Archbishop Chaput critiques famous JFK 'Houston speech' [CC]

[rlg94086]

You advice is very excellent, Robert. My Ph.D. in History is from Ball State University, 1984. Not Ivy League, I grant you.

I would have a REAL problem with a non-Catholic candidate who sought to impose his religious beliefs on me via civic law. It would be an abrigement of my free exercise of religion. If S/he believes that shooting dice and poker are immoral, then by all means I would stronger urge her/him not to shoot dice or gamble. That would be their decision, not mine.

How is a ban on gambling “an abrigement” of your “free exercise of religion?”

Again, gambling is illegal in many parts of the United States, and there is nothing unconstitutional about banning gambling. The 18th Amendment was completely licit (only 2 states didn’t ratify it) and was driven by the Temperance Movement, which was very religious in its genesis. It was repealed by the 21st Amendment.

You are going to have to come up with a better example, because history shows that you are incorrect. While you may have a problem with someone banning the manufacture/transportation/sale of alcohol, the will of the people could make it so. The will of one person, however, is nothing to fear.

 

[the_phoenix]

I don’t see the big issue here. The Archbishop said that President Kennedy’s statement FED the erroneous idea that one could govern independent of one’s moral faith. It’s irrelevant whether JFK’s speech fed this belief or not. It is true that many people in public life believe that they can call themselves people of faith and support laws that are contrary to their faith, simply because they are law, as if we had never had immoral laws.

What is relevant is the fact that lawyers, judges, legislators, governors, presidents and other people in public office believe that a person can vote contrary to his moral conscience and remain a credible person.

The question is, does a credible person violate his moral conscience for the sake of his constitutency or for the sake of a law that he knows is immoral?

One’s moral conscience is the highest expression of one’s humanity, because no other creature except man has a moral conscience. To act contrary to that conscience is to act contrary to the quality that makes man an image and likeness of his Creator.

This is not about imposing that all people must go to mass on Sunday or Temple on Saturday. This is about people being honest. If they are truly Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, etc, then we would expect them to act and vote according to their moral convictions. A man who votes contrary to his moral conscience is either lying about his conscience or lying to his constituency, just to keep a job and the power that goes with it.

If a man can betray his conscience, what is to keep him from betraying his constituency? On the other hand, if a man has no conscience, does he have any business in public life?

If you’re a person of faith, but lay it aside for the sake of plurality, do you have any business calling yourself Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Baptist, etc? Why do some Catholics believe that they can be on both sides of a moral issue? No other faith group tolerates such behavior. Why shoudl we Catholics tolerate it?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ender]

I would have a REAL problem with a non-Catholic candidate who sought to impose his religious beliefs on me via civic law. It would be an abrigement of my free exercise of religion. If S/he believes that shooting dice and poker are immoral, then by all means I would stronger urge her/him not to shoot dice or gamble. That would be their decision, not mine.

The concern that a president of any persuasion can impose his personal beliefs, religious or otherwise, is farcical. A president simply doesn’t have the power to do it and JFK would have done us all a favor to have pointed that out and ridiculed the entire concept. As the debate over Obamacare shows, passing laws imposing anything requires the consent of Congress. Even if the presidency had been granted such power it is still hardly conceivable (let alone reasonable) that a president of any faith would impose his religion on the country; that is simply not the approach religions use (other than perhaps Islam). The danger comes from committed ideologues intent on imposing their will, whatever it is and however it was formed. The old irrational concern over a Catholic president has now metastasized into a new irrational concern about religious people in the government in general.

Ender

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Should a politician (congressman or senator) vote against legislation legalizing same-sex marriage if that politician believes, based on his/her faith, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman? If they do, is that an imposition of one’s religious beliefs on the populace?

First of all, there are a plethora of reasons (pro and con) about same-sex marriage which do not involve religion. Next, as a Catholic, **I would not want a Catholic politician to vote against it for the reason that he or she believes it violates Catholic precepts. **If the politician does not favor it and thereby votes against it, fine by me. Don’t use religion as a reason for making civil decisions in our pluralistic society. Next they’d be making it mandatory for everyone to do their ‘Easter duty’.

All a politician has to do is say: “I’ve heard argument pro and con on this issue from many sources, including Church officials. I find the con arguments to be persuasive.”

Do you think a Catholic judge should grant a divorce?

Do you think a Catholic judge should marry couples?

 

[rlg94086]

First of all, there are a plethora of reasons (pro and con) about same-sex marriage which do not involve religion. Next, as a Catholic, **I would not want a Catholic politician to vote against it for the reason that he or she believes it violates Catholic precepts. **If the politician does not favor it and thereby votes against it, fine by me. Don’t use religion as a reason for making civil decisions in our pluralistic society. Next they’d be making it mandatory for everyone to do their ‘Easter duty’.

Actually, that’s pretty ridiculous reasoning. You can vote pro or against anything for religious or non-religious reasons, if you disagree with it. The ‘Easter duty’ non-issue is a different story. ‘Easter duty’ is a religious requirement, and would infringe on the First Amendment rights. However, if you wanted to vote for no non-essential businesses to be open on Sunday or no liquor sold on Sunday (I know that is the law in many states), there is nothing wrong with that. It has been done in the past.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Actually, that’s pretty ridiculous reasoning.

Then you must disagree, I guess.

What about divorces and marriages for a Catholic judge?

 

[rlg94086]

Then you must disagree, I guess.

Indeed. I more than disagree. Voting for something according to your religious beliefs is part of what voting your conscience entails. It is absolutely inane to think that a Catholic should not consider Catholic precepts when supporting or opposing a piece of legislation. In fact, this is the very problem that the Archbishop and Cardinal George are referring to.

An atheist judges things according to their beliefs; a buddhist to their beliefs; a muslim to their beliefs; etc. All are allowed to vote their conscience. You can’t infringe on the ability of others to practice their religion, but, as I alluded to before, voting for temperance or against gambling does not prevent someone from practicing their religion. Banning abortion does not prevent someone from practicing their religion.
Beau Ouiville:

What about divorces and marriages for a Catholic judge?

If I understand correctly, the requirements for a judge are a little bit different. They have to adjudicate according to the law - they don’t make or vote for laws. Ditto for lawyers and policemen. I don’t know if there is room for conscience clauses though…I’m not an expert in this area. Is it possible for a particular judge not to handle divorce cases? Is it possible for a judge not to marry certain people due to religious beliefs? There are other judges.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is a some latitude when it comes to interpretation. For example, I believe in some cases where a pregnant woman and her unborn child have been killed, they have considered both murders…even though killing an unborn child is allowed in an abortion clinic. Certainly, the judge/lawyer’s belief that an unborn child is a human life worth protecting would come into play here. Is that a problem?

 

[JReducation]

From where I sit, the problem centers on abortion. If the Catholic Church’s position on abortion were not so certain and consistent as it is, no one would care less if any public servant referred to his or her conscience to support or challenge laws. The issue here seems to be more a defense of choice, than it does an issue with faith and its influence on government.

It is equally unfortunate that some Catholics believe that civil law has the right to legalize what is immoral. It is more unfortunate that some Catholics believe that one can be a faithful Catholic and tolerate a law that is immoral. One cannot be faithful to two opposites.

If I am a faithful Catholic, then I am faithful to the moral teachings of the Church. If there is a law that is contrary to those truths, to let it go unchallenged is an act of infidelity to what one professes to believe is the truth.

The state exists for the good of its citizens. It has a moral duty to protect its citizens from falsehood. It is the duty of every citizen, public servant or constituent, to move the state in toward moral government. The only way that this is going to happen is when citizens and public servants vote according to moral truth.

For a Catholic to allow the pro-choice law to go unchallenged is immoral and unpatriotic. One who loves his country always promotes what is good for the country. It is true that there are going to be different opinions concerning what is good for the country. That is how the democratic system works. All those opinions get equal opportunity to be heard. But equal opportunity to be heard does not mean that one allows an incorrect opinion to rule when one can do something about it.

No one respects and protects pluralism more than the Catholic Church. It is the only organized religion that has a written law on religious freedom and on the duty of every human being to protect religious freedom. Religious freedom means that there will be people of many faiths or no faith. They must be treated with justice and not be coerced to accept any faith, but they must come to the faith freely. However, religious freedom does not mean that there is a right to legalize what is immoral or to let immoral legislation go unchallenged. While I may never force another person to become a Catholic, I may never be passive in the face of immoral laws either. No one needs abortion to be a good Methodist, Jew, Buddhist, atheist or agnostic.

The obligation to challenge sin and immoral laws is a fundamental truth that is accepted by every faith. If there is one thing that unites people of all faiths it is this shared belief. Those who think that immoral laws should be allowed to exist, because other people believe they are right, are placing themselves outside of their faith community, regardless of what that faith may be. There is no faith community in the world, not matter how primitive that faith may be, that teaches that immoral laws must be allowed to exist unchallenged.

In conclusion, you cannot be a Catholic and allow abortion right legislation to go unchallenged. This is what some people want to do. Some Catholics are upset, because the Church is saying that you may not do that and if you do, you are objectively in a state of grave sin. The sin is not because one votes contrary to the bishops’ opinions. The sin is because one votes contrary to the truth about the dignity of human life from conception to natural death. If you’re going to profess a faith, be faithful or leave it.

The first person to whom we have to be charitable is to ourselves. Charity to ourselves is to live according to the truth, not a civil law that is in conflict with the truth. That only creates a spiritual psychosis. Never do that to yourself or you will spend your entire life angry at your own faith. If I’m going to be angry at my faith, why stay? That’s like staying in an uncomfortable zone when you have the choice of moving on. Either embrace your faith and make your choices accordingly or do yourself a favor and disconnect, because you’re not happy with your faith. But always remember, you cannot define your faith any more than than you can make the rules for the Boy Scouts. It is what it is. We take it or leave it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

I don’t see the big issue here. The Archbishop said that President Kennedy’s statement FED the erroneous idea that one could govern independent of one’s moral faith.

Well, I can remember when one archdiocese (for obvious reasons) came out for state financial support of religious schools, which many believed to be unconstitutional. A Catholic politician may have been in a quandary over that one but a responsible legislator of any religion would have voted against the law.

I don’t know if the law rose to the level of a moral precept but I know it was a sticky issue.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

If I understand correctly, the requirements for a judge are a little bit different. They have to adjudicate according to the law - they don’t make or vote for laws. Ditto for lawyers and policemen. I don’t know if there is room for conscience clauses though…I’m not an expert in this area. Is it possible for a particular judge not to handle divorce cases? Is it possible for a judge not to marry certain people due to religious beliefs? There are other judges.

That’s an easy one but what about a Catholic legislator who must vote on a divorce bill in a situation like ‘alcohol in Kansas’. You remember out on the prairie when booze was officially illegal but you could find a drink anywhere?

What happens when a state goes to ‘no fault’ divorce after years of litigants having to lie about adultery or residency to get a divorce? How should a Catholic legislator vote his or her conscience on that one?

 

[rlg94086]

Well, I can remember when one archdiocese (for obvious reasons) came out for state financial support of religious schools, which many believed to be unconstitutional. A Catholic politician may have been in a quandary over that one but a responsible legislator of any religion would have voted against the law.

Well, yes and no. I’m going to receive federal financial aid to attend a Catholic College very soon. For some reason, that’s okay…but not elementary and high schools.

However, a Catholic politician could vote either way on that one. Catholics are not required by our faith to support State-funding of education. On the other hand, there is nothing unconstitutional about federal funds going to religious schools or organizations, as long as there is no discrimination (i.e. Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, Zoroastrian, etc.).

 

[rlg94086]

That’s an easy one but what about a Catholic legislator who must vote on a divorce bill in a situation like ‘alcohol in Kansas’. You remember out on the prairie when booze was officially illegal but you could find a drink anywhere?

What happens when a state goes to ‘no fault’ divorce after years of litigants having to lie about adultery or residency to get a divorce? How should a Catholic legislator vote his or her conscience on that one?

Strange questions.

A legislator should always vote their conscience. Are you thinking they should vote someone else’s conscience?

 

[rlg94086]

The state exists for the good of its citizens. It has a moral duty to protect its citizens from falsehood. It is the duty of every citizen, public servant or constituent, to move the state in toward moral government. The only way that this is going to happen is when citizens and public servants vote according to moral truth.

For a Catholic to allow the pro-choice law to go unchallenged is immoral and unpatriotic. One who loves his country always promotes what is good for the country. It is true that there are going to be different opinions concerning what is good for the country. That is how the democratic system works. All those opinions get equal opportunity to be heard. But equal opportunity to be heard does not mean that one allows an incorrect opinion to rule when one can do something about it.

No one respects and protects pluralism more than the Catholic Church. It is the only organized religion that has a written law on religious freedom and on the duty of every human being to protect religious freedom. Religious freedom means that there will be people of many faiths or no faith. They must be treated with justice and not be coerced to accept any faith, but they must come to the faith freely. However, religious freedom does not mean that there is a right to legalize what is immoral or to let immoral legislation go unchallenged. While I may never force another person to become a Catholic, I may never be passive in the face of immoral laws either. No one needs abortion to be a good Methodist, Jew, Buddhist, atheist or agnostic.

The obligation to challenge sin and immoral laws is a fundamental truth that is accepted by every faith. If there is one thing that unites people of all faiths it is this shared belief. Those who think that immoral laws should be allowed to exist, because other people believe they are right, are placing themselves outside of their faith community, regardless of what that faith may be. There is no faith community in the world, not matter how primitive that faith may be, that teaches that immoral laws must be allowed to exist unchallenged.

In conclusion, you cannot be a Catholic and allow abortion right legislation to go unchallenged. This is what some people want to do. Some Catholics are upset, because the Church is saying that you may not do that and if you do, you are objectively in a state of grave sin. The sin is not because one votes contrary to the bishops’ opinions. The sin is because one votes contrary to the truth about the dignity of human life from conception to natural death. If you’re going to profess a faith, be faithful or leave it.

Very well stated, Brother. The idea that we should live/vote based on the lowest common denominator of morality is a fairly new concept. It is what happens when moral relativism becomes the norm. A person who lives their life this way should call themselves agnostic, rather than Catholic.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

On the other hand, there is nothing unconstitutional about federal funds going to religious schools or organizations, as long as there is no discrimination (i.e. Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, Zoroastrian, etc.).

With respect, you are wrong on that one. That type of activity is exactly unconstitutional.

 

[recondelta]

                         ......

No one respects and protects pluralism more than the Catholic Church. It is the only organized religion that has a written law on religious freedom and on the duty of every human being to protect religious freedom. Religious freedom means that there will be people of many faiths or no faith. They must be treated with justice and not be coerced to accept any faith, but they must come to the faith freely. However, religious freedom does not mean that there is a right to legalize what is immoral or to let immoral legislation go unchallenged.
…
In conclusion, you cannot be a Catholic and allow abortion right legislation to go unchallenged. This is what some people want to do. Some Catholics are upset, because the Church is saying that you may not do that and if you do, you are objectively in a state of grave sin.
…
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I appreciate and respect the writings of Br. JR a great deal. But I must respectfully disagree with two of his comments in the abbreviated section of his recent post.

1: In *Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae *, written in 1899, Pope Leo XIII was critical of America’s view toward individual liberties and indicated that American Catholics were in particular to avoid ecumenical overtures toward other religions. This view changed only with Vatican II.

2: Br. JR’s “in conclusion” comment illustrates a major concern that JFK addressed: whether a Catholic politician - in particular the President - should be subjected to a religious penalty for a vote or any other action taken in a civil setting. If in fact the action is a sin, then that is a matter between that person and God. But if the Church structure takes a formal step such as excommunication, then it is punishing the person religiously for a civil action.

There are a lot of implications in 2: that many people may not realize. Suppose for example that a Catholic President were to sign a bill that contains abortion funding or authorizes “civil unions” or gay marriages. The local bishop cannot excommunicate the President; only the Pope could do that. (Google Dr. Edward Peters’ discussion on the Spanish monarchy for details.) Do you really think that this would happen? The Church would avoid the problem here in the same way it did in Belgium and will avoid it in Spain. The Church will adapt its political actions - BUT NEVER ITS MORAL STAND - if it feels it has to. The world - fortunately or unfortunately - is no longer the same place that it was at the end of the 19th. century.

The situation for local officials is a bit different, and more detailed, but discussing this case really would be off the topic of this thread.

 

[rep140]

should be subjected to a religious penalty for a vote or any other action taken in a civil setting. If in fact the action is a sin, then that is a matter between that person and God. But if the Church structure takes a formal step such as excommunication, then it is punishing the person religiously for a civil action.

A lot to think about. I think that this line of thought accounts for the Church criticism of liberation theology.

 

[rlg94086]

With respect, you are wrong on that one. That type of activity is exactly unconstitutional.

Really? Then, explain why students at Catholic universities are able to receive federal funds?

financialaid.nd.edu/undergraduate/scholarships/

Undergraduate Scholarships & Grants Information
Notre Dame Scholarships
Notre Dame Alumni Club Scholarships
Federal Academic Competitiveness Grant** (AC Grant) **
Federal National SMART Grant
Federal Pell Grant
Federal Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant
State Sponsored Scholarships and Grants
Private Scholarships
ROTC Scholarships

Why does the university receive research grants? There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the dispersement of funds to a religious institution for the good of society. That isn’t establishment of religion. I know that legal minds have twisted it to mean that, but for some reason they don’t have the intestinal fortitude to go after the funding of Catholic colleges…yet. I’m sure your buddies at the ACLU have it on their to-do list and will eventually get to it.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Really? Then, explain why students at Catholic universities are able to receive federal funds?

The court, in an example of judicial activism, carved out a big difference for aid on the college level.

There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the dispersement of funds to a religious institution for the good of society.

Are you sure? How would you know?

I know that legal minds have twisted it to mean that, but for some reason they don’t have the intestinal fortitude to go after the funding of Catholic colleges…yet. I’m sure your buddies at the ACLU have it on their to-do list and will eventually get to it.

Nope. That ship has sailed.

 

[rlg94086]

The court, in an example of judicial activism, carved out a big difference for aid on the college level.

Are you sure? How would you know?

Nope. That ship has sailed.

I’ve read the Constitution. It’s not there. The fact that the courts have “carved out a big difference for aid on the college level” is evidence enough for me that it isn’t unconstitutional. The courts often interpret the Constitution to suit their desires. Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

I’ve read the Constitution. It’s not there.

OK, have you read the cases?

The fact that the courts have “carved out a big difference for aid on the college level” is evidence enough for me that it isn’t unconstitutional. The courts often interpret the Constitution to suit their desires. Thank you for proving my point.

Maybe dispensing funds to a religious organization for it to do good and aiding higher education are two different things, huh? The Supreme Court seems to think so. Was that your point?