Should Christians Be Wary of Conscience Talk?
Mar 2, 2012
Nathaniel Peters
Does freedom of conscience lead to a naked public square? When religious people try to protect their own rights of conscience, does this undermine their ability to advance their convictions publicly? In responding to the recent HHS mandate for religious employers to provide contraception and abortifacients, religious groups and individuals have argued that their rights of conscience trump any potential desire of their employees for these medications. Their private religious convictions about contraception and abortion prevent them from taking these actions, and under the First Amendment they cannot be coerced to violate those convictions.
However, these religious people are not trying to be only privately religious. They have convictions about abortion and contraception—and immigration, economic justice, and war, for that matter—that they want to argue in public and legislate. And they ground these convictions not only in their own religious teachings, but in the natural law and public reason. They seek to live their religion privately and to advance and act on its claims publicly. But, in the HHS case, if they frame the debate not about the rightness or wrongness of abortion and contraception, but of private religious convictions, doesn’t that knock the public foundation out from under those claims? Doesn’t it make religious teaching about abortion and contraception—or, in another case, any other issue of public import—just a matter of private religious conviction, like dietary laws or smoking peyote?
Recently, Patrick Deneen made such an argument:
By these appeals to the “rights” of religious organizations to hold certain religious beliefs—whatever those may be—and by an appeal to “conscience” informing that belief—no matter what it may hold—critics of the HHS policy have framed their response in the dominant privatistic language of liberalism. Their defense rests on the inscrutability and sanctity of private religious belief. It borrows strongly from sources of private religious devotion that lays no claim to public witness, in keeping with liberalism’s dominant mode of allowing acceptable religious practice so long as it remains outside the public square.
The wider problem, as Deneen sees it, is with liberalism itself, which cordons off religious convictions from the public square. According to liberalism, religion is fine, so long as it is private, and its arguments about final ends and goods are permitted as long as they are not forced on others. But, Deneen notes,
The Catholic faith is, by definition, not “private”; it involves a conception of the human Good that in turn requires efforts to instantiate that understanding in the world. As such, Catholics represent a threat to the liberal order, which demands that people check their faith at the door and acknowledge only one sovereign in the realm of proscribing public behavior—the State.
Framing the argument over the HHS mandate in these liberal terms of religious freedom, Deneen concludes, gives the argument a chance of being heard. However, “it should be acknowledged (as the response to the ‘Compromise’ reveals) that the Church will ultimately lose the argument simply due to the fact that the way it is framed already represents a capitulation to liberal premises.” This is so because “the real debate is not over religious freedom, in fact: it is over the very nature of humanity and the way in which we order our polities and societies.”
In so arguing, Deneen accepts the current administration’s definition of liberalism. This concedes more than it needs to. Yes, liberalism makes a distinction between the private, free exercise of religion and the government’s endorsement of a particular faith. But there is a historical difference between toleration and religious liberty, even if we sometimes use the two terms interchangeably today. Toleration puts up with minority religious believers because it is more convenient; religious freedom declares that they are allowed to practice their faith, privately and publicly, not because the government has given them permission, but because the permission is not the government’s to withhold. Liberalism can—and has—endorsed mere toleration. But it need not, and in America it has not.
Furthermore, even before the twentieth century, religious liberty and talk about the rights of conscience had formally entered into the Catholic tradition. This development grew over time, from the scholastics to John Henry Newman and John Courtney Murray, but it flowered in the Second Vatican Council’s declaration “Dignitatis Humanae.” There, in light of Catholic tradition, the Council Fathers made Catholic arguments on Catholic grounds that religious freedom truly is a Catholic and Christian thing. Some have objected to this development—most notably the schismatic Society of St. Pius X—but most have come to see that the freedom to follow the dictates of one’s conscience in matters of religion is not an unfortunate concession to the modern age but a sound development of Christian truth. Today, as George Weigel recently wrote, paraphrasing Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, “the overwhelming majority of Christians believe that it is God’s will that they be tolerant of others who have different notions of God’s will. Religious tolerance, for Christians, is not a mere pragmatic accommodation to the fact of religious difference; it is a virtue, a moral good.”
Furthermore, protecting the freedom of conscience is not simply a concession to the privatizing tendencies of liberalism. Arguing for religious liberty need not entail denuding the public square. Religious liberty strives to protect a minimum standard: The government cannot coerce a person to perform an action that his conscience deems wrong on religious grounds. It shields the private exercise of religion not to keep the exercise of religion private, but rather as a necessary prerequisite for making it public. Moreover, claiming opposition to something on the grounds of private religious conscience need not inhibit separate public arguments against that thing.
For example, consider a young pacifist Quaker during the Vietnam War. The Quaker’s religious convictions prevent him from fighting in the Vietnam War. They also make him believe that all wars, not just the Vietnam War, are wrong, and that part of his duty as a Christian and a citizen is to make public arguments that this is the case. If the government seeks to ignore his conscientious objection and draft him, the Quaker can claim that the government should not violate his conscience and make him fight in the War. But in making that argument, he does not cede the separate argument that Vietnam is an unjust war—or that all wars are unjust—and he does not lose the ability to make such arguments publicly. Indeed, claiming the right not to fight in the War is his first step toward further public advocacy, on public grounds, that the War is unjust and should not be fought at all.
Applying these principles to the present debate, we see that arguing for religious freedom is not a concession of the larger argument about the public good, nor is it a necessary but enfeebling concession to the liberal state. Rather, it serves as the foundation for people of faith to live out their faith and, in doing so, make publicly accessible arguments about their convictions. In other words, it helps win the battle and the war. Of course this requires political savvy and practical wisdom. Religious leaders and advocates must be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. But in arguing for religious liberty they bolster the foundation of a free society. Instead of conceding to the state, they make a claim—and a liberal claim, at that—against it so that they can live out their convictions and all the better argue for the common good.
Nathaniel Peters is a doctoral candidate in theology at Boston College.
RESOURCES
Patrick Deneen, Religious Liberty?
George Weigel, What Would Father Richard Say?
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
3.2.2012 | 12:15am
Anymouse says:
"it helps win the battle and the war"
I hope so. I am very pessimistic, nevertheless.
I hope so. I am very pessimistic, nevertheless.
3.2.2012 | 1:09am
Don Roberto says:
This analysis is very well reasoned. Everyone must freely work (in fear and trembling, ideally) at his own salvation, and we should be tolerant, allowing freedom of conscience, even when the consciences in question are not well formed (consider that of the amiable cannibal) and lead their owners into error. (In the absence of a magisterium, one should not be surprised to see a wide range of beliefs, all firmly grounded in the consciences of their holders.)
However, this can only be the case insofar as the errors do not harm bystanders or place them at significant risk. Consumption of "religious" peyote and similar poisons (i.e., chemicals that impair normal brain or bodily functions) substantially increase the probability that innocent bystanders will suffer harm, and regulation does not violate the First Amendment. On the other hand, I should not be called upon to procure goods or services, even those that cannot be easily proven dangerous to bystanders (though in fairness contraceptives *have* been shown to cause cancer and harm the environment), for my neighbor's "religious" (i.e., preference-based, non-essential) use.
Libertines, atheists and/or pagans may claim that a tax exemption is the equivalent of a (negative) tax. My feeling is that this argument is a red herring. There are many non-profit entities that receive tax breaks. And often the un-recompensed benefits to society greatly outweigh any (theoretical) lost tax revenue.
Taxes should only go to acquire goods and services that elected officials can reasonably describe as societal , e.g., defense, infrastructure, basic medical care for the indigent, etc. I contend that, in the case of the HHS mandate (which amounts to a tax), contraceptives are the "peyote" of the neo-pagans who dominate America (and all the "modern" world). They do not need them; they use them only in order to further their belief in the life-enhancing benefits of risk-free sex.
And I should *not* have to buy any such things for my neighbor. It is wrong to ask me to purchase football tickets or voodoo dolls or liquor or sex toys for my pagan neighbor. The Democrats (and apparently the majority of voters), in forcing me to do so, are in effect establishing a religion, in violation of the First Amendment.
†
However, this can only be the case insofar as the errors do not harm bystanders or place them at significant risk. Consumption of "religious" peyote and similar poisons (i.e., chemicals that impair normal brain or bodily functions) substantially increase the probability that innocent bystanders will suffer harm, and regulation does not violate the First Amendment. On the other hand, I should not be called upon to procure goods or services, even those that cannot be easily proven dangerous to bystanders (though in fairness contraceptives *have* been shown to cause cancer and harm the environment), for my neighbor's "religious" (i.e., preference-based, non-essential) use.
Libertines, atheists and/or pagans may claim that a tax exemption is the equivalent of a (negative) tax. My feeling is that this argument is a red herring. There are many non-profit entities that receive tax breaks. And often the un-recompensed benefits to society greatly outweigh any (theoretical) lost tax revenue.
Taxes should only go to acquire goods and services that elected officials can reasonably describe as societal , e.g., defense, infrastructure, basic medical care for the indigent, etc. I contend that, in the case of the HHS mandate (which amounts to a tax), contraceptives are the "peyote" of the neo-pagans who dominate America (and all the "modern" world). They do not need them; they use them only in order to further their belief in the life-enhancing benefits of risk-free sex.
And I should *not* have to buy any such things for my neighbor. It is wrong to ask me to purchase football tickets or voodoo dolls or liquor or sex toys for my pagan neighbor. The Democrats (and apparently the majority of voters), in forcing me to do so, are in effect establishing a religion, in violation of the First Amendment.
†
3.2.2012 | 1:36am
Michael PS says:
Is “conscience,” in the modern sense of moral judgment a necessary category? Well Aristotle did very well without it. Perhaps, we should go back to speaking of “practical reason,” for my reason is myself and expresses itself in action. Moreover, it is axiomatic that acts of the understanding are specified by their object, so this may serve to remind us that good and bad choices are no more equivalent than apprehension and misapprehension, truth and error are equivalent species of an identical genus; rather, bad choices are paralogisms.
The good choice, “This – being such – is to be done,” is intelligible, because intelligent; the act of the bad will is a surd, ultimately unintelligible. True enough, we can often trace its causes to instinctive or dispositional factors, but it remains logically incoherent.
The good choice, “This – being such – is to be done,” is intelligible, because intelligent; the act of the bad will is a surd, ultimately unintelligible. True enough, we can often trace its causes to instinctive or dispositional factors, but it remains logically incoherent.
3.2.2012 | 3:38am
Gian says:
Should exercise of conscience cost nothing?
The conscientious objectors to war were incarcerated. So the Church can lose the tax exemption and pay fines .
The word "conscience" has a complex history as CS Lewis traces out in Studies on Words.
The believers probably use it now in the sense of God's viceroy inside them but the non-belivers have no God and for them cit is freedom of conscience to deny God. It is probably to be identified with Pure Will for them.
The conscientious objectors to war were incarcerated. So the Church can lose the tax exemption and pay fines .
The word "conscience" has a complex history as CS Lewis traces out in Studies on Words.
The believers probably use it now in the sense of God's viceroy inside them but the non-belivers have no God and for them cit is freedom of conscience to deny God. It is probably to be identified with Pure Will for them.
3.2.2012 | 7:48am
Douglas Johnson says:
I once took a Romanian woman on a date who argued that she had more freedom in some ways under Ceausescu because she was allowed to do things in Romania that she couldn't do in the United States, such as lie out topless by the lake. For her, freedom equated to how much the state allowed her to do. It's an incredibly corrosive idea she had, and the only antidote is Christianity.
So much of the popular success of the progressive Left has been in their ability to convince a lot of people that their individual freedom depends on the expansion of state power. The HHS Mandate is an excellent example. The government responded to the church's attempt to restrict state power by claiming that the church is trying to dictate the individual woman's health, and 40-something percent of the country is buying this.
What's been lost over the years is the idea that freedom of religion isn't a permission from the state, but rather it's a freedom from God that binds the state in chains restraining it from the total power it craves. It is, along with the family, the sine qua non of limited government. To quote Fr. Charles Chaput: "But if we remove God from public discourse, we also remove the only authority higher than political authority, and the only authority that guarantees the sanctity of the individual."
This was exactly Whittaker Chambers' point when he wrote that "the crisis of Communism exists to the degree in which it has failed to free the peoples it rules from God...the crisis of the Western world exists to the degree in which it is indifferent to God."
Touchstone magazine ran an excellent article by Douglas Farrow on this subject, which you can find through my link below. A friend of mine didn't quite understand the article and so I drew the following picture in an attempt to explain it:
http://crisisofthehousedivided.blogspot.com/2010/08/audacity-of-state-by-douglas-farrow.html
So much of the popular success of the progressive Left has been in their ability to convince a lot of people that their individual freedom depends on the expansion of state power. The HHS Mandate is an excellent example. The government responded to the church's attempt to restrict state power by claiming that the church is trying to dictate the individual woman's health, and 40-something percent of the country is buying this.
What's been lost over the years is the idea that freedom of religion isn't a permission from the state, but rather it's a freedom from God that binds the state in chains restraining it from the total power it craves. It is, along with the family, the sine qua non of limited government. To quote Fr. Charles Chaput: "But if we remove God from public discourse, we also remove the only authority higher than political authority, and the only authority that guarantees the sanctity of the individual."
This was exactly Whittaker Chambers' point when he wrote that "the crisis of Communism exists to the degree in which it has failed to free the peoples it rules from God...the crisis of the Western world exists to the degree in which it is indifferent to God."
Touchstone magazine ran an excellent article by Douglas Farrow on this subject, which you can find through my link below. A friend of mine didn't quite understand the article and so I drew the following picture in an attempt to explain it:
http://crisisofthehousedivided.blogspot.com/2010/08/audacity-of-state-by-douglas-farrow.html
3.2.2012 | 9:19am
Don Roberto says:
Wendy, you apparently haven't noticed, but the Church has evolved, as have all other human institutions. We understand that individuals must choose salvation (or hell) freely.
Doug, your drawing ability may not be well-refined but your ability to cleanly express a difficult point is outstanding. Thanks.
†
Doug, your drawing ability may not be well-refined but your ability to cleanly express a difficult point is outstanding. Thanks.
†
3.2.2012 | 9:25am
maineman says:
The problem is what happens when people like Wendy twist reality to their own ends without realizing it and without the intellectual rigor that we in the Church attempt to apply to our quest to understand the truth in our admittedly imperfect way.
There is a formidable contingent that will insist on imposing its own theology on the public square, a theology that espouses relativistic fantasies about what is true and unwittingly elevates the will to power to cosmological, and thereby pragmatic supremacy.
The argument for religious freedom is an invitation to oppression when in the hands of liberals and thereby becomes counterproductive. Better, it seems to me, to emphasize the issues at hand, the fact that the right to life is that upon which all rights rest. People, and American culture in general, can then choose to understand that or not at their/our own risk. At least the question of what is true or not true - other than the liberal notion that the only truth is that there are no truths - will be front and center.
There is a formidable contingent that will insist on imposing its own theology on the public square, a theology that espouses relativistic fantasies about what is true and unwittingly elevates the will to power to cosmological, and thereby pragmatic supremacy.
The argument for religious freedom is an invitation to oppression when in the hands of liberals and thereby becomes counterproductive. Better, it seems to me, to emphasize the issues at hand, the fact that the right to life is that upon which all rights rest. People, and American culture in general, can then choose to understand that or not at their/our own risk. At least the question of what is true or not true - other than the liberal notion that the only truth is that there are no truths - will be front and center.
3.2.2012 | 9:49am
Tristian says:
Nice article, and pretty much right on target I think. The perception that there's a fundamental tension between modern liberalism and religious freedom stems in part from the use of terms like "public" and "private" and "public square." (In fact I think the last is by now mostly useless.) In saying religious should be "private" is to say it's not one of the aspects of our lives the state can claim falls under its competence to legislate. It's not to say that people shouldn't talk or argue about religion "in public"--of course they can and should, and in so doing they can and should be trying to change the culture according to the values they hold. But they should do this as a "private" matter--meaning all parties foreswear the use of state power to get their way.
3.2.2012 | 10:46am
Ray Ingles says:
How's "public square" defined in these discussions, anyway? How do I know if something's "in the public square" or not?
3.2.2012 | 11:51am
Patrick says:
Wendy, democracy is not endangered by the public practice of religious conscience. In fact, it just might be saved by it.
3.2.2012 | 12:11pm
Charlottle says:
What the Catholic Church is asking for is nothing more than maintaining status quo ante. The rights of conscience the Church is asking for are the rights that everyone, not just Catholics, had before Obamacare. Some states have had legislation similar to the HHS mandate, but most of them permit objectors to opt out by self-insuring. The HHS mandate eliminates that option.
3.2.2012 | 12:44pm
Glenda LaGarde says:
Perhaps it's not an either/or situation: on the one hand we can support protection of conscience legislation (which allows believers to not cover sterilization and contraceptives causing abortion) so the Catholic Church and other faiths can keep their charity services, schools and hospitals open without penalities, while, on the other individual churches can individually or in concert discuss, debate, and publically present their larger moral perspective in the public square. The fear many of us less gifted and articulate readers feel is that unless the Administration is somewhat restricted, some boundaries laid, the tests of conscience will escalate. One thing
I haven't seen discussed at any length is the problem of scandal in the traditonal sense and with it the problem of responsiblity to take moral stands in proportion to the role a person or institution plays in society. For me to lie is wrong; but for a president to withold vital information from citizens, or a Church to collaborate in what it calls evil, is, to me a much more serious wrong.
I haven't seen discussed at any length is the problem of scandal in the traditonal sense and with it the problem of responsiblity to take moral stands in proportion to the role a person or institution plays in society. For me to lie is wrong; but for a president to withold vital information from citizens, or a Church to collaborate in what it calls evil, is, to me a much more serious wrong.
3.2.2012 | 12:57pm
Tristian says:
"How's "public square" defined in these discussions, anyway? How do I know if something's "in the public square" or not?"
My objection to the phrase is that it's hopelessly ambiguous, and that critics of modern liberalism continually trade on that ambiguity. The "public square" can point to those parts of life that are properly subject to state regulation, or it can point to those places where people come together to debate and argue affairs of the day. The problem comes when people suggest liberals like (for example) Rawls want to keep religion out of the public square, or that liberalism produces a "naked" public square. If the point is that Rawlsians don't think claims that depend on the truth of controversial religious beliefs are a legitimate basis for law, then yes, the idea is that we should not have religion in the public square. If the point is that we liberals think no one should talk about or debate religion, or criticize the the state of the culture on religious grounds, or try to convince others to live differently on moral grounds, then it's flatly false.
My objection to the phrase is that it's hopelessly ambiguous, and that critics of modern liberalism continually trade on that ambiguity. The "public square" can point to those parts of life that are properly subject to state regulation, or it can point to those places where people come together to debate and argue affairs of the day. The problem comes when people suggest liberals like (for example) Rawls want to keep religion out of the public square, or that liberalism produces a "naked" public square. If the point is that Rawlsians don't think claims that depend on the truth of controversial religious beliefs are a legitimate basis for law, then yes, the idea is that we should not have religion in the public square. If the point is that we liberals think no one should talk about or debate religion, or criticize the the state of the culture on religious grounds, or try to convince others to live differently on moral grounds, then it's flatly false.
3.2.2012 | 2:14pm
Douglas Johnson says:
Don Roberto, Thank you for your comment; it made my day!
The more I think about this the more I am convinced that we need to start talking about religious freedom as a chain that binds the state from the total power it craves. The thing, and the only possible thing that limits state power are found in the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. If we don't talk about religious freedom this way, we will continue making the mistake of thinking that religious freedom is a freedom given to us by the state.
It is very easy to make the false conclusion that it's democracy that binds the state. After all, if we all have a vote then the state is restrained, right? Not at all. Democracy IS the state. A democracy can vote to make you a slave, it can vote a tyrant to power, or it can vote to kill a child. State power is only limited if there is something outside and above the state that places it in chains and limit its reach. What ultimately limits the reach of state power?
A Republic beholden to the Constitution is not a sufficient answer because if men merely vote and create law, what restrains them from the kind of laws they can make or the Constitution they write? (Japan has a Constitution seemingly more wedded to freedom than our own, and yet no American I ever met living there would suggest that the Japanese have a real sense of rule of law.)
Only so long as we truly believe that our freedom was endowed to us by our Creator will the chain of religion continue to bind the state. The state has yanked at those chains every day since 1776, but it is powerless to break free as long as enough of us know that our vote, our politicians, and the laws we write are not the source of our freedom because no creator is ever subject to and below his own creation.
The blessing of the HHS Mandate is that it is such a crude and obvious yank by the government at the chains that bind it, and it brought its own audacious power grab into full view. Freedom of religion means that we are individuals with free will, and that free will came from Him who created us and not from the state. The moment we do what the government is asking, which is to regard that freedom as a permission from the state, or a creation of our founding fathers, will be the moment our state's power becomes total.
I'm imagining the atheist who wonders in here and says "well, I'm not Christian; I don't even believe in God. All this talk is meaningless to me." We need to teach that atheist that he doesn't have to share our faith, but he does have to understand that it's only our faith that restrains the government from the total power it craves. We must ask the atheist to consider the consequences of making government authority the highest authority.
The more I think about this the more I am convinced that we need to start talking about religious freedom as a chain that binds the state from the total power it craves. The thing, and the only possible thing that limits state power are found in the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. If we don't talk about religious freedom this way, we will continue making the mistake of thinking that religious freedom is a freedom given to us by the state.
It is very easy to make the false conclusion that it's democracy that binds the state. After all, if we all have a vote then the state is restrained, right? Not at all. Democracy IS the state. A democracy can vote to make you a slave, it can vote a tyrant to power, or it can vote to kill a child. State power is only limited if there is something outside and above the state that places it in chains and limit its reach. What ultimately limits the reach of state power?
A Republic beholden to the Constitution is not a sufficient answer because if men merely vote and create law, what restrains them from the kind of laws they can make or the Constitution they write? (Japan has a Constitution seemingly more wedded to freedom than our own, and yet no American I ever met living there would suggest that the Japanese have a real sense of rule of law.)
Only so long as we truly believe that our freedom was endowed to us by our Creator will the chain of religion continue to bind the state. The state has yanked at those chains every day since 1776, but it is powerless to break free as long as enough of us know that our vote, our politicians, and the laws we write are not the source of our freedom because no creator is ever subject to and below his own creation.
The blessing of the HHS Mandate is that it is such a crude and obvious yank by the government at the chains that bind it, and it brought its own audacious power grab into full view. Freedom of religion means that we are individuals with free will, and that free will came from Him who created us and not from the state. The moment we do what the government is asking, which is to regard that freedom as a permission from the state, or a creation of our founding fathers, will be the moment our state's power becomes total.
I'm imagining the atheist who wonders in here and says "well, I'm not Christian; I don't even believe in God. All this talk is meaningless to me." We need to teach that atheist that he doesn't have to share our faith, but he does have to understand that it's only our faith that restrains the government from the total power it craves. We must ask the atheist to consider the consequences of making government authority the highest authority.
3.2.2012 | 5:25pm
How about the arguments based on conscience in this article:
Birth Control, Bishops, and Religious Authority
Excerpts: "In our democratic society the ultimate arbiter of religious authority is the conscience of the individual believer.
Most Catholics — meaning, to be more precise, people who were raised Catholic or converted as adults and continue to take church teachings and practices seriously — now reserve the right to reject doctrines insisted on by their bishops and to interpret in their own way the doctrines that they do accept. This is above all true in matters of sexual morality, especially birth control, where the majority of Catholics have concluded that the teachings of the bishops do not apply to them. Such “reservations” are an essential constraint on the authority of the bishops.
The bishops and the minority of Catholics who support their full authority have tried to marginalize Catholics who do not accept the bishops as absolute arbiters of doctrine. They speak of “cafeteria Catholics” or merely “cultural Catholics,” and imply that the only “real Catholics” are those who accept their teachings entirely. But this marginalization begs the question I’m raising about the proper source of the judgment that the bishops have divine authority. Since, as I’ve argued, members of the church are themselves this source, it is not for the bishops but for the faithful to decide the nature and extent of episcopal authority. The bishops truly are, as they so often say, “servants of the servants of the Lord.”
The bishops’ claim to authority in this matter has been undermined because Catholics have decisively rejected it. The immorality of birth control is no longer a teaching of the Catholic Church. Pope Paul VI meant his 1968 encyclical, “Humanae Vitae,” to settle the issue in the manner of the famous tag, “Roma locuta est, causa finita est.” In fact the issue has been settled by the voice [and the individual and collective conscience?] of the Catholic people.
Birth Control, Bishops, and Religious Authority
Excerpts: "In our democratic society the ultimate arbiter of religious authority is the conscience of the individual believer.
Most Catholics — meaning, to be more precise, people who were raised Catholic or converted as adults and continue to take church teachings and practices seriously — now reserve the right to reject doctrines insisted on by their bishops and to interpret in their own way the doctrines that they do accept. This is above all true in matters of sexual morality, especially birth control, where the majority of Catholics have concluded that the teachings of the bishops do not apply to them. Such “reservations” are an essential constraint on the authority of the bishops.
The bishops and the minority of Catholics who support their full authority have tried to marginalize Catholics who do not accept the bishops as absolute arbiters of doctrine. They speak of “cafeteria Catholics” or merely “cultural Catholics,” and imply that the only “real Catholics” are those who accept their teachings entirely. But this marginalization begs the question I’m raising about the proper source of the judgment that the bishops have divine authority. Since, as I’ve argued, members of the church are themselves this source, it is not for the bishops but for the faithful to decide the nature and extent of episcopal authority. The bishops truly are, as they so often say, “servants of the servants of the Lord.”
The bishops’ claim to authority in this matter has been undermined because Catholics have decisively rejected it. The immorality of birth control is no longer a teaching of the Catholic Church. Pope Paul VI meant his 1968 encyclical, “Humanae Vitae,” to settle the issue in the manner of the famous tag, “Roma locuta est, causa finita est.” In fact the issue has been settled by the voice [and the individual and collective conscience?] of the Catholic people.
3.2.2012 | 6:41pm
Ferde Rombola says:
"Their defense rests on the inscrutability and sanctity of private religious belief."
No it doesn't. It rests on the constitutional guarantees of the First Amendment.
No it doesn't. It rests on the constitutional guarantees of the First Amendment.
3.3.2012 | 1:57am
Michael PS says:
The contradiction at the heart of liberalism lies in its simultaneous assertion of popular sovereignty and universal human rights. In the brief interlude between the absolutist state of the Ancien Régime and modern mass democracies, this was achieved by the separation of the public sphere of state activity and the private sphere of civil society. The state provided a legally codified order within which social customs, economic competition, religious beliefs, and so on, could be pursued without interference. But, when the social consensus on which the distinction rested breaks down, liberalism has no way of defining or defending the boundaries of this sphere; everything becomes potentially political.
Rousseau saw this very well. “Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign is sole judge of what is important,” for “ if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical..”
Now, the Throne & Altar Conservative has his judge; in his insistence that the ruler of a Christian people must be a faithful son of the Church. Thus, Chateaubriand described Christian Rome as being for the modern what Pagan Rome had been for the ancient world—the universal bond of nations, instructing in duty, defending from oppression. It is not without interest that some Liberals are now seeking a secular equivalent in the international community and its organs, with the Security Council and the International Criminal Court replacing the Chair of Peter as judge of the nations.
Rousseau saw this very well. “Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign is sole judge of what is important,” for “ if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical..”
Now, the Throne & Altar Conservative has his judge; in his insistence that the ruler of a Christian people must be a faithful son of the Church. Thus, Chateaubriand described Christian Rome as being for the modern what Pagan Rome had been for the ancient world—the universal bond of nations, instructing in duty, defending from oppression. It is not without interest that some Liberals are now seeking a secular equivalent in the international community and its organs, with the Security Council and the International Criminal Court replacing the Chair of Peter as judge of the nations.
3.3.2012 | 2:17am
harry says:
Why don't we just admit that theism and atheism have, as they say, “irreconcilable differences.” Either there is a divine Authority that is above even Caesar or there isn't. One side or the other is dead wrong, and so is all that they build upon their false premise.
Either analysis of nature itself, especially human nature, both social and personal, makes it possible to deduce binding rules of moral behavior, or, nature is not the creation of a supernatural, intelligent being Who wrote an intelligible “law” into His creation for us to read and follow. That would make humanity merely the product of mindless, purposeless processes that quite accidentally and meaninglessly spewed us forth, which means we are nothing more than a rather unique configuration of matter and energy that pointlessly interacts with its environment in a deterministic manner like everything else, only doing so under the delusion that we actually have a free will. All of this makes any such thing as a binding natural law an absurdity. In fact, that makes existence itself a pointless absurdity.
So, we have those who think life has meaning and that there is such a thing as morality, and those who have reduced the notion of morality to “might makes right.” It's right because Caesar said so. End of discussion. Don't feel bad, Caesar only *thinks* he is imposing his will upon everybody else. He doesn't actually have a free will – that is merely his delusion! Feel better now? And about his deciding he has the authority to sanction the killing of innocent human beings – don't worry – there is no such thing as innocence or guilt!
Yeah, I'd say we have irreconcilable differences.
Either analysis of nature itself, especially human nature, both social and personal, makes it possible to deduce binding rules of moral behavior, or, nature is not the creation of a supernatural, intelligent being Who wrote an intelligible “law” into His creation for us to read and follow. That would make humanity merely the product of mindless, purposeless processes that quite accidentally and meaninglessly spewed us forth, which means we are nothing more than a rather unique configuration of matter and energy that pointlessly interacts with its environment in a deterministic manner like everything else, only doing so under the delusion that we actually have a free will. All of this makes any such thing as a binding natural law an absurdity. In fact, that makes existence itself a pointless absurdity.
So, we have those who think life has meaning and that there is such a thing as morality, and those who have reduced the notion of morality to “might makes right.” It's right because Caesar said so. End of discussion. Don't feel bad, Caesar only *thinks* he is imposing his will upon everybody else. He doesn't actually have a free will – that is merely his delusion! Feel better now? And about his deciding he has the authority to sanction the killing of innocent human beings – don't worry – there is no such thing as innocence or guilt!
Yeah, I'd say we have irreconcilable differences.
3.3.2012 | 5:27am
Mark VA says:
Tristian:
I think you raise a good question: "How's "public square" " to be defined?
From my private, quirky, and socially conservative point of view, I think that the progressives have already produced a neat and tidy concept of the public square. It subsists in the world-view presented by the NPR (please notice that this institution already claims the word "Public").
Going along with this proposition, the definition of the "public square" would then be the set of ideas and issues allowed to be discussed, plus the allowable methods of analysis, as determined by the leadership of the above venue.
Anything outside of that set necessarily falls in the private, that is to say, idiosyncratic, category. It theoretically could be allowed in for discussion, provided that it is clearly downgraded from "public" to "private", to protect the faithful from confusion.
I think you raise a good question: "How's "public square" " to be defined?
From my private, quirky, and socially conservative point of view, I think that the progressives have already produced a neat and tidy concept of the public square. It subsists in the world-view presented by the NPR (please notice that this institution already claims the word "Public").
Going along with this proposition, the definition of the "public square" would then be the set of ideas and issues allowed to be discussed, plus the allowable methods of analysis, as determined by the leadership of the above venue.
Anything outside of that set necessarily falls in the private, that is to say, idiosyncratic, category. It theoretically could be allowed in for discussion, provided that it is clearly downgraded from "public" to "private", to protect the faithful from confusion.
3.3.2012 | 6:35am
NPSmith says:
At this point in the debate, the issue is being framed in terms of Cost. Who will "pay" for it, through whom & how it will be purchased? Can Georgetown, for example, pretend that birth control is "free" and thus be absolved from the taint of participation?
There's money changing going on in the Temple. That's where the fight is right now.
There's money changing going on in the Temple. That's where the fight is right now.
3.3.2012 | 11:03am
pdn Michael says:
@Tristan:
Rawls claimed to disagree that there can be comprehensive accounts of truth, like religion. He, like many liberals, seemed ignorant of the fact that religion has always had scholars, fathers and doctors (or Rabbis, or Ayatollahs) who spend lifetimes considering the appropriate inferences from their sacred texts. The credulous fundamentalist is an unfair caricature of religious folk that seems to be ever more the default idea for liberals when they consider religion. Either way, Rawls favored, whether he and his fans want to admit it or not, a specific and very comprehensive account of liberalism. Peters' contention is spot on, that the liberal does not respect the right of religious people, tax-bilked citizens all, to "advance their convictions publicly." The liberal dis-affirms "claims that depend on the truth of controversial religious belief" based on claims that depend on the truth of the claims of liberalism which, as claims go, are less compelling and infinitely more arrogant, based on an uncritical acceptance of religious folk as being all wild-eyed loons without facts or compelling arguments. It smacks of "keep your opinions to yourself," an attitude that is anything but "liberal."
The twentieth century carnage that was in no small measure a result of removing religion from the public square is undeniable. It might have been better for the citizens of the Soviet Union not only to have been able to freely discuss their religion, but for, say, the Russian Orthodox Church to have been able to very brazenly and very publicly and very loudly challenge the policies of mass starvation and spurious prison terms, and precisely on religious grounds. "Free exercise" has to be at least as "free" as "free speech," otherwise it's a right denied.
Rawls claimed to disagree that there can be comprehensive accounts of truth, like religion. He, like many liberals, seemed ignorant of the fact that religion has always had scholars, fathers and doctors (or Rabbis, or Ayatollahs) who spend lifetimes considering the appropriate inferences from their sacred texts. The credulous fundamentalist is an unfair caricature of religious folk that seems to be ever more the default idea for liberals when they consider religion. Either way, Rawls favored, whether he and his fans want to admit it or not, a specific and very comprehensive account of liberalism. Peters' contention is spot on, that the liberal does not respect the right of religious people, tax-bilked citizens all, to "advance their convictions publicly." The liberal dis-affirms "claims that depend on the truth of controversial religious belief" based on claims that depend on the truth of the claims of liberalism which, as claims go, are less compelling and infinitely more arrogant, based on an uncritical acceptance of religious folk as being all wild-eyed loons without facts or compelling arguments. It smacks of "keep your opinions to yourself," an attitude that is anything but "liberal."
The twentieth century carnage that was in no small measure a result of removing religion from the public square is undeniable. It might have been better for the citizens of the Soviet Union not only to have been able to freely discuss their religion, but for, say, the Russian Orthodox Church to have been able to very brazenly and very publicly and very loudly challenge the policies of mass starvation and spurious prison terms, and precisely on religious grounds. "Free exercise" has to be at least as "free" as "free speech," otherwise it's a right denied.
3.3.2012 | 11:51am
WoodbridgeGoodman says:
Harry:
Michael, Harry, etc.:
The pious commonplace that without religion there are no laws, but only chaos and human opinions, is simply fatuous. We live in Nature ... which is loaded with millions of laws. As science has begun to show.
"Nature" is not chaos, but has structures, laws; whether or not there was a conscious creator behind them. So that? Even with out a "creator," we still have after all, natural "laws."
Michael, Harry, etc.:
The pious commonplace that without religion there are no laws, but only chaos and human opinions, is simply fatuous. We live in Nature ... which is loaded with millions of laws. As science has begun to show.
"Nature" is not chaos, but has structures, laws; whether or not there was a conscious creator behind them. So that? Even with out a "creator," we still have after all, natural "laws."
3.3.2012 | 1:10pm
Douglas Johnson says:
Harry,
I liked your comment, and don't disagree with any of it. Too bad those who regard themselves as a meaningless accident and everything they do as the product of chemical and electrical reactions don't actually live their lives that way. They should at least have the sophistication not to get angry, writes books, or do anything for any particular reason. If they were honest they would ponder their every waking moment as no different than the moth who flies eyes-first into a burning hot lightbulb, bounces off the lightbulb and then repeats for hours on end.
Instead they behave as if nothing they say is actually true. They say they do things because they "should" and it's "right." They get haughty, they roll their eyes as if they believed there was even a modicum of choice in the world and they were making the right choices. But what's so "right" about a moth flying into a lightbulb. Oh I'm not saying that all of them have to live honest lives, or even that any of them have to behave honestly all the time, but damn, can't they just be honest just a second?
I liked your comment, and don't disagree with any of it. Too bad those who regard themselves as a meaningless accident and everything they do as the product of chemical and electrical reactions don't actually live their lives that way. They should at least have the sophistication not to get angry, writes books, or do anything for any particular reason. If they were honest they would ponder their every waking moment as no different than the moth who flies eyes-first into a burning hot lightbulb, bounces off the lightbulb and then repeats for hours on end.
Instead they behave as if nothing they say is actually true. They say they do things because they "should" and it's "right." They get haughty, they roll their eyes as if they believed there was even a modicum of choice in the world and they were making the right choices. But what's so "right" about a moth flying into a lightbulb. Oh I'm not saying that all of them have to live honest lives, or even that any of them have to behave honestly all the time, but damn, can't they just be honest just a second?
3.3.2012 | 4:44pm
Ancius says:
Nathaniel Peters: what exactly do you mean by "the current administration’s definition of liberalism"?
pdn Michaels: where did "Rawls claim to disagree that there can be comprehensive accounts of truth, like religion"? I think you are misreading him. In fact Rawls presupposes that, in a free society, there will be multiple such accounts: "a plurality of conflicting reasonable comprehensive doctrines, religious, philosophical, and moral, is the normal result of its culture of free institutions." Quite realistically, Rawls thought that this fact "implies that there is no such doctrine, whether fully or partially comprehensive, on which all citizens do or can agree to settle the fundamental questions of political justice." Also, the fact that Rawls favored a specific account of liberalism isn't obviously relevant in this discussion. In particular, the content of public reason for Rawls isn't even given by his particular conception of justice he favored: "I have proposed that one way to identify those political principles and guidelines....Others will think that different ways to identify these principles is more reasonable. Thus, the content of public reason is given by a family of political conceptions of justice, and not by a single one. There are many liberalisms and related views, and therefore many forms of public reason specified by a family of reasonable political conceptions. Of these, justice as fairness, whatever its merits, is but one. The limiting feature of these forms is the criterion of reciprocity, viewed as applied between free and equal citizens, themselves seen as reasonable and rational." (These quotations are from Justice as Fairness: a Restatement and "The Idea of Public Reason Revisited".)
Great couple of comments from Tristian, btw.
pdn Michaels: where did "Rawls claim to disagree that there can be comprehensive accounts of truth, like religion"? I think you are misreading him. In fact Rawls presupposes that, in a free society, there will be multiple such accounts: "a plurality of conflicting reasonable comprehensive doctrines, religious, philosophical, and moral, is the normal result of its culture of free institutions." Quite realistically, Rawls thought that this fact "implies that there is no such doctrine, whether fully or partially comprehensive, on which all citizens do or can agree to settle the fundamental questions of political justice." Also, the fact that Rawls favored a specific account of liberalism isn't obviously relevant in this discussion. In particular, the content of public reason for Rawls isn't even given by his particular conception of justice he favored: "I have proposed that one way to identify those political principles and guidelines....Others will think that different ways to identify these principles is more reasonable. Thus, the content of public reason is given by a family of political conceptions of justice, and not by a single one. There are many liberalisms and related views, and therefore many forms of public reason specified by a family of reasonable political conceptions. Of these, justice as fairness, whatever its merits, is but one. The limiting feature of these forms is the criterion of reciprocity, viewed as applied between free and equal citizens, themselves seen as reasonable and rational." (These quotations are from Justice as Fairness: a Restatement and "The Idea of Public Reason Revisited".)
Great couple of comments from Tristian, btw.
3.3.2012 | 4:57pm
Ancius says:
Conservative Christians seem to often charge contemporary liberals of unfairly singling out religion as unfit for "the public square" (whatever that means). While perhaps many do, I think the best liberal thinkers avoid this. Consider Rawls:
“We must distinguish public reason from what is sometimes referred to as secular reason and secular values. These are not the same as public reason. For I define secular reason as reasoning in terms of comprehensive nonrelgious doctrines. Such doctrines are too broad to serve the purposes of public reason.”
“A view often expressed is that while religious reasons and sectarian doctrines should not be invoked to justify legislation in a democratic society, sound secular arguments may be. But what is a secular argument? Some think of any argument that is reflective and critical, publicly intelligible and rational, as a secular argument; and they discuss various such arguments for considering, say, homosexual relations unworthy or degrading. Of course, some of these arguments may be reflective and rational secular ones (as so defined). Nevertheless, a central feature of political liberalism is that it views all such arguments the same way it views religious ones, and therefore these secular philosophical doctrines do not provide public reasons. Secular concepts and reasoning of this kind belong to first philosophy and moral doctrines, and fall outside of the domain of the political.”
Btw, contrary to popular usages of "public square," I think Rawls was sufficiently clear about what he meant by "the idea of public reason." Just briefly:
“In sum, public reason is the form of reasoning appropriate to equal citizens who as a corporate body impose rules on one another backed by sanctions of state power."
“[T]he idea of public reason...is a view about the kinds of reasons on which citizens are to rest their political cases in making their political justifications to one another when they support laws and policies that invoke the coercive powers of government concerning fundamental political questions."
All quotations are again from "The Idea of Public Reason Revisited" and Justice as Fairness: a Restatement
“We must distinguish public reason from what is sometimes referred to as secular reason and secular values. These are not the same as public reason. For I define secular reason as reasoning in terms of comprehensive nonrelgious doctrines. Such doctrines are too broad to serve the purposes of public reason.”
“A view often expressed is that while religious reasons and sectarian doctrines should not be invoked to justify legislation in a democratic society, sound secular arguments may be. But what is a secular argument? Some think of any argument that is reflective and critical, publicly intelligible and rational, as a secular argument; and they discuss various such arguments for considering, say, homosexual relations unworthy or degrading. Of course, some of these arguments may be reflective and rational secular ones (as so defined). Nevertheless, a central feature of political liberalism is that it views all such arguments the same way it views religious ones, and therefore these secular philosophical doctrines do not provide public reasons. Secular concepts and reasoning of this kind belong to first philosophy and moral doctrines, and fall outside of the domain of the political.”
Btw, contrary to popular usages of "public square," I think Rawls was sufficiently clear about what he meant by "the idea of public reason." Just briefly:
“In sum, public reason is the form of reasoning appropriate to equal citizens who as a corporate body impose rules on one another backed by sanctions of state power."
“[T]he idea of public reason...is a view about the kinds of reasons on which citizens are to rest their political cases in making their political justifications to one another when they support laws and policies that invoke the coercive powers of government concerning fundamental political questions."
All quotations are again from "The Idea of Public Reason Revisited" and Justice as Fairness: a Restatement
3.4.2012 | 9:43am
Goodman says:
Ancius:
I haven't read Rawls since I was 17 years old. Or maybe I revisted him very briefly, for a quick half hour, as a grad student. But in your account of him in any case? The place your Rawls seems to allow for religion, seems rather stilted, and far too political and activist. And nowhere near enough prayerful, or thoughtful.
That is? To define especially religious "public reason" and action, purely in terms of "political cases," political action, would rather redefine religion as precisely the kind of headless horseman we see in contemporary "conservative" religion. It would to seem rather reduce it, to mere loud Rush-Limbaugh polemnic, political rhetoric ... followed by bullying activism. Which is unfortunately, precisely what we have seen from conservatism, for all too many years.
Better? As someone suggested above, Christianity should retire again from the "marketplace," or trading money in the temple, as someone rightly noted above. Christians should return to the real core of traditional Christianity: deep, quiet, prayerful communion, with a transcendent ideal.
I hope there is a place in Rawls for that? If not, we may need to modify the Rawlsian model slightly; enough to accomodate a contemplative life with God.
I haven't read Rawls since I was 17 years old. Or maybe I revisted him very briefly, for a quick half hour, as a grad student. But in your account of him in any case? The place your Rawls seems to allow for religion, seems rather stilted, and far too political and activist. And nowhere near enough prayerful, or thoughtful.
That is? To define especially religious "public reason" and action, purely in terms of "political cases," political action, would rather redefine religion as precisely the kind of headless horseman we see in contemporary "conservative" religion. It would to seem rather reduce it, to mere loud Rush-Limbaugh polemnic, political rhetoric ... followed by bullying activism. Which is unfortunately, precisely what we have seen from conservatism, for all too many years.
Better? As someone suggested above, Christianity should retire again from the "marketplace," or trading money in the temple, as someone rightly noted above. Christians should return to the real core of traditional Christianity: deep, quiet, prayerful communion, with a transcendent ideal.
I hope there is a place in Rawls for that? If not, we may need to modify the Rawlsian model slightly; enough to accomodate a contemplative life with God.
3.4.2012 | 10:32am
Mark Donovan says:
Wendy,
Governments have been known to burn witches as well. Oh, sure, they don't refer to them as witches; they call them enemies of the state.
Governments have been known to burn witches as well. Oh, sure, they don't refer to them as witches; they call them enemies of the state.
3.4.2012 | 10:44am
Tristian says:
Goodman, the whole point is that Rawls isn't *defining* religion at all. As Ancius very masterfully explained, Rawls is trying to indicate the place of religious claims (as well as non-religious claims that function in a person's life in comparable ways) in the political sphere. As a *political* theory Rawls' liberalism has nothing to say about a "contemplative life with God" one way or the other--there's no political question there for his theory to address. What liberals want is to carve out the space so that people can freely choose to pursue such a life or not according to their own sincere convictions.
3.4.2012 | 10:54am
savvy says:
Goodman,
So in other words if Christians wants rights, they should stay out of the public square?
Never mind about Jesus wanting to help the poor, the sick and educate the ignorant.
Jesus would not qualify under Obamacare, since he did not restrict his activities to just prayer.
Conservatives my stay crazy things, but the foul mouth liberals far exceed them in this area.
So in other words if Christians wants rights, they should stay out of the public square?
Never mind about Jesus wanting to help the poor, the sick and educate the ignorant.
Jesus would not qualify under Obamacare, since he did not restrict his activities to just prayer.
Conservatives my stay crazy things, but the foul mouth liberals far exceed them in this area.
3.4.2012 | 1:12pm
harry says:
Hello, WoodbridgeGoodman,
You wrote:
"The pious commonplace that without religion there are no laws, but only chaos and human opinions, is simply fatuous. We live in Nature ... which is loaded with millions of laws. As science has begun to show. 'Nature' is not chaos, but has structures, laws; whether or not there was a conscious creator behind them. So that? Even with out a 'creator,' we still have after all, natural 'laws.'"
Please explain to us which moral guidelines can be drawn from a mindless, purposeless and therefore pointless accident. And then explain to us how those guidelines can be binding upon, and, for that matter, how the very idea of morality can ever apply to a configuration of matter and energy, albeit a very intricate one, that operates under the delusion that it has a free will, when in reality its behavior is entirely deterministic.
And spare us the hogwash about quantum physics possibly revealing that things might not be as deterministic as we thought. Either we have a genuine free will or we don't, and if, under our delusion, what we *think* we will is affected also by that which may be not-so-deterministic according to science, our phony will is still being managed by that which is beyond our control.
Unless our free will is essentially rooted in the immaterial -- that which is supernatural -- it cannot be genuinely free, even though it is, of course, influenced by the natural. The final choices we make cannot have been freely made if they aren't essentially an act of our immaterial, rational soul, rather than based solely upon natural influences beyond our control. So, either there *are* supernatural realities, such as our immaterial, rational souls, or the reality is that the fundamental, disastrous flaw in atheistic materialism must reign: the inevitable conclusion that must be drawn if it is true, that there really is no such thing as morality.
Caesar governing us and not believing there really is any such thing a morality, or that there is any authority above himself, is, of course, always disastrous and is always fatal to innocent human beings by the millions, as modern history makes clear.
As I said, we have irreconcilable differences.
You wrote:
"The pious commonplace that without religion there are no laws, but only chaos and human opinions, is simply fatuous. We live in Nature ... which is loaded with millions of laws. As science has begun to show. 'Nature' is not chaos, but has structures, laws; whether or not there was a conscious creator behind them. So that? Even with out a 'creator,' we still have after all, natural 'laws.'"
Please explain to us which moral guidelines can be drawn from a mindless, purposeless and therefore pointless accident. And then explain to us how those guidelines can be binding upon, and, for that matter, how the very idea of morality can ever apply to a configuration of matter and energy, albeit a very intricate one, that operates under the delusion that it has a free will, when in reality its behavior is entirely deterministic.
And spare us the hogwash about quantum physics possibly revealing that things might not be as deterministic as we thought. Either we have a genuine free will or we don't, and if, under our delusion, what we *think* we will is affected also by that which may be not-so-deterministic according to science, our phony will is still being managed by that which is beyond our control.
Unless our free will is essentially rooted in the immaterial -- that which is supernatural -- it cannot be genuinely free, even though it is, of course, influenced by the natural. The final choices we make cannot have been freely made if they aren't essentially an act of our immaterial, rational soul, rather than based solely upon natural influences beyond our control. So, either there *are* supernatural realities, such as our immaterial, rational souls, or the reality is that the fundamental, disastrous flaw in atheistic materialism must reign: the inevitable conclusion that must be drawn if it is true, that there really is no such thing as morality.
Caesar governing us and not believing there really is any such thing a morality, or that there is any authority above himself, is, of course, always disastrous and is always fatal to innocent human beings by the millions, as modern history makes clear.
As I said, we have irreconcilable differences.
3.4.2012 | 1:46pm
Jacob says:
I'm surprised that the "liberals" on here are so shocked that we feel leftist elitists are attempting to silence and trivialize our religion. Then, if we stay quiet and everyone believes it's trivial and doesn't become religious, they can tell us yet again that it's all natural, simply a step forward in human evolution.
In fact they already have seemingly racist excuses for the explosion of Christianity in Asia and Africa, though you can be sure they'll never be called out and barred from the public square over it like people who are devoutly religious.
In fact they already have seemingly racist excuses for the explosion of Christianity in Asia and Africa, though you can be sure they'll never be called out and barred from the public square over it like people who are devoutly religious.
3.4.2012 | 2:18pm
Henry says:
Read Dalferth, AAR, June2010, vol 78, no2, 317-345. If a "religion" or a "faith" cannot stand on its own two feet in a society that neither privileges or represses religion but simply ignores it, such "religion" has little to offer to and a less than fair chance to survive. No Catholic Hospital has to treat non-Catholics, nor hire non-Catholics (the same is obviously true for any other denominational organization such as a denominationally-ordained university) nor accept any Federal funding that would impose public policy on it, but can remain insular and impose its own take on dogma and fee structure and interpretation of its spiritual duty. It can even refuse to obey the law if it is in its perceived theological salvation to do so; thus also its parishioners. If that is what it takes for it to remain true to a denominational dogma, so be it.
3.4.2012 | 8:13pm
patricksarsfield says:
The author's argument is much too confused. The issue before the country is clearly an issue of Freedom of Conscience. Although the author seems to believe that someone is trying to legislate a ban on contraception("They have convictions about abortion and contraception—and immigration, economic justice, and war, for that matter—that they want to argue in public and legislate"), that is NOT the position of the Catholic Church or of any significant political actor active on the 2012 stage.
Contrary to the author's first paragraph, it is simply not the case that the Catholic Church is arguing that "religious groups and individuals have argued that their rights of conscience trump any potential desire of their employees for these medications....." The employees can desire any contraception/abortifacients all they want and even use them, so long as the employees pay for them instead of having the government force the church to pay for the contraception/abortifacients Any employee would remain free to take the wages paid by the Church or Church institution for the employee's services and use it for any purposes that the employee chooses. All the Church wants is to preserve its conscience by not being forced to pay for contraception/abortifacients.
So, this article is a detour into irrelevance.
Contrary to the author's first paragraph, it is simply not the case that the Catholic Church is arguing that "religious groups and individuals have argued that their rights of conscience trump any potential desire of their employees for these medications....." The employees can desire any contraception/abortifacients all they want and even use them, so long as the employees pay for them instead of having the government force the church to pay for the contraception/abortifacients Any employee would remain free to take the wages paid by the Church or Church institution for the employee's services and use it for any purposes that the employee chooses. All the Church wants is to preserve its conscience by not being forced to pay for contraception/abortifacients.
So, this article is a detour into irrelevance.
3.12.2012 | 2:33pm
Tim says:
Of course I agree that some of these arguments may be reflective and rational secular ones. But what is a secular argument? Some think of any argument that is reflective and critical, publicly intelligible and rational, as a secular argument; and they discuss various such arguments for considering, say, homosexual relations unworthy or degrading.
3.16.2012 | 9:47am
Raymond Takashi Swenson says:
In the US, the essence of an established church was not so much that other churches could not exist, but that everyone, tegardless if their own religuous belief, was required to pay a government enforced tax to support the church that the government of a state chose as the official church. Thomas Jefferson stated the objection that it was a violation of the conscience of a man to force him to pay to support religious beliefs he himself does not hold. The Supreme Court rulings concerning religious exercises in public schools and government financial support of parochial schools has focused on the same principle, that government should not be in the business of transferring one citizen's money to support the religious beliefs of his neighbor.
Imagine a different government, of a kind that critics of Rick Santorum claims he favors, which mandates that every health insurance program pay for ultrasounds of pregnant women before they have an abortion, and that specifies that no abortion will be paid for unless the uktrasound has been conducted at least three days previous. We already know that many people object to such ultrasounds, and they would object that requiring them to pay for such ultrasounds would improperly establish a religion by forcing them to pay for it, since their freedom to choose an alternate insurance plan without that feature would have been taken from them.
Once the government is given the power to coerce everyone to pay for medical actions that have religious and moral dimensions, there is no constraint on the ability of government, as its custodians change, to arbitrarily change what it will mandate, and whose moral conscience it will offend. The only way to protect every citizen's religious and moral conscience is for government to stay out of the business of coercive mandates that impinge on such issues where conscience differs, and let them be worked out in the marketplace of free choice in the same way religious affiliation is chosen.
The objection of Catholic schools and hospitals to being forced to finance contraceptives is the same objection that non-Catholics have to being forced to pay to support Catholic schools through education taxes. It is exactly the same principle that is the core of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Imagine a different government, of a kind that critics of Rick Santorum claims he favors, which mandates that every health insurance program pay for ultrasounds of pregnant women before they have an abortion, and that specifies that no abortion will be paid for unless the uktrasound has been conducted at least three days previous. We already know that many people object to such ultrasounds, and they would object that requiring them to pay for such ultrasounds would improperly establish a religion by forcing them to pay for it, since their freedom to choose an alternate insurance plan without that feature would have been taken from them.
Once the government is given the power to coerce everyone to pay for medical actions that have religious and moral dimensions, there is no constraint on the ability of government, as its custodians change, to arbitrarily change what it will mandate, and whose moral conscience it will offend. The only way to protect every citizen's religious and moral conscience is for government to stay out of the business of coercive mandates that impinge on such issues where conscience differs, and let them be worked out in the marketplace of free choice in the same way religious affiliation is chosen.
The objection of Catholic schools and hospitals to being forced to finance contraceptives is the same objection that non-Catholics have to being forced to pay to support Catholic schools through education taxes. It is exactly the same principle that is the core of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
What happens when Catholicism takes up the sword, and in the name of supporting its own religious values, not just in private but everywhere ... sets about burning as witches and heretics say, all those of other religions, who opposed it? What has historically happened, when the Church is not content to seek to be simply left alone with its private conviction, but now asserts that it takes it out into the marketplace, to triumph over all others?
The sly, serpentine logic that suggests going for it - seeking your own religious values at the cost of everyone else's - is of course, not a good thing. And exactly inimical to Democracy itself. And deeply opposed to religious freedom, and all liberty.
Not something to be admired; not this article. Not at all. This article is a sly advocacy of ... an attempt to destroy democracy and religious freedom; and to simply assert an absolute theocratic, Catholic dictatorship over all.
Does First Things really expect us to all sit around THIS article, smiling and lost in admiration, for its cleverness and humanity?