EU president’s praise for Catholic teaching welcomed as bishops urge citizens to vote in elections to stop "nationalist threat"

[PLeeD]

It is certainly part of the church’s social doctrine.

From Pope Pius XII’s 1939 encyclical Summi Pontificatus:

Thanks for the reply. I guess I’m not quite on board with your phrase “social doctrine”. You’ve quoted fallible opinions from Popes, not infallible pronouncements from the church.

In my understanding that does not qualify as a “doctrine of the church”. Those are opinions of past popes, no different than the current pope’s opinions on global warming.

Change my mind.

 

[tomarin]

I thought papal encyclicals were ex cathedra documents?

 

[Vouthon]

You’ve quoted fallible opinions from Popes, not infallible pronouncements from the church.

Encyclicals are expressions of the ordinary Magisterium. To quote Pope Pius XII from Humani generis:

It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: “He who heareth you, heareth Me.” (Luke 10:16); and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians

As such, they are authoritative and if an encyclical “settles” something then we need to pay heed where that concerns a matter of faith and morals, which the Social Doctrines of the Church, including the teachings on supranationalism, do (hence why it’s called social “doctrine”).

Catholics are not at liberty to treat encyclicals as mere expressions of opinion in matters of faith and morality. That doesn’t mean that “technical” facts or scientific principles assumed in encyclicals are binding on our conscience, but whatever ethical or faith positions are derived from them are.

Hence why, in our earlier discussion, Josie and myself got into such a heated and precise battle over the wording of single sentences in different encyclicals. We did so because what the Holy Fathers are communicating in these texts matter.

To non-Catholics, this will likely appear needlessly pedantic and akin to an obsession with semantics but to Catholics it’s serious stuff, because it pertains to the deposit of faith and the correct understanding has to be ascertained.

The catechism, by the way, is nothing but a “sure norm” of the faith, a constitutional guidebook if you will for the average layman. It’s like a codification of important snippets from the church’s unwritten constitution, based upon hundreds of thousands of scriptural references, medieval canons, judgements of ecumenical councils, papal bulls, encyclicals, constitutions, apostolic exhortations etc. from the last two thousand years.

It’s a guide, a norm, but it’s “authority” comes from the texts it is referencing and it is not completely comprehensive in that respect. There have been many previous catechisms, the earliest being the Didache from the first century and another famous one being the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent in the 16th century.

If the church has a constitution, it is more akin to the British one - unwritten, disseminated across multiple organic sources from centuries apart that attest to the Sacred Tradition - than it is to the written US constitution.

 

[Vouthon]

If it determined that people are not regarded as human beings until age 2, that would be the law of the land

Technically true but not while we are accessories to the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) which is incorporated into British law through the Human Rights Act 1998.

Parliament could end our accession and revoke the act, though, to be fair.

Interestingly enough, however, while we are within the EU, we have a binding charter of fundamental rights of the Union that we cannot infringe.

The EU has introduced American-style constitutionalism to the UK.

This only changes if we “secede” - then we go back to having absolutely no inalienable constitutional liberties other than those recognised by common law precedent and retained by the sovereign will of Parliament.

This, by the way, is another argument for staying in the EU - since many are critical of unlimited British parliamentarian voluntarism under Dicey’s doctrine of supremacy, as it is not the most (theoretically at least) ideal system for ensuring the rule of law if, god forbid, authoritarian populism ever did actually take hold here.

(continued…)

 

[Vouthon]

See:

https://www.wlv.ac.uk/about-us/news-and-events/wlv-blog/2017/who-will-protect-us-from-westminster/

Who will Protect Us from Westminster?​

08/05/2017 - 11.34​

John Cotter - Senior Lecturer in Law

There are a number of causes for disquiet about human rights protection in the UK post-Brexit. This blog post looks at two inter-connected concerns:

(a) Brexit will result in the loss in the UK of judicial mechanisms for the protection of rights against legislative interference;

(b) The judicial human rights protection mechanisms against legislative interference in the UK constitutional system are weak.

Loss of Judicial Protection Mechanisms against Legislative Inference​

The UK Government’s White Paper Legislating for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, published on 30 March 2017, announced the Government’s intention to remove the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) from UK law after Brexit.

The Government asserts that the CFREU’s removal will not lead to a decrease in human rights protection because the rights contained in the CFREU are replicated in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which will continue to have effect under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). However, this assertion is not completely accurate, as it ignores the fact that EU law provides for more effective judicial protection of rights than the HRA.

The HRA does not prevent Parliament from enacting legislation that is contrary to ECHR rights. While Section 4 HRA does empower certain British courts to issue declarations of incompatibility (declare a statutory provision to be incompatible with an ECHR right), such declarations do not bind Parliament.

The CFREU, however, operates differently. Although it applies to Parliament only when implementing EU law, any legislation enacted for such a purpose must, owing to EU law’s supremacy, be disregarded by UK courts where contrary to a CFREU right. Accordingly, the CFREU grants to British and EU courts the de facto power to review the legality of Acts of Parliament.

The importance of the CFREU as a means of human rights protection against interference by national legislatures has become apparent in recent years.

It is best demonstrated in perhaps the most significant Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) ruling in 2016: Case C-698/15 Watson and Others. In this ruling, the CJEU, in an action originally brought before the High Court of England & Wales by a number of claimants, including the current Secretary of State for Exiting the EU David Davis, effectively ruled that the draconian data retention and access requirements introduced by Section 1 of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA) were contrary to Articles 7, 8 and 11 CFREU, the rights to privacy, protection of personal data, and freedom of expression respectively.

(continued…)

 

[Vouthon]

The result is that Section 1 is, in effect, invalid. Had Mr Davis and his co-claimants been denied the opportunity to plead the CFREU, the best remedy they could have hoped to receive from a British court would have been a non-binding Section 4 HRA declaration.

The Weak Judicial Protection Mechanisms in the UK Constitutional Order​

The preamble to the UN’s Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) refers to “the inherent dignity and … the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”.

These words endorse the natural law theory that all human beings enjoy inalienable rights that are antecedent to positive law. In the US constitutional context, Supreme Court Justice William J Brennan described the antecedent nature of human rights cogently:

“The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to ‘create’ rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting.” (United States v Verdugo-Urquidez 494 U.S. 259 (1990),at 288).

The UK’s constitutional system, however, has never regarded human rights as inalienable or antecedent to positive law. The cornerstone of the UK constitutional order is parliamentary sovereignty.

Dicey, the preeminent UK constitutional law scholar, described this doctrine as follows: (a) Parliament possessed the right to make or unmake any law, and (b) no person or body had a right to override or set aside statute. Seen through this lens, rights were not inherent; rather, they were the gift of the Sovereign (now the Queen-in-Parliament). This is evident even in Magna Carta, Chapter 1:

“We (i.e. King John) have also granted to all the free men of the Kingdom, for us and our heirs in perpetuity, all the below written liberties…”

The theoretical distinction between the principle that human rights are inalienable and antecedent to positive law and the understanding of rights gifts of positive law is not merely academic.

Legal systems based on the credo that rights exist before and are superior to positive law tend to impose checks on legislative power. In such legal systems, or constitutional democracies, a court will be granted jurisdiction to review the validity of parliamentary legislation and strike it down where it breaches constitutionally protected rights.

However, as a result of parliamentary supremacy, no such review of legislation is possible in the UK.

As discussed above, the Government proposes to remove the CFREU from the UK legal order, thereby eliminating the only basis upon which courts may review the validity of parliamentary legislation.

This author argues that the return to the traditional unfettered power of Westminster to interfere with fundamental rights without any binding judicial remedy for the victim is concerning

It is, in this author’s view, naïve to believe that the ballot box or decency constitute sufficient checks against majoritarian excesses.

I really wouldn’t like to see a British version of the French-style “state of emergency” to be honest

 

[Ridgerunner]

All the same you really need to admit that Britain’s concept of individual rights has historically been much superior to that on the continent.

 

[Vouthon]

All the same you really need to admit that Britain’s concept of individual rights has historically been much superior to that on the continent.

In terms of certain rights recognised, sure (although we’ve been poorer at times on ‘social rights’ compared with the continent i.e. workers rights, particularly since Ms. Thatcher came along).

But not in terms of the legal mechanisms actually “protecting” and “enshrining” those rights, of which there are virtually none in the British constitution outside precedent, custom and parliamentarian will.

And this latter element is crucial for the rule of law. As the legal scholar noted above:

The UK’s constitutional system, however, has never regarded human rights as inalienable or antecedent to positive law. The cornerstone of the UK constitutional order is parliamentary sovereignty. The theoretical distinction between the principle that human rights are inalienable and antecedent to positive law and the understanding of rights as gifts of positive law is not merely academic.

In the EU and US, fundamental rights are ‘inalienable’ and cannot be infringed by either the Union or member states.

Under the UK constitution, this is technically not the case. Our rights here only stay by the virtue of our democracy’s sense and foresight, in tandem with custom and right time-honoured procedural rules inherited from of old, but not innately.

For recognising rights as properly irrevocable, the EU and US constitutional systems are, from the perspective of Catholic doctrine, ultimately better than the British. For the scholar rightly warns:

As discussed above, the Government proposes to remove the CFREU (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) from the UK legal order, thereby eliminating the only basis upon which courts may review the validity of parliamentary legislation.

This author argues that the return to the traditional unfettered power of Westminster to interfere with fundamental rights without any binding judicial remedy for the victim is concerning.

It is, in this author’s view, naïve to believe that the ballot box or decency constitute sufficient checks against majoritarian excesses.

And I admit that, as a Brit, with some genuine bitterness to an American such as yourself. But I’m an honest guy.

It’s a very grave flaw at the heart of the British constitution.

 

[Ridgerunner]

All the same, it has to be recognized that the individual dignity of Brits as an organic concept has been superior to that of the Continent. And Americans owe much to Brits for that. After all, while our Constitution and Declaration do formally recognize and enshrine the rights of individuals, the Common Law made it natural for Americans to accept them.

And frankly, entirely human guarantees of rights in a purely secular EU doesn’t impress me very much. What derives from humans can be changed by humans.

 

[Vouthon]

All the same, it has to be recognized that the individual dignity of Brits as an organic concept has been superior to that of the Continent. And Americans owe much to Brits for that. After all, while our Constitution and Declaration do formally recognize and enshrine the rights of individuals, the Common Law made it natural for Americans to accept them.

But the enshrinement is far more important - practically and in terms of enforcement and individual appeals based upon alleged infringement, as well as for the rule of law more generally - than is the mere conceptual recognition and idealisation of ‘rights’ that are, in point of fact, revocable by positive law and not antecedent to or binding on executive power (and thus limiting it).

And frankly, entirely human guarantees of rights in a purely secular EU doesn’t impress me very much. What derives from humans can be changed by humans.

It doesn’t matter if it impresses you or me. What matters is that the rights in question are fundamental, binding and antecedent in the EU, whereas they are not in the UK.

The guarantee of rights under the secular US constitution/bill of rights is no different: both systems recognise the rights in question as fundamental a priori and antecedent to the positive deliberation of the legislator, and thus able to strike down any positive legislation that conflicts with the fundamental right.

And this has crucial practical, real-world consequences as is evident from the case of Case C-698/15 Watson and Others.

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Watson MP & Ors

The Court of Appeal has made a final order in the claim brought by Tom Watson MP declaring that the UK data retention regime was unlawful because it did not provide for prior or independent authorisation of access to data and there was no limit on the use of data to serious crime.

www.blackstonechambers.com

It matters to me as a British citizen whether my rights are constitutionally enshrined as inalienable or not.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I will now reveal a serious prejudice on my part. As between trusting Brits without a written guarantee of rights and trusting Germans or French with such a guarantee, I would choose the first over the second. It is my prejudice that Brits have a respect for human rights in their cultural DNA whereas I am less persuaded that continentals do. Or at least Brits probably still do.

Probably everybody reading any of this is aware of the old (and quite bigoted) joke about European heaven and hell.

European heaven is where the cops are British, the cooks are French, the auto mechanics are German, the lovers are Italian, and everything is run by the Swiss.

European hell is where the cooks are British, the auto mechanics are French, the cops are German, the lovers are Swiss and everything is run by the Italians.

 

[Vouthon]

It is my prejudice that Brits have a respect for human rights in their cultural DNA whereas I am less persuaded that continentals do.

Most prejudices are unfounded stereotypes. And this one is too.

As between trusting Brits without a written guarantee of rights and trusting Germans or French with such a guarantee, I would choose the first over the second.

That is faith Ridgerunner. And it is not a faith that I share and nor would I wish to bank on it.

Well, we in Britain will decide that question for ourselves in the coming years. Maybe we will actually Brexit, maybe we will not (it looks less likely by the day, to be honest, as it is delayed and delayed without end).

But as I said earlier, I prefer knowing that my rights are enshrined as fundamental, such that the positive will of the executive cannot simply revoke them by appealing to majoritarian mandates (or perhaps even, if worst ever came to the worst, without appealing to that as justification).

This is yet another ideological arena in the battle between Remainers and Brexiteers that has divided the British public so sorely, and so definitively, into rival camps.

One thing is definite though: a house divided against itself will not stand.

 

[Vouthon]

It is my prejudice that Brits have a respect for human rights in their cultural DNA whereas I am less persuaded that continentals do.

Most prejudices are unfounded stereotypes. And this one is too.

As between trusting Brits without a written guarantee of rights and trusting Germans or French with such a guarantee, I would choose the first over the second.

That is faith Ridgerunner. And it is not a faith that I share and nor would I wish to bank on it as my strongest constitutional safeguard and check on arbitrary power, if it came down to it.

Well, we in Britain will decide that question for ourselves in the coming years. Maybe we will actually Brexit, maybe we will not (it looks less likely by the day, to be honest, as it is delayed and delayed without end).

But as I said earlier, I prefer knowing that my rights are enshrined as fundamental, such that the positive will of the executive cannot simply revoke them by appealing to majoritarian mandates (or perhaps even, if worst ever came to the worst, without appealing to that as justification).

This is yet another ideological arena in the battle between Remainers and Brexiteers that has divided the British public so sorely, and so definitively, into rival camps.

One thing is definite though: a house divided against itself will not stand.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, I’ll just say that if I had a time machine and could spend the years between 1914 and 1945 in Britain or the Continent, I would absolutely choose Britain. Might take that back to 1870 as I would not want to have lived in Bismarck’s Germany or France under any of the Napoleons.

And I would not want to live in the “secular theocracy” of today’s EU.

 

[Vouthon]

And I would not want to live in the “secular theocracy” of today’s EU.

That is a peculiar phrase. What is a ‘secular theocracy’? Isn’t that an oxymoron?

 

[Vouthon]

By the way, there is a long tradition of viewing the US as having a ‘secular creed’:

American civil religion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is a viewpoint that some Americans have come to see the document of the United States Constitution, along with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights as cornerstones of a type of civic or civil religion or political religion. Political sociologist Anthony Squiers argues that these texts act as the sacred writ of the American civil religion because they are used as authoritative symbols in what he calls the politics of the sacred. The Politics of the Sacred, according to Squiers are “the attempt to define and dictate what is in accord with the civil religious sacred and what is not. It is a battle to define what can and cannot be and what should and should not be tolerated and accepted in the community, based on its relation to that which is sacred for that community.”[6]

According to Bellah, Americans embrace a common “civil religion” with certain fundamental beliefs, values, holidays, and rituals, parallel to, or independent of, their chosen religion.[2]Presidents have often served in central roles in civil religion, and the nation provides quasi-religious honors to its martyrs—such as Abraham Lincoln and the soldiers killed in the American Civil War.[7] Historians have noted presidential level use of civil religion rhetoric in profoundly moving episodes such as World War II,[8] the Civil Rights Movement,[9] and the September 11th attacks.[10]

So perhaps the label “secular theocracy” (nebulous as it may be to me) is a more fitting appellation for the US than it is for the EU.

I don’t view a civil religion as necessarily a bad thing though, if it fosters cohesion around common values and doesn’t act to the ‘detriment’ of one’s own religious/philosophical persuasion.

 

[TMC]

I thought papal encyclicals were ex cathedra documents?

If by “ex cathedra” you mean “infallible” the answer is not necessarily - although they still require the assent of the faithful. @Vouthon’s post summarizes what that means quite well.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No. The Pope asked the EU higher ups to acknowledge Europe’s Christian roots. They wouldn’t but enshrined a sort of secular “Euro-worship” in its stead.

 

[TMC]

Thanks for the reply. I guess I’m not quite on board with your phrase “social doctrine”. You’ve quoted fallible opinions from Popes, not infallible pronouncements from the church.

In my understanding that does not qualify as a “doctrine of the church”. Those are opinions of past popes, no different than the current pope’s opinions on global warming.

Change my mind.

Are you saying that if a teachings is not infallible you can disregard it? That’s a pretty high standard. That standard would make most of the Catechism optional as very few of the Church’s teachings are “infallible.” That does not make them optional, at least in the Church’s view. The Church’s teachings on social doctrine are just as binding as the Church’s other moral teachings.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Lots of crackpot notions about.