A two domain view on abortion and homosexuality: rites and law

[Black_Rose]

Some political axes are influenced by religion; for instance, those who oppose abortion, homosexuality, and embryonic stem cell research are almost always those who embrace Christian theology with atheists and agnostics being insignificant exceptions to this general rule. The converse, however, is not valid since a nominal Christian/Catholic identity does not translate into opposition against the aforementioned issues. As I journey through the Catholic Church as I become catechized (my parents already had me baptized by I was never raised Catholic), I except to adopt the orthodox Catholic position on these issues, but I have no intention to project my views in a moralistically imperialist fashion. Instead, I see Church teaching as a “code of rites” regulating individual conduct that is voluntarily adhered but not universally applicable. Church teaching does not dictate the rule of law which is universally applicable to all citizens and adherence is not optional. This approach is pragmatic because it respects people’s differing values in a diverse multicultural society and fosters an environment of tolerance although such diversity may erode social capital since people do not share the same homogeneous views. While abortion is considered acceptable within the rule of law, those bound by the “code of rites” are prohibited from procuring abortions. However, this should not be mistaken as complacency towards abortion. Because I am relying on an analogy based on an oriental (Confucianism Ru Jia) instead of an occidental understanding of social conduct, I will post this to facilitate comprehension:

The Confucian Code of Rites (Liji) is expected to be the controlling document on civilized behavior, not law. In the Confucian world view, rule of law is applied only to those who have fallen beyond the bounds of civilized behavior. Civilized people are expected to observe proper rites. Only social outcasts are expected to have their actions controlled by law. Thus the rule of law is considered a state of barbaric primitiveness, prior to achieving the civilized state of voluntary observation of proper rites. What is legal is not necessarily moral or just.

The ideal state rests on a stable society over which a virtuous and benevolent sovereign/emperor rules by moral persuasion based on a Code of Rites rather than by law. Justice would emerge from a timeless morality that governs social behavior. Man would be orderly out of self-respect for his own moral character rather than from fear of punishment prescribed by law.

atimes.com/atimes/China/EG24Ad01.html

From the Catholic perspective, one voluntarily abides by its “Code of Rites”, not because one fears punishment from a wrathful God but from one’s desire to meaningfully signal their greater love for God over themselves. Much like Confucianism, Catholicism tends to associate virtue with power at least within its own hierarchy since Bishops and the Pope are regarded as Vicars of Christ similar to how an emperor’s legitimacy is derived from* tianming* (Mandate of Heaven).

 

[the_hazel_nut]

Sounds reasonable enough to me, but I think the stance of the church is actually that we can’t support the legalization of same sex marriage or abortion. I’m not 100% sure though… trying to find a papal encyclical right now