Concerns about the Church and law

[CatholicGeek1]

Let me start by giving some background. I am a Catholic and I firmly believe that many of the things being debated in our society currently are wrong. I believe homosexuality is wrong, I believe that abortion is wrong, I believe that the death penalty is wrong.

All of that being said, I am concerned about pushing these beliefs into law. My concern basically comes down to this, I am afraid that if a precedent gets set that codifies Christian beliefs into law, that this will open the door for other religious beliefs with which I and I believe the Church at large would have a problem with becoming law.

For example, if this precedent was set what would stop it from moving to implementing part or all of Sharia Law?

I am not trying to say that I don’t want these things to be made illegal. I do, I think they are horrible and would love to see them stopped, I just wonder if in the process though, we may be setting ourselves up for major problems down the road.

 

[MichaelHowling]

I get what you’re saying. But think about it.

ALL religions and ways of thinking influence the law…all religions are to influence the conscience of their believers so when they participate in the political sphere …they do so with an informed conscience.

This is going to happen whether we Christians permitt ourselves to have our consciences formed by our beliefs or not.

We are obligated to stand up for what’s right. For society, for God…and even for ourselves! Because, if we were to stay silent … would that improve our condition or make it even worse ?

God bless!
Have a good Holy Week

 

[Ad_Orientem]

All sorts of laws are already informed by the 10 Commandments. And it’s not only Christians that oppose the things you mention. There are “pro-life” atheists, for example. If someone proposed civil laws punishing people for missing Mass or for hate speech against the pope, that would be different.

 

[R_C]

Let me start by giving some background. I am a Catholic and I firmly believe that many of the things being debated in our society currently are wrong. I believe homosexuality is wrong, I believe that abortion is wrong, I believe that the death penalty is wrong.

All of that being said, I am concerned about pushing these beliefs into law. My concern basically comes down to this, I am afraid that if a precedent gets set that codifies Christian beliefs into law, that this will open the door for other religious beliefs with which I and I believe the Church at large would have a problem with becoming law.

For example, if this precedent was set what would stop it from moving to implementing part or all of Sharia Law?

I am not trying to say that I don’t want these things to be made illegal. I do, I think they are horrible and would love to see them stopped, I just wonder if in the process though, we may be setting ourselves up for major problems down the road.

You are not thinking about what comes next if these things don’t go into law.

Do you know how many unborn die every year in the US because there is no law against abortion? Over one million!

And do you know what will happen when “same-sex” marriage is allowed? That in the future, not too far, it will become a “civil right” for someone who claims to be bisexual to marry two people. That they will want to adopt children, who will find themselves with three parents. Sure, it’s a valid marriage, why not. We are all equal. That is why society should upheld that marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman. Lifelong, meaning divorce is also a disgrace that should not be allowed.

Now, of course we cannot affirm the truth through law - Christ made that very clear in the New Covenant. But in some things - especially abortion - lack of law means death of innocents, millions of innocents. Without even mentioning the psychological scarring of the mothers.

You have to understand that Christian beliefs are not just equal to other religious beliefs - they are optimal from the standpoint of reason. We can refute other religious beliefs by showing that they do not compare to the ones we hold, through reason alone. Also, I do not worry about other religions promoting their beliefs into law…so far, the only thing that is being promoted into law is antichristian, anti-religious, relativist beliefs.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Let me start by giving some background. I am a Catholic and I firmly believe that many of the things being debated in our society currently are wrong. I believe homosexuality is wrong, I believe that abortion is wrong, I believe that the death penalty is wrong.

All of that being said, I am concerned about pushing these beliefs into law. My concern basically comes down to this, I am afraid that if a precedent gets set that codifies Christian beliefs into law, that this will open the door for other religious beliefs with which I and I believe the Church at large would have a problem with becoming law.

For example, if this precedent was set what would stop it from moving to implementing part or all of Sharia Law?

I am not trying to say that I don’t want these things to be made illegal. I do, I think they are horrible and would love to see them stopped, I just wonder if in the process though, we may be setting ourselves up for major problems down the road.

Hi Catholic Geek, I certainly understand your concerns, and the threat of a theocracy can be a frightening one. However, I don’t think the Church is trying to impose a theocratic government nor enshrine religious beliefs in law. There are no calls to legislate against working on Sunday or enforced Mass attendance. All these examples you mention - bar capital punishment, which is not strictly forbidden by the Church - are instances of natural law.

Abortion kills an innocent human being. The wrongness of this act is morally evident through philosophy and science alone, and does not require any religious beliefs. That’s why you find pro-life atheists and agnostics. Similarly, homosexual marriage is against natural law and the purpose and definition of marriage. Again, it does not require a religion to understand this.

Just because religious people are pushing these cases doesn’t mean the cases themselves are religious. If that were the case, you would have to dismiss international law to prevent genocide instigated by Jewish lawyers because they religious, and this is clearly nonsense.

 

[JaKael02]

Hi Catholic Geek, I certainly understand your concerns, and the threat of a theocracy can be a frightening one. However, I don’t think the Church is trying to impose a theocratic government nor enshrine religious beliefs in law. There are no calls to legislate against working on Sunday or enforced Mass attendance. All these examples you mention - bar capital punishment, which is not strictly forbidden by the Church - are instances of natural law.

Good point! Reason, Natural Law, and Morality should all align when understood properly, and thus points us towards the Catholic Church. Thus we not focus on the theocratic elements, but the natural elements to become law.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

All sorts of laws are already informed by the 10 Commandments. And it’s not only Christians that oppose the things you mention.

There were also secular arguments for some of those laws, but not all of them. There have also been laws that were based on or inspired by the 10 commandments that have been revoked as unconstitutional (ex: Blue laws). This especially comes to mind now for me because the last blue law that I could identify for the area where I live has been going through revocations (first at the state level, then the county level, and then the city level).

At this point enforcement of the first 3 or 4 commandments (depending on which numbering you use) would be unconstitutional. While I encourage children to be respectful of their parents in general I’m not sure how the commandment for it has been expressed in law. The same for desiring for your neighbor’s goods.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

While I encourage children to be respectful of their parents in general I’m not sure how the commandment for it has been expressed in law. The same for desiring for your neighbor’s goods.

Good point. Some of the Commandments are more focused on abstract things like interior dispositions, which would be much harder if not impossible to prove in a court of law. While determining motive is an important part of jurisprudence, it seems that it is always in reference to a visible act (e.g. murder).

In Catholicism, the commandment about honoring parents is understood as encompassing respect and obedience to legitimate authority in general, including civil government. In that sense the Commandment certainly finds expression in civil law, though perhaps not consciously in relation to it.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

I get what you’re saying. But think about it.

ALL religions and ways of thinking influence the law…all religions are to influence the conscience of their believers so when they participate in the political sphere …they do so with an informed conscience.

This is going to happen whether we Christians permitt ourselves to have our consciences formed by our beliefs or not.

We are obligated to stand up for what’s right. For society, for God…and even for ourselves! Because, if we were to stay silent … would that improve our condition or make it even worse ?

God bless!
Have a good Holy Week

I certainly agree that we should stand up for what is right. I am just wondering if it should be done through having laws enacted or if it should be done by discussion, debate, etc to try and persuade people to make moral choices.

Perhaps we need both, and I am not against making things illegal, I just worry that perhaps doing so sets us up for unforeseen problems down the road.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

You are not thinking about what comes next if these things don’t go into law.

Do you know how many unborn die every year in the US because there is no law against abortion? Over one million!

And do you know what will happen when “same-sex” marriage is allowed? That in the future, not too far, it will become a “civil right” for someone who claims to be bisexual to marry two people. That they will want to adopt children, who will find themselves with three parents. Sure, it’s a valid marriage, why not. We are all equal. That is why society should upheld that marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman. Lifelong, meaning divorce is also a disgrace that should not be allowed.

Now, of course we cannot affirm the truth through law - Christ made that very clear in the New Covenant. But in some things - especially abortion - lack of law means death of innocents, millions of innocents. Without even mentioning the psychological scarring of the mothers.

You have to understand that Christian beliefs are not just equal to other religious beliefs - they are optimal from the standpoint of reason. We can refute other religious beliefs by showing that they do not compare to the ones we hold, through reason alone. Also, I do not worry about other religions promoting their beliefs into law…so far, the only thing that is being promoted into law is antichristian, anti-religious, relativist beliefs.

I just want to make sure that I am being very clear, I am not in favor of abortion or same sex marriage. I am very much against both of these things. I just worry about the path that we might go down by involving religion in government. I also worry about involving ant-religion in government. I guess I am just wondering how separate/not separate the two things should be.

Perhaps my concerns are unfounded, I am just throwing it out there to get other opinions to help me decide if my concerns are warranted or not.

 

[JohnTomHoc]

Let me start by giving some background. I am a Catholic and I firmly believe that many of the things being debated in our society currently are wrong. I believe homosexuality is wrong, I believe that abortion is wrong, I believe that the death penalty is wrong.

All of that being said, I am concerned about pushing these beliefs into law. My concern basically comes down to this, I am afraid that if a precedent gets set that codifies Christian beliefs into law, that this will open the door for other religious beliefs with which I and I believe the Church at large would have a problem with becoming law.

For example, if this precedent was set what would stop it from moving to implementing part or all of Sharia Law?

I am not trying to say that I don’t want these things to be made illegal. I do, I think they are horrible and would love to see them stopped, I just wonder if in the process though, we may be setting ourselves up for major problems down the road.

This was my position until recently. Does the Church want to establish a theocracy – that is, a political order which is human but USES obedience to God as a means to maintain political order, thus distorting the purpose of the Church from the ark of salvation into a fortress of a sacred police state.

But the alleviation of an actual, present and persistent evil takes precedence over merely potential ramifications later. An unjust law as such is no law, and we have to do what we can to remove it from the status of law, or do as much as we can to alleviate its ill effects legally. It’s false prudence that prompts us to say “Gosh, I don’t want us to become the kind of state The Handmaid’s Tale depicts” – that’s simply the devil using our imagination to stifle us in responding faithfully to the commandments of God in social life.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

So far from what I have read, it appears that many think my concerns are unfounded, and people have made some good points that have led me closer to thinking that this is the case. I am just still unsure about it though.

It just seems like regulating marriage, which I don’t think really qualifies as natural law the same way abortion does, may lead to a dangerous slope. Perhaps it would be better if the state had nothing to do with marriage and it was left to the churches, temples, etc. I do not know.

I think what I am trying to say here is that I think I have already been convinced that my concerns are unfounded when it comes to things like abortion that are clearly part of the natural law, but not so much when it comes to other theological issues.

 

[Ceil-1]

Things like abortion, marriage and the death penalty are not strictly religious things. They are natural law and laws that protect society.

 

[MichaelHowling]

THere is nothing more natural than a TRUE marriage…even the physical bodies depict this in the natural world. Marriage culmonates with the union of the two…within traditional marriage, we know through anatomy and physiology this is ONLY possible through the physical level (not only mental and spiritual)…so much so that when the two are involved in the open marital act…their bodies actually work in unison to bring them closer together (by pleasure, hormones, mental/physical/spiritual)…but so much so that they, and only they can bring forth life by the act! Thereby imaging God in this world in the trinitarian form (a communion of persons) who’s love brings forth life.

We have a moral obligation and a command to topple over evil and bring love and TRUE justice into the world for His glory and the coming of His kingdom.

Don’t let your brain get in the way (lol)… if we do nothing by laws and such…where would we be ? We’d be handing over society to evil…who is VERY engaged in the politcal process (since it effects mankind).

OF COURSE it will cause divsions and fights and open other doors to evil …BUT THAT HAPPENS ANYWAY ! EVIL ADAPTS AND IS RELENTLESS …as it says in the Revelations “because he knows his time is short”. Rev 12:12

MATHEW chapter 10:

27What I say to you in the darkness, speak in the light; what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops. 28And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.r 29Are not two sparrows sold for a small coin? Yet not one of them falls to the ground without your Father’s knowledge. 30Even all the hairs of your head are counted. 31So do not be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. 32* Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. 33But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.s
**34t “Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. 35For I have come to set
**a man ‘against his father,

a daughter against her mother,

and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;

36and one’s enemies will be those of his household.’

37u “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and whoever does not take up his cross* and follow after me is not worthy of me. 39* v** Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.**

We have come to know TRUTH itself! Jesus ! (I am the way, the TRUTH and the life). These are our marching orders

proclaim truth openly and loudly, work to ONLY please God, and be willing to die with for Him.

 

[R_C]

I just want to make sure that I am being very clear, I am not in favor of abortion or same sex marriage. I am very much against both of these things. I just worry about the path that we might go down by involving religion in government. I also worry about involving ant-religion in government. I guess I am just wondering how separate/not separate the two things should be.

Perhaps my concerns are unfounded, I am just throwing it out there to get other opinions to help me decide if my concerns are warranted or not.

I understand your standpoint But I think you may want to understand the standpoint of the Church on the so-called “separation of Church and State”.

Like I said: focusing specifically on abortion, if the Catholic Church crosses her arms and decides not to care, a million unborn will die every year and more. If there is a slight decrease in the past decade, it is due solely to the heroic efforts of the pro-life movement and to lots and lots of prayer and sacrifice.

At the darkest time of the modern age, World War II, the Venerable Pope Pius XII saved thousands of lives by being - as Christ commanded - candid as doves but prudent as serpents. However, because of the ways in which the Church was doing what the Church does, many today accuse the Holy Father and the Church of having kept quiet, of not having done enough. Of course, they don’t know anything. But imagine what will be said in a future in which the culture of life has overcome the culture of death? Civilization would point her finger at the Church and say: “they were quiet with the Holocaust, and they were quiet with the genocide of the unborn!”. We cannot permit that. Just as we acted efficiently with the Holocaust employing the best means at our disposal, we are and we must act against the errors that states are trying to promote based on polls and fallacious reasons. It is our duty We are the only ones out there upholding the values of life and love. We have been there for 20 centuries. Nobody else has done so, no matter what you hear others say. And we only get hatred in return.

I think ultimately your question relates to faith and works Believing that abortion, etc. are wrong is good, but such belief, without works, is of no use. It only becomes true belief and a true expression of your faith in Christ when you act based on your belief to counteract and fight back those errors and intrinsic evils. And if the field is the political arena, that’s where we fight.

Not too long ago I went for the first time with a pro-life group to pray the Rosary before an abortion “clinic”. As I knelt and prayed the Hail Mary, I was struck with sorrow at the idea that the prayer I was praying was directed specifically at every girl and woman - at every mother - entering that clinic. Every mother - yes, mother - thinking that there was something wrong or impure in them, to be removed. To each of them I said:* Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with thee! Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus!* For if Christ the Lord is present in His little ones, how much more He is present in the unborn! Truly, they are blessed, and the Lord is with them, and blessed is the unborn in their motherly womb! I never understood pro-life as much as on those few minutes spent, pouring my heart out and praying Christ to give light through Mary so that at least one, at least one mother would change her mind and not kill the unborn that lives in her.

 

[seakelp]

Let me start by giving some background. I am a Catholic and I firmly believe that many of the things being debated in our society currently are wrong. I believe homosexuality is wrong, I believe that abortion is wrong, I believe that the death penalty is wrong.

All of that being said, I am concerned about pushing these beliefs into law. My concern basically comes down to this, I am afraid that if a precedent gets set that codifies Christian beliefs into law, that this will open the door for other religious beliefs with which I and I believe the Church at large would have a problem with becoming law.

For example, if this precedent was set what would stop it from moving to implementing part or all of Sharia Law?

I am not trying to say that I don’t want these things to be made illegal. I do, I think they are horrible and would love to see them stopped, I just wonder if in the process though, we may be setting ourselves up for major problems down the road.

Good question.

The standard by which you should evaluate the appropriateness of religious principles in the public square is this.

Religious views unsupportable by arguments from reason do not belong in political discourse. Reason is universal: it provides an objective bottom-line. All people in a given society can understand an argument based on reason (even if they may have a different argument of their own). Therefore, public speech is accessible by all.

This aspect (universalized accessibility) is needed for a society whose laws are based on the theoretical consent of the populace. The reason is more or less obvious: it wouldn’t be fair for us to foist a non-rational principle on the rest of the populace. They may not be able to understand it or accept it. If they can’t understand it, they won’t have the opportunity to debate it. If they can’t debate it, they have no say in its content.

Non-rational principles in the public sphere turn into brick walls, impenetrable by folks from either side.

Take abortion. Our Catholic beliefs lead us to reject abortion because we believe ensoulment occurs at conception. It is a spiritual belief, not one universally accessible. Therefore, to put forth legislation stating that, “Any creature with a soul, as understood by the Catholic faith, has the right to life” would be inappropriate.

But, we also know that fetuses experience pain. We can build rational arguments based on this empirical fact. For example: pain is bad. We shouldn’t do bad things if we can help it. Fetuses, at certain stages of development, feel pain. That is bad. Therefore, we shouldn’t cause fetuses pain.

That’s an example of a good “public” reason to be against abortion. Or rather, an acceptable argument to be used when discussing the issue in public.

Most of my ideas on this issue have been shaped by John Rawls, as well as law. He has a good little book or essay out there on this very issue, as a matter of fact.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

I think ultimately your question relates to faith and works Believing that abortion, etc. are wrong is good, but such belief, without works, is of no use.

Just to answer this one point, I am all for working against abortion. My question was specifically about making that work being about outlawing it, instead of just trying to convince people that it should not happen. However, as I said in an earlier post, I have been convinced on the abortion issue and the need to push for it to be outlawed. The part I am still struggling with is other areas where natural moral law is not as clear.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Good question.

The standard by which you should evaluate the appropriateness of religious principles in the public square is this.

Religious views unsupportable by arguments from reason do not belong in political discourse. Reason is universal: it provides an objective bottom-line. All people in a given society can understand an argument based on reason (even if they may have a different argument of their own). Therefore, public speech is accessible by all.

This aspect (universalized accessibility) is needed for a society whose laws are based on the theoretical consent of the populace. The reason is more or less obvious: it wouldn’t be fair for us to foist a non-rational principle on the rest of the populace. They may not be able to understand it or accept it. If they can’t understand it, they won’t have the opportunity to debate it. If they can’t debate it, they have no say in its content.

Non-rational principles in the public sphere turn into brick walls, impenetrable by folks from either side.

Take abortion. Our Catholic beliefs lead us to reject abortion because we believe ensoulment occurs at conception. It is a spiritual belief, not one universally accessible. Therefore, to put forth legislation stating that, “Any creature with a soul, as understood by the Catholic faith, has the right to life” would be inappropriate.

But, we also know that fetuses experience pain. We can build rational arguments based on this empirical fact. For example: pain is bad. We shouldn’t do bad things if we can help it. Fetuses, at certain stages of development, feel pain. That is bad. Therefore, we shouldn’t cause fetuses pain.

That’s an example of a good “public” reason to be against abortion. Or rather, an acceptable argument to be used when discussing the issue in public.

Most of my ideas on this issue have been shaped by John Rawls, as well as law. He has a good little book or essay out there on this very issue, as a matter of fact.

Thank you for this! It is very helpful. I think this is one of the best explanations I have seen of a way to look at this issue.

I am curious, using this logic, what would be the “public” argument against same sex marriage, since it seems like we shouldn’t use the argument of marriage between a man and a woman being ordained by God.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Reason is universal: it provides an objective bottom-line. All people in a given society can understand an argument based on reason (even if they may have a different argument of their own). Therefore, public speech is accessible by all.

I think if you make logical connections between something people may be able to understand. But that doesn’t translate into agreement. There are some set of values, preferences, and other positions that would need to be shared.

For example there are those that assign a negative value to birth (see “antinatilism.”) Such a person may be able to understand arguments against controception, but since the person doesn’t assign a positive value to birth as a pronatilist does the person may understand but not agree. While I think it is helpful to be able to defend one’s stance it does seem that throughout history reason alone hasn’t been sufficient.

At times interest have had to be tied to something else that a person cares about to change their stance (some other cause, a friend or family member, or even the self). Part of the movement for equal rights for homosexuals reflects this. In not hiding that one is a homosexual those in there lives that care about them are less likely to see the issue as something that only impacts distant people and see it as an issue that interferes with the happiness, property ownership rights, and health coverage of those for which they care and love.

 

[seakelp]

Thank you for this! It is very helpful. I think this is one of the best explanations I have seen of a way to look at this issue.

I am curious, using this logic, what would be the “public” argument against same sex marriage, since it seems like we shouldn’t use the argument of marriage between a man and a woman being ordained by God.

I think you’d look to some of the arguments advanced by the defenders of Proposition 8. Their briefs might provide some insightful “public” arguments against gay marriage:

afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012-08-24-Plaintiffs-Brief-in-Opposition.pdf

The ToC sets out one main argument:

Prop 8 advances society’s interests in responsible procreation and child-rearing