Catholic and a Pluralist?

[ozmatt]

I’m in a bit of a quandary.
I’m 16 years old and trying to devise my political stance on a variety of issues, and I am finding myself to have an increasingly pluralistic stance to most issues.

Being a strong and active Catholic, I am committed to living according to my faith, however, as a government is meant to be independent of any other centres of power, secular and in effect “everyman’s church”, can I as a Catholic person accept that government and law’s prerogative is to be pluralistic? It is meant to facilitate for all people to live according to their own values, and so can’t I just concern myself with how I carry out my own decisions and life in line with my own? Or should my priority be to create a system perfectly in line with my beliefs… in other words, is it fair to think that we should lobby for what is in effect an enforcement of our beliefs in a secular system, impacting on ALL people of ALL beliefs?

May God Bless you and all those you meet ,

Matt from Canberra, Australia

 

[blessedtoo]

It really depends on the issue. If you are talking about issues like illegal immigration, taxes, poverty programs, and environmental issues, then you have flexibility in how you apply your faith in the culture. When you are talking about issues like abortion or homosexual marriage, then you are dealing with objective evils that can be argued without even introducing religion. Using your logic,

It is meant to facilitate for all people to live according to their own values,

what happens when my values tell me it’s fine to engage in sexual relations with children? What if my values allow me to marry more than one spouse? If all people lived according to their own values, without lobbying for some type of order based on a moral code, it would be utter chaos.

Or should my priority be to create a system perfectly in line with my beliefs… in other words, is it fair to think that we should lobby for what is in effect an enforcement of our beliefs in a secular system, impacting on ALL people of ALL beliefs?

Perfectly in line? I don’t think that’s possible. For example, as Catholics we understand that artificial contraception is intrinsically immoral. Should we lobby for contraception to become illegal? I don’t think so. However all people agree that murdering innocents is evil. This is not a Catholic belief, but a human one. The responsibility is on us to persuade the secular system of this truth.

 

[ozmatt]

Thanks blessedtoo,

Sorry, my first thread was poorly worded :banghead:… There are of course those undeniable, “inalienable” rights and laws that should not be contravened, and in the case of much early legislation the majority of society agreed to hence making them inalienable (thanks to the Catholic church, who has led (and continues to lead) much of the world to salvation in Communion with Christ, who gave us most of the Judeo-Christian tradition on which most law is based PRAISE GOD!).

Certainly for issues such as abortion the onus is on us to help people understand the issues that are too commonly ignored: ie. personhood begins upon conception, which I understand is the key fact that is ignored by ignorant “pro-choicer” supporters. However, now abortion is enshrined in law… if it came down to a referendum and the majority agreed to the legality of abortion (god forbid):bigyikes: can we argue against the right of “choice” now given to all if it carries the promulgation of the majority of people?

I’m also interested, how do we negotiate in wholly secular terms that homosexual marriage is an objective evil?

Love and Peace,

Matt

 

[Rach620]

Being a strong and active Catholic, I am committed to living according to my faith, however, as a government is meant to be independent of any other centres of power, secular and in effect “everyman’s church”, can I as a Catholic person accept that government and law’s prerogative is to be pluralistic? It is meant to facilitate for all people to live according to their own values, and so can’t I just concern myself with how I carry out my own decisions and life in line with my own? Or should my priority be to create a system perfectly in line with my beliefs… in other words, is it fair to think that we should lobby for what is in effect an enforcement of our beliefs in a secular system, impacting on ALL people of ALL beliefs?

The modern understanding of the purpose of politics is very different from the classical–and in my opinion, correct–one.

I see you’re in Australia, but nonetheless, I’ll refer you to an excerpt from Federalist No. 57, written in 1788 as the American Founding Fathers debated the best kind of government to be established through our Constitution. It pretty concisely explains a view of government which is almost entirely at odds with the necessarily secular and ‘pluralistic’ one you are describing and endorsing.

“The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous while they continue to hold their public trust.”

Isn’t it pretty obvious that we’ve lost this idea of a political community in the world today, instead viewing politics only in terms of power? But the real purpose of politics and of any government shouldn’t be the distribution of power, but the creation of a community of people who together will seek the common good–the best life for all of its members.

This language of virtue means that we have to identify that there is a right and a wrong way to live. That’s something today’s ‘secular’ societies are very, VERY reluctant to do. We no longer have any organizing mode for our governance because we no longer have any true or consistent principles guiding us. The purpose of government is so much MORE than to simply allow everyone to enjoy all the liberties they could possibly desire, for that system does not strive for the common good but for individual pleasure.

If you believe something is right, you believe it is right for a reason, and that reason should then apply to all others–so what is objectively right for you is also objectively right for all other people. Same goes when we determine that a certain action is a wrong one. So whatever anyone says about being ‘tolerant’ of others’ values really doesn’t matter. People have been ‘tolerant’ of others conflicting values on really important issues for too long–and that is how injustice has flourished in so many of our political systems.

If you want to help bring about a truly effective government, don’t censor your own moral judgments. The point of politics really should be the promotion of values which will lead men to become virtuous and in turn lead to the common good. So do what is right.

 

[Rach620]

There are of course those undeniable, “inalienable” rights and laws that should not be contravened, and in the case of much early legislation the majority of society agreed to hence making them inalienable.

Inalienable rights are not inalienable because the majority of society has said they are. There is a natural law which is higher than civil law–we know that by virtue of being human, every person has an inherent dignity and the inalienable right to life, liberty, and happiness.

However, now abortion is enshrined in law… if it came down to a referendum and the majority agreed to the legality of abortion (god forbid):bigyikes: can we argue against the right of “choice” now given to all if it carries the promulgation of the majority of people?

Morality is not determined by popular vote. Even if everyone in the world said that abortion is legal/ethical/morally licit it wouldn’t be. Objectively speaking–apart from what any human being says–abortion is evil.

But you’ve hit on a huge problem in modern society here, one which is almost unresolvable–people are so far from being able to recognize that we can objectively say whether a particular action is right or wrong that the terms have pretty much lost their meaning. Now morality is dictated by what the law says is right or wrong, not what God and His Natural Law says is right or wrong.

I’m also interested, how do we negotiate in wholly secular terms that homosexual marriage is an objective evil?

I’m not sure you can. You can argue based on the religious truths of the nature of the human person and the nuptial meaning of the body and the sacredness of marriage, but as the civil law regarding marriage isn’t based on any of those things, it’s hard to bring them to bear. You could probably bring in different information about how the traditional family has for all of recorded history been the bedrock of civilization, and point towards potential issues with upsetting that situation, but that argument probably won’t be valued by many opponents.

But then again, it is more than likely that your opponents can’t argue that homosexual marriage is an objective good. They might pretend they’re being ‘rational’ about their approach, but really, upon what is their whole argument based, besides the feeling that “oh it’s just not right to deny this to gay couples”?

 

[blessedtoo]

Did you say you were only 16??? Can’t believe that. God has blessed you, friend.

Certainly for issues such as abortion the onus is on us to help people understand the issues that are too commonly ignored: ie. personhood begins upon conception, which I understand is the key fact that is ignored by ignorant “pro-choicer” supporters.

Well put.

However, now abortion is enshrined in law… if it came down to a referendum and the majority agreed to the legality of abortion (god forbid) can we argue against the right of “choice” now given to all if it carries the promulgation of the majority of people?

At one time slavery was the majority opinion. At one time, a scant 40 years ago, the majority opinion was that abortion should be illegal. Just 40 years ago, sodomy was against the law. Objective moral truth is not vulnerable to majority opinion. It is not something subject to democratic process. It is either right or wrong. In the case of slavery, the process of convincing people of it’s moral evil unfortunately involved the sacrifice of hundres of thousands of lives (the Civil War). The abortion battle will require determination and resolve. There is no right to “choose” to take the life of an innocent.

I’m also interested, how do we negotiate in wholly secular terms that homosexual marriage is an objective evil?

I’m glad you asked!
tfp.org/tfc/1049_reasons_to_oppose_same-sex_%5Emarriage%5E.htm
peterkreeft.com/audio/11_moral-theology.htm
catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

Some of these articles you may have to sift through to find the more secular arguments but they are there. Give these a read and if you still need more, give a holler. God bless!

 

[ozmatt]

I’m sorry, I must be a little slow or something because I still need a hand with this.

Inalienable rights are not inalienable because the majority of society has said they are.

No, **they are in law **because the majority of society has said they are inalienable rights. Had the Judeo-Christian tradition not taught the importance of those rights from the beginning they would not have been “inalienable” because they would not have been agreed upon by, (in secular terms), “perceived” natural law.

However, **natural law **(if we are talking about Aquinas etc) as a concept does not, or rather cannot, function alongside the positive law that is meant to govern the development of legislation. While the positive/statutory laws can grow out of the innate natural law that (secularly speaking, because this is politics) theoretically all people agree to via their conscience, those laws that are inalienable still need to stand against empirical measurement.

blessedtoo:

Objective moral truth is not vulnerable to majority opinion. It is not something subject to democratic process. It is either right or wrong.

It is the very nature of objective moral truth that it transcends the view or will of people, but is an innate truth for all people (whether divinely inspired or otherwise), so I understand what you are saying. However, while I can disagree with say, gay marriage, and while I will not practice it nor preach it’s benefits, unless I can give truly empirical/objective reasons for the illegality, I cannot persuade it out of legislation. Objective moral truth cannot hold legislatively either.

So, in a system where I can disagree with certain actions that ARE legal, can I invest my hope in the thought that the process of **conflict and dialogue in politics **will lead to a definition and subsequent realisation of the common good that is best for all members of society, or at least agreeable to by all members of society? (ignoring in this instance **abortion which is **(as far as Catholics and most society should be concerned) TOTALLY ABHORRENT)

Thanks for all your help and God bless,

Matt

 

[fix]

However, while I can disagree with say, gay marriage, and while I will not practice it nor preach it’s benefits, unless I can give truly empirical/objective reasons for the illegality, I cannot persuade it out of legislation. Objective moral truth cannot hold legislatively either.

So, in a system where I can disagree with certain actions that ARE legal, can I invest my hope in the thought that the process of **conflict and dialogue in politics **will lead to a definition and subsequent realisation of the common good that is best for all members of society, or at least agreeable to by all members of society? (ignoring in this instance **abortion which is **(as far as Catholics and most society should be concerned) TOTALLY ABHORRENT)

Thanks for all your help and God bless,

Matt

You have a very complex topic and aspects of it are discussed here in many, many threads. The secularists and rationalist’s will claim Catholic teaching is simply one opinion among many competing in the public arena to try to sway folks to support or reject certain legislation.

They see democracy is simply the will of the majority with no regard to natural law or objective truth. They think our system is simply about raw power with no infusion of moral truth.

Have you read?:
LIBERTAS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON THE NATURE OF
HUMAN LIBERTY

 

[blessedtoo]

It is the very nature of objective moral truth that it transcends the view or will of people, but is an innate truth for all people (whether divinely inspired or otherwise), so I understand what you are saying. However, while I can disagree with say, gay marriage, and while I will not practice it nor preach it’s benefits, unless I can give truly empirical/objective reasons for the illegality, I cannot persuade it out of legislation. Objective moral truth cannot hold legislatively either.

Did you read the links I provided? In addition to arguing from the natural/law biological incompatibility of homosexuality, they also argue from the position that promoting such lifestyles are a detriment to society. Why do we have any laws? One could argue that we have laws against murder because of Judeo/Christian foundations, or one could argue that we don’t murder eachother because it would not benefit society. Same goes for homosexuality. As a completely sterile union, there is no benefit to society in the form of producing children to populate the state. Homosexuals have a significantly shorter life span as well as increased health risks. The family, with a mother and father, has always been the building block of a healthy society. The idea is to produce offspring who will become positive contributors for the good of the community. Allowing children to be raised in homosexual households (experimenting on children) goes against the natural order that exists in all species.

So, in a system where I can disagree with certain actions that ARE legal, can I invest my hope in the thought that the process of conflict and dialogue in politics will lead to a definition and subsequent realisation of the common good that is best for all members of society, or at least agreeable to by all members of society? (ignoring in this instance abortion which is (as far as Catholics and most society should be concerned) TOTALLY ABHORRENT)

If you are asking if you should continue to assert the truth and argue on behalf of that truth in whatever manner is effective, in spite of the overwhelming opposition, then I say yes, of course. While same-sex marriage may be the “flavor of the month” and abortion the law of the land, this does not mean that hearts and minds can’t be changed. We are comissioned to teach the truth in all things and our Catholic truth will never conflict with natural moral law, science, biology or whatever argument the secularists will accept.

 

[mikew262]

The answer is very simple:

Render unto Caesar, what is Caesar’s, render unto God what is God’s.

IAW, you are obliged to do your best to live under your government’s system and laws. You are also obliged to live your life according to God’s Word, the best you can. Depending upon the circumstances, it can be difficult at times, but entirely possible.

 

[Sixtus]

Though Catholic Church is autocratic, pluralism is the nature of Western politics. It is difficult to see how one can detach oneself unless one choses to live a hermit inside democracy