to pay heed to religion are in agreement with the letter or even believe bishops should involve themselves with such things. I can't help but feel that when bishops express opinions that don't seem to look kindly on conservative Republicans and/or the Tea Party, many here would prefer the bishops to stick to denouncing abortion and same-sex marriage.
8.4.2011 | 10:36am
Dinah Massoud says:
You say: "BTW, it would be intriguing to explore your basis for claiming that people have a right to hold the Catholic Church to a standard higher than they hold other denominations when it comes to sexual abuse but that would be irrelevant to this discussion." As far as I can tell, you're right in making these claims, but I'm not sure what significance they hold for you. I think you're asking us either to dial down the rhetoric or to live up to it and prosecute abortion as vigorously as we do murder.
The state has not redefined what it means to be human. American law, and British law before it for centuries took birth to be the moment when a legal person came into existence. Even when abortion was previously illegal, it was not homicide. The state has long and consistently taken birth as the moment a person comes into existence. It is the pro-life movement that is trying to change the definition of person under law. (Actually, from the anti-abortion trigger laws in some states, ready to go into effect if Roe is overturned, it actually doesn't appear that the pro-life claims that abortion is murder will be enacted into law. I don't think when Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II spoke of abortion as a mother murdering her own children, they envisioned laws that let women who procured abortions off scott free.)
As for religion's absence from the public square, those who followed the progress of the legislation for same-sex marriage know that the Catholic Church spoke out strongly against it, and Seven hundred and twenty seven priests, ministers, and rabbis signed a letter endorsing same-sex marriage, many of whom went to Albany in person to lobby in favor of the legislation. Only after lengthly negotiation to include "religious exemptions was the bill finally passed.
It may be true that "[e]ven when the state claims divine authority, it can only act in fallible, human ways," but given the abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, one example of which is the recent revelations in Ireland and another the resignation of Cardinal Rigali in Philadelphia and his replacement by Archbishop Chaput to clean up the mess there, it seems clear to me that even when religious organizations claim divine authority, they can only act in fallible, human ways.