A Problem with Debating the Impact of Religion
At the risk of appearing to unfairly dodge a fatal criticism, I must confess that I just can’t take seriously these publicized debates over whether religion has proved to be a force for good in the world. The latest debate based on this overarching question featured high profile atheist Christopher Hitchens and former British Prime Minister and recent convert to the Catholic faith Tony Blair.
Analyzing religion’s overall impact and concluding with a litany of sweeping claims results in answers that are just too broad and superficial to be of much benefit. The question itself fails to differentiate between religion practiced well and religion practiced badly, and it doesn’t even consider the possible difference between true religion and false religion. It asks for an ethical calculus of all actions done in the name of religion. It’s like asking whether political power has been a force for good or ill without distinguishing between anarchy and totalitarianism and every political framework in between and beyond. It’s almost like asking whether language has been more of a force for good or for evil. How does one even come close to a resolution? There’s hardly a secure stone to stand on.
Granted, detractors and defenders of religion do tend to get specific when debating this question. Hitchens, for example, will name specific doctrines he finds morally repugnant or the track record of all religions on an issue, such as women’s equality, that he considers universally poor. Even this specificity, though, when offered in response to the question of religion’s overall benefit, can’t provide an answer the grand question. At best, one can chronicle the history of religion’s faults and failings, virtues and triumphs, or at least what one judges to qualify under these headings.
What’s the alternative? More modest questions. Debate the political impact of the Vatican’s religions teachings and pronouncements. Analyze the social consequences of the life of a saint. Discuss the ethical value (or problem) with belief in eternal rewards and punishments. I don’t expect that believers and atheists would come to an agreement on these questions, but at least they’d have semi-solid ground to stand on. I know religion bids us to think big, but religion itself really isn’t one big thing we can understand and judge as a singular object.
Like this:
Comments are closed.
Religions, for their adherents, believers, whatever, are facts, like gravity.
If my Catholic Faith is a fact, and it is, its usefulness to the Big Society, or the government, or any other external party or agency, is irrelevant.
I am wary of seeking the approval of those whose opinion is, in my view, worthless.
Religions, for their adherents, believers, whatever, are facts, like gravity.
Yeah, but is that a good thing?
I totally agree with that. The obverse of that coin is, of course, that your religion should keep its beliefs completely out of that society’s politics, since your faith is irrelevant to that society and its government and to any of its citizens who don’t share your particular faith.
That, of course, is a position which was condemned by Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical letter Libertas (paragraph 18), as manifestly absurd. I won’t say it’s a heresy, however…
Pope Leo XIII wrote: “Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God. For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enact menu. Besides, those who are in authority owe it to the commonwealth not only to provide for its external well-being and the conveniences of life, but still more to consult the welfare of men’s souls in the wisdom of their legislation.”
I wouldn’t go so far as Rodak in saying that faith is irrelevant to society and its government, though I do oppose the use of the State to enforce laws that have as their basis solely a framework of faith. This doesn’t put me at odds with Pope Leo XIII, though, because the goodness and justice which I want society to be modeled on are accessible by the powers of reason.
The problem, as I see it, is that the state, left to its own devices, is not obliged to enact laws which comport with the dictates of reason, particuarly when reason arrives at the conclusion that something — abortion, for example — is immoral. Whereas all men are obliged to obey God’s laws, whether they acknowledge that fact or not. I think what Pope Leo is saying is not merely that it’s wrong to disregard morality, but more specifically, that it’s wrong (not to mention foolish) to disregard *God’s* laws. It’s wrong to disregard them, not merely because they’re moral, but specifically because they come from God. I think this is further implied when he says that the state has the obligation to consider the welfare of men’s souls.
Of course there is always the problem of who decides what God’s law is. There are not too many Catholics today who would suggest that the pluralist public simply cede to Holy Mother Church. We actually have to make our case in the public square. Of course, that implies that we be allowed to do so.
I think the photo accompanying this post is very apt, since I think of religion in general, and even the Catholic Church in particular, as being a lot like weather. Who would seriously debate whether the word would have been a better place without weather? In many ways, it is difficult to differentiate between good weather and bad weather. If it rains on the day you have planned your picnic, it’s bad for you, but it may be very good for the farmers in the area. (Old grade school question: What is God to do when you pray for sunny weather for your picnic and the farmers are praying for rain for their crops?)
Answer to old grade school question: He delegates the solution to his subordinates. Micheal. Gabriel. Work something out with this.
A brilliant analogy – kudos
Agellius–
All of what you say would be correct in a theocracy. All of what you say is incorrect, however, w/r/t a secular, culturally diverse state. Those who believe abortion to be against God’s law should not have abortions. And those same people should let God deal with those who break his laws, whether out of ignorance, lack of belief, or perversity.
And those who believe bank robbery to be against God’s laws should not rob banks, eh? You can’t avoid the question by leaving it to individuals, unless your solution is a completely anarchic and/or libertarian state.
In any case, Pope Leo’s statements were not restricted to theocracies. He specifically condemned the idea of separation of church and state; as well as the idea that “the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws”.
Kyle,
I agree completely with your post. A very good thought.
But Rodak’s “The obverse of that coin is…..” is completely mistaken.
First the obverse is not what Rodak says it is. The post’s point is that debating the merits of religion is just as broad and meaningless as arguing the merits of political power, or of language. If Rodak’s obverse holds, then another obverse would be “we should keep language out of politics” or “we should keep political views out of politics”, which is absurd.
Second, religion is something which forms the basis of a person’s moral viewpoint. But secularism, or atheism, or a certain political philosophy are also things which form the basis of a person’s moral viewpoint. Laws are based on the moral viewpoints of those people in that society. And there is no reason to exclude a person’s moral viewpoint that is grounded on a religious belief, while allowing a person’s moral viewpoint based on a political philosophy.
My belief that abortion should be legally prohibited in society is based on my moral viewpoint that society would be better off with legal prohibition of abortion. This moral viewpoint comes mostly from my philosophical belief that all human beings should have a right to life (my religious beliefs aren’t the primary source for my opposition to abortion). An abortion supporter disagrees with me and thinks that abortion should be permitted, which is based on his moral viewpoint. His moral viewpoint perhaps comes from a libertarian belief that all people should have the right to do what they want. Both of our moral viewpoints should be permitted in the public debate over abortion; neither should be excluded.
(Of course, there are constraints built in the Constitution: a person can’t be forced to practice the dictates of another religion, but a person can’t be forced to join a certain political or philosophical group either.)
Rodak – A ‘culturally diverse’ state presents few problems. Problems arise when there is religious diversity. The two are not the same.
Leftfooter–Different cultures tend also to have different religions. You are splitting hairs here. But I’m perfectly happy to substitute “religious” diversity where I’ve used the word “cultural.” How does that affect the argument?
Rodak – if I’m splitting hairs, they’re pretty solid hairs. Culture (in the Matthew Arnold sense) and religion may coincide, but they are not necessarily the same. I may have friends with a different religion from mine, or none, who share my enthusiansm for sailing, or poetry, or Saint-Saens. I may have Catholic friends who do not share my culture.
If you compare Malta and Poland, both strongly Catholic nations, the cultures are very different.
Thales–
You are obviously being disingenuous in your stance against the position I’ve taken. If, as Leftfooter (to whom I was responding) can state: “If my Catholic Faith is a fact, and it is, its usefulness to the Big Society, or the government, or any other external party or agency, is irrelevant.” Then it also follows that Leftfoot cannot, with intellectual integrity, expect the the state to entertain the tenets of his faith as relevant. If they are not relevant, they certainly cannot be imposed on any citizen via legislation. Contrary to what you have stated, that is the valid obverse to Leftfoot’s position. You cannot argue that I am wrong, without first showing Leftfoot to be wrong (which is quite plausible, btw–I was merely responding to Leftfoot’s statement.)
My personal position would be that the only rock-solid objection to legal abortion is based on the religious belieft that a fetus has a soul, and is therefore a “person” from the moment of conception. If a fetus is not legally defined as a person until some later state in its development, or even until after it has survived a live birth, then the moral contraindications for abortion becoming very tenuous.
Yes, there is all the genetic material present in a day-old conception to produce a human being. But with cloning, the same is potentially true of every cell in your body. There is also the statistical certainty that in a significant percentage of those conceptions, the genetic material will go haywire and result in spontaneous abortion. There is good scientific evidence that this is, in fact, what happens in a majority of conceptions. The low-end figure is around one-third of conceptions, I believe. So what you are calling your moral position can be called by any person opposing it, a mere opinion. You should live by that position/opinion, since you believe it. But there is not any reason at all, why you should feel empowered by that to attempt to make a person who does not hold the same foundational beliefs that you hold on the issue conform to your quite possibly totally mistaken beliefs on the issue. This is true unless you can demonstrate that society, as a whole, will be better off following your belief system rather than another one. Where abortion is the issue, it is quite easy to make a plausible argument, based on practical socio-economic considerations that abortion should be legal. That is why, in fact, it has been made legal. I can remember when that was not the case.
Rodak,
Sorry, I thought you were making an obverse to Kyle’s post. My bad. I didn’t pay much attention to leftfooter’s comment since I didn’t understand the point he was making.
Thanks for explaining your personal belief that the only objection to legal abortion is based on religious beliefs. You also seem to indicate that you don’t have a problem with abortion. Of course, there is good scientific evidence to disagree with both of those personal opinions of yours: in particular, because an embryo is a human entity not only with genetic material, but also some kind of individual principle of growth and maturing. But I don’t want to deny the fact that you have your personal opinions about abortion. But remember, there is not any reason at all, why you should feel empowered to attempt to make a person who does not hold the same foundational beliefs that you hold on the issue conform to your quite possibly totally mistaken beliefs on the issue. This is true unless you can demonstrate that society, as a whole, will be better off following your belief system rather than another one. And keep in mind, where abortion is the issue, it is quite easy to make a plausible argument, based on practical socio-economic considerations that abortion should be illegal.
Cheers!
Thales – the point I was (clearly unsuccesfully) making was that for religious adherents, the question of whether religion is good for society is irrelevant. Their religion, whether Islam or Catholicism or whatever, is true, and its business is not seeking the approval of society, except insofar as aids conversion, but saving souls and perhaps establishing the rule of God. Society is ‘good’ insofar as it conforms to, and does not violate or outrage their religio-moral code.
As I understand it, a ‘good’ society for a Muslim would be a caliphate. For me, as a Catholic, Poland or Malta come close.
Debating the truth of a particular religion may be useful, and even exciting. Debating it as a force for good is pointless, since its ‘good’ does not impinge on its truth, there being little consensus as to what is ‘good’..
leftfooter,
That makes sense. I think I agree with you.
But now that I understand your point, I still don’t think Rodak’s obverse holds true.
And then there is the added complication between purely religious beliefs (like Transubstantion) and beliefs that I claim are not purely religious but are grounded in natural law (like the dignity of the human person at all stages of development, or “you shall not murder”). I see that the former has no use in politics, while the latter does have use in politics; but there are some (like Rodak, I think) who believe the latter are still purely religious beliefs.
I disagree that “the only rock-solid objection to legal abortion is based on the religious belieft that a fetus has a soul”. It’s based on the identification of the fetus as a human being.
You are reasoning that since every cell in your body can potentially grow into an adult human being, then a fertilized egg is no more a human being then a cell in, say, my left forefinger. The difference is that no cell in my left forefinger, in the course of nature, will grow into an adult human being. Whereas a fertilized egg will in the course of nature grow into an adult human being.
The fact that whatever number of fertilized eggs may end up spontaneously aborting is irrelevant. They do so in the course of nature. This has no bearing on our supposed right to artificially intervene in order to end the lives of those which do not spontaneously abort.
“because an embryo is a human entity not only with genetic material, but also some kind of individual principle of growth and maturing.”
I would say that this is your opinion, and unsubstantiated by reason as applied to scientific data. But I have an open mind on the issue. If you can support that statement, I’d like to entertain your argument.
As for your clevely using my own words against me, I think that if you’re honest you will need to admit that this ploy would be valid only if I were somehow advocating forced abortion in order to benefit society as a whole, which I am emphatically not.
As I have said, if you believe abortion to be murder, then don’t have one. So far as I know, no American politician has proposed that the indigent, for instance, be forced to abort in order to save society as a whole the cost of that pregnancy and/or the support of the resulting child. Nor I have supported that. So you raise a red herring by turning my words around. You should be free to follow your conscience. And so should those with differing belief systems.
Rodak,
1. I was just amused to see you hold a position that my position was a personal one grounded on little scientific evidence and so I shouldn’t feel “empowered” by it… when that very position you were articulating was a personal position grounded on, in my opinion, even less scientific evidence.
2. “an embryo is a human entity not only with genetic material, but also some kind of individual principle of growth and maturing.”
You say this is my opinion unsubstantiated by science. I was actually trying to give a scientific description of an embryo, without resorting to a moral judgment about whether it was a “person” or not. I think there is plenty of scientific evidence supporting the proposition that an embryo is an entity with human DNA and which has a principle of growth and maturation independent from the mother (again, I’m trying to state it scientifically, with no moral judgment). This “living principle” is what distinguishes an embryo from a clump of human-DNA-filled skin cells, which I think is clearly not a living entity.
You say you’d like to entertain my argument, so here is an article to get you started:
http://www.americanprinciplesproject.org/topics/life-issues/175-the-embryo-as-human-being-the-scientific-case.html
Here’s another way of thinking about embryos: I believe a 38-week born baby is a human being, scientifically speaking. I think the same about a 22-week prematurely-born baby. And I don’t see any good reason to distinguish between them besides development stage: in other words, they are both human beings but at different stages of development. Similarly, besides development, I don’t have any good way to distinguish between the 38- and 22- week olds from the 16-week old or the 8-week old. At 8 weeks, I see some kind of human entity with some kind of developing brain, lungs, limbs and a heartbeat. Is there a good way to distinguish between the 8-week embryo from the 22-week fetus, such that we can say that one is a human being and one isn’t? I don’t know of one, but I’m open to your alternate viewpoint.
3. “As I have said, if you believe abortion to be murder, then don’t have one.”
I’ve heard this argument before, but I need to better understand where you are coming from. Would you have a problem if I decided to abuse my wife? And do you think society should have a problem with my wife-beating such that they pass laws prohibiting me from abusing my wife? Or are you someone who thinks that neither society nor any individual should care about what happens in the privacy of my home between me and my wife. Understanding where you stand on my wife-beating would help me before I respond to your point on abortion.
Whether an embryo can be destroyed or not is entirely dependent upon whether that embryo is a “person” or not. This is not a moral distinction per se, but rather a legal one. Persons have rights that genetic materials, in and of itself, do not have. Some people thing that a zygote is a person, others do not. All people recognize assault as morally reprehensible, and all societies have laws against assault. There may be societies that recognize a legal right for a husband to assault, or even murder, his wife under certain circumstances; this is not one of those societies. Therefore, your analogy between abortion and wife-beating is not a valid one. It is interesting that many of those societies in which wife-beating is legal–I’m thinking primarily of Muslims cultures here–have outlawed abortion. Interesting, but perhaps not germaine.
Higher mammals have been cloned. Human beings will be cloned, if they haven’t been secretly cloned already. For this reason, as I’ve said before, almost any cell in the human body has, or will have, the potential to become a person. Many gray areas are seen by a large percentage of the citizenry concerning embryonic development and exaxtly what constitutes a “person” with legal rights which trump the rights of the woman in whose body it is developing and exactly when that developing embryo attains those rights.
I don’t know that science can answer that question. Any piece of tissue whatsoever can be identified by science as “human”; humaness is not the issue in the abortion question; the issue is personhood.
Rodak,
I don’t know think your answer was quite responsive to my point. I wasn’t talking about the moral or legal status of an embryo or person. I was talking about the scientific distinction between a human being and a clump of cells. Scientifically, there is something different between a human being and a corpse: both have human DNA, but one ALSO has some kind of principle of development and growth. Scientifically, there is something different between a human being and a skin cell. Scientifically, there is something different between (1) a skin cell and (2) taking the skin cell’s DNA and putting it into an egg cell without a nucleus and electroshocking it in order to make an entity that starts to grow and develop. Do you see a scientific difference between all of these things?
“Therefore, your analogy between abortion and wife-beating is not a valid one.”
Rodak, I didn’t make an analogy between abortion and wife-beating. I’m just curious about whether you are bothered by the wife-beating that I do in the privacy of my own home. If you are bothered by that, I’m curious to know why that bothers you, since it doesn’t really concern you.
Brettsalkeld writes, “Of course there is always the problem of who decides what God’s law is.”
As Catholics we know who decides what God’s law is. Of course I realize that we have to live in the situation in which we find ourselves, and the Church does not advocate the violent overthrow of secular governments. Nevertheless, Pope Leo makes clear that objectively speaking, having the state officially ignore God’s laws is a bad state of affairs.
NOTE: When I say that human beings will be cloned, I realize that human embryos have already been cloned. What I meant was that human clones will be born and walk amongst us, leaving no doubt as to their personhood.
Much of the pro-choice community is willing to outlaw third-trimester abortion on the basis that these fetuses are viable outside of the mother’s body and have clearly developed to the point where they can be legally defined as “persons.” I have no argument with that position.
That said, it is also true that a large percentage of the pro-life community is also anti-birth control. Thus, for these individuals, “personhood” begins even before conception, with the mere possibility of conception, according to an alleged “natural law” which proclaims a supposed “teleology of sex.” How is one to take such individuals seriously? By enacting this belief they remove the most effective anti-abortion tool available–the prevention of pregnancies at high risk for being aborted.
In truth, “natural law” is merely a philosophical invention. There are laws of nature, to be sure. And according to those laws, most sex acts do not result in conceptions, and many if not most conceptions do not result in live births. Nature is profligate with life and that is the only law that partakes of reality.
Pope Leo would say that, wouldn’t Pope Leo? Just like Tony the Tiger would say “Eat corn flakes!”
Rodak:
Are you Catholic? This is not meant to be insulting, it’s just that I noticed you are at odds with the magisterium on various points. I don’t know whether I should use magisterial teachings as premises from which to dispute your points. Obviously if you’re not Catholic such premises would hold no weight with you.
The bottom line is this: God is the Creator. God made everything and now sustains all that He made. He made things they way they are. And they way they are is ipso facto God’s law. They way things work, the way things can be seen to happen, that is God’s revealed Law. God’s law is not what Pope Leo (or anybody else) opines is the way things oughta be.
Agellius–
No, I’m not a Catholic. The magisterium is right where it’s right and wrong where it’s wrong. I’m not a Catholic, but I’ve read many Catholic writers, both old and newer, as well as many Protestant philosophers and theologians. What I look for is intellectual consistency and factual confirmation. While I agree with Simone Weil that “Contradiction is the lever of transcendence,” I also recognize that blatant falsehood does not provide a stable platform from which to make one’s leap of faith. An opinion, stated as a fact, constitutes a falsehood, as such. When I see this, I flag it. I am always happy to be shown that I’m wrong, since the correction of error is an act of charity.
Rodak: Oohhh! Well, God bless you, and that helps me to understand where you’re coming from.
Thank you, Agellius–
Please understand that I am not necessarily advocating abortion, or trying to suggest that it should be a morally neutral choice. My argument is based strictly on the reality of the situation as it now stands. As there is no consensus on the issue, and little chance that one will ever be reached, it becomes, by default, a political and/or legal issue. In the former case, it becomes and issues of numbers. In the latter case, it becomes an issue of reconciling scientific data with existing law. For the individual, however, it is always a moral choice. Or at least it should be.
I get that. What I would point out is that your arguments assume the context of the temporal political situation, and specifically a democracy. Within that context it is a political/legal issue and involves the factors you enumerate.
Personally I think the moral aspect is a far higher consideration, and further, that the moral aspect *ought* to be the greatest factor influencing the law. Nevertheless as I’ve said elsewhere, the Church does not advocate the overthrow of the government and neither do I.
But I think the Founders, particularly if they were devout Christians as some claim, made a grave error in not requiring that the laws of the land be consistent with objective standards of Christian morality, rather than just assuming that Americans would remain Christian forever and letting them make whatever laws they pleased.
For goodness sake, Agellius, what you are advocating for the Founders is precisely that which the original colonists came here to escape from in Europe. Plus, the idea that the Founders were “devout Christians” is a myth. They were, by and large, men of the Enlightenment, skeptics, and Deists.
If abortion is to be outlawed, it should be through the mechanism of a constitutional amendment declaring the fetus to be a person. That would put an end to the practice, pretty much permanently, since it would take another constitutional amendment to overthrow it (unlike a court decision.)
I disagree. The original colonists did not come because they were opposed to official religion as an abstract principle. They came to escape persecution. By and large the earliest colonists were religious groups, and ran their colonies on religious principles.
As to the Founders, I agree that they were not universally Christian nor universally devout. But some of them were Christian and some were devout, and I don’t believe any of them envisioned the United States becoming a predominantly secular country, nor forbidding official expressions of piety or utilizing Christian moral principles in framing laws. If that were their intention as a body, then they could have written such things expressly into the Constitution. The fact that official prayers and expressions of piety were the norm for the first 150 years or so, confirms that the original intent was not to outlaw such things. The reason we started outlawing official expressions of piety was not because the Founders intended that it be so, but because majority opinion turned against it, or at least became indifferent.
I don’t advocate the government persecuting any religious group, nor a government-sponsored and -supported church. I simply think the government should not make laws that oppose divine law.
I consider this viewpoint unavoidable for anyone who believes the Catholic religion to be objectively true. The Bible itself says that rulers derive their legitimate authority from God. It follows that when any government makes laws that are opposed to divine law, those laws are objectively illegitimate. When a government adopts as a governing principle the idea that divine law is to be ignored, then its entire legitimacy as a government necessarily becomes questionable.
However, note again that I do not advocate overthrowing the government. But I do think the whole idea of government ignoring divine law in favor of “the will of the people” is illegitimate and wrong. Viewed from the Christian perspective of a fallen world, how could the majority opinion of any nation, in and of itself, be a reliable guide to good behavior and just government? For me to believe that it could, would require abandoning the doctrine of original sin and man’s fallen nature, which in turn would cause me to cease being a Catholic.
You misunderstood what I said. The persecution the Mayflower pilgrims, for instance, were fleeing was the persecution imposed by a state religion by congregrationists of another sect. Of course they were religious; religion was their priority.
As for the Founders, they wrote God into the fabric of some documents, but not Christ. Their God was the Enlightenment, Deist God; the God that has been called the Watchmaker; i.e., a Creator who made the world and then moved on.
The problem with your position is that it is sectarian. When you say “Christian morality,” you really mean “Catholic morality.” You don’t, in moments of complete honesty, believe that anybody other than a Catholic is really a Christian. Therefore, what you are really advocating is a Catholic theocracy. I know that you can’t admit that, because it is un-American, but your every comment makes it implicit. Catholicism enforces upon members of the American Church a kind of cognitive dissonance: the political right brain is not in communication with the left brain of the Faith. You must believe in the absolute priority of two opposing ideals simultaneously. I sympathize.
If by “theocracy” you mean government by priests or bishops, that is not what I advocate. I deny this not because I “can’t admit” it, but because it’s just not what I advocate, and neither does the Church. And I do not “believe in the absolute priority of two opposing ideals simultaneously”, because I do not consider American democracy any kind of an “absolute priority”, nor an ideal.
Democracy is fine with me, and it’s fine with the Church. What’s not fine is having human laws that violate God’s laws. I don’t even care how it comes about that laws do not violate God’s laws. I don’t care if it’s a Muslim government that brings it about, or a Protestant government, or a secular government, so long as God’s laws are not violated. That being said, of course I believe the ideal way to bring that about would be to have the government submit its judgment to the judgment of the Church, with respect to the morality of its laws. However this, to me, would not make a government a theocracy, because it would not require the Church to actively govern. Rather, it would only require the legislative body and the courts to consult Catholic moral teaching.
I’m not sure why you say that the problem with my position is that it’s “sectarian”. By what standard is it a “problem” to hold a position that is “sectarian”? Are you saying it’s illogical? Or incompatible with some other standard? If so, what standard?
I don’t want to be misunderstood, Agellius. When I say that I sympathize, I’m not being snide; I really do. I think that if I were a devout Catholic, I would have a hard time living under the U.S. constitution.
I appreciate your sympathy. Seriously. But let me clarify that it’s not the Constitution itself that I have a hard time living under. It’s living under laws that violate God’s laws that is at times quite distressing.
Yes, but surely you realize that it is the U.S. constitution, and its interpretation by the SCOTUS, that sustains those laws. In another time and place, you might not need to suffer that distress.
That said, if you want to be totally honest, you will admit that what you want to live under is not really God’s laws, but the laws of the Church. The Founders wrote the constitution and most of them believed in natural law. Some of them believed that natural law existed as decreed by the Creator. So some Church law, in the minds of some Americans, can be seen to be in conflict with some of God’s law as expressed in the constitution.
If you want to live exclusively according to the dictates of the Catholic Church, you will have to find yourself a nation that is a Catholic theocracy. The alternative to that (since the search for a theocracy is likely to be disappointing) is to withdraw from society altogether and live in some kind of separate community. It can be done. Look at the Amish, for example. The question then becomes: What are you willing to sacrifice in order to achieve what you claim to desire?
You are confusing two different issues. First, what governments should and should not do; second, how I choose to respond to what our government has actually done. My comments have been directed to the former, not the latter.
As a Catholic I believe that it’s wrong for governments to make laws that conflict with divine law, by which I mean the moral law. As a Catholic I believe the Church is the divinely appointed teacher of the moral law, and therefore a reliable teacher. Accordingly, I believe that if the government would consult Catholic moral teaching in the making of laws, it could avoid making laws that conflict with the moral law. And that would be a good thing. Whereas making laws that conflict with the moral law is a bad thing.
Is there a problem with this line of thinking? If it’s fallacious then show me the fallacy.
If you think it’s fine and dandy for the government to make laws that violate the moral law, then I will find it hard to believe that you care about the moral law. When one believes in the moral law, then by definition he does not want it violated, because by definition, to violate it is bad. The fact that a majority of people prefer a law which violates the moral law, has no bearing on its objective badness.
As far as how I personally choose to deal with things as they are: As a Catholic I would like to see the Constitution changed such that the government and the courts are required to consult Catholic moral teaching in the making of laws. But I have no illusions that this will ever take place. We live in a vale of tears and I muddle through as best I can, and try to teach my kids to judge right and wrong objectively, and not trust that something is OK simply because most people prefer it.
Agellius–
You yourself state that you think the nation’s laws should be made according to the doctrine of your Church. That means that you would prefer to live in a Catholic theocracy. That’s all that I’m saying. Jews, Muslims, atheists, and Protestants (among others) don’t want to live under laws conforming in every aspect to the interpretation of God’s law made by the Catholic magisterium. And our constitution expressly forbids congress from the establishment of a state religion, which what you want would amount to its doing.
Your personal solution is the right one: do what you believe to be the moral thing and teach your children to do likewise. But don’t bring it into the political arena in any other form than working toward amendments to the Constitution that will remove an issue (such as abortion) from the arena of sectarian religion and establish it as secular law.
Now, if I am contradicting myself, please show me where.
Rodak:
I don’t agree with your statement of my position. I never said that “the nation’s laws should be made according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church”.
However this seems to be one of those cases where we might take quite a long time to understand each other. Probably we’ve taken enough space in this comment thread on what is really a side issue, but I would be glad to continue by email if you want. If you click on my name you will find a “contact me” form, and then we can exchange emails. If not that’s fine too.
You say:
“I never said that “the nation’s laws should be made according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church”.
But earlier you had said:
“…I believe the ideal way to bring that about would be to have the government submit its judgment to the judgment of the Church…”
I don’t think that we need to continue this via email, because we’ve both stated our positions at some length. I continue to assert that what you advocate would constitute the establishment of Catholicism as the de facto offical state religion.
You disagree; but you do so because you see nothing wrong with it.
I thank you for a stimulating and civil argument. I enjoyed it very much.
For the record, I will just say that I disagree with your latest assessment of my position and I think you are putting words in my mouth.