Moral choice with regard to unjust laws

[rpp]

This poster, who is normally quite observant and who consistently makes statements that posts attitudes that reflect solid Catholic teachings in matters of faith and moral made this rather observant post.

At this point (due to its unjust/immoral rulings and the threatening of a sovereign nation) , should the Catholic Church (including the laity) even recognize the authority of the courts in the US?

It got me to thinking. Where is the point where we can no longer obey laws. Where is the point where we must break an unjust law? Where, if there is one, the point where we attempt to actually remove, or even overthrow a government, even our own, that is grossly unjust?

While a direct attack against American sovereignty is not appropriate (yet), I do believe we are bound not to obey an unjust law and to try to get it reversed.

Let me start with a limited, but critical, issue. President Obama want to remove the conscience clause from health care workers. The stated intent is to force health care workers, as well as Church sponsored hospitals and clinics to provide “family planning” services. Of course, the Catholic Church teaches that birth control is intrinsically evil but more than that, “family planning” is a euphemism for abortion.

What are the morally permissible responses?

For individuals:

• Submit to civil authority and obey the law.
• Obey the law but seek to overturn it through legal means.
• Quit your job and change careers to avoid violating the law.
• Withdraw from society and form or join a Catholic Community.
• Violate the law and face the consequences.
• Violate the law and flee to avoid the consequences.

For Church sponsored Hospitals and clinics:

• Submit to civil authority and obey the law.
• Obey the law but seek to overturn it.
• Sell hospitals and clinics to secular agencies.
• Close hospitals and clinics.
• Violate the law and face the consequences.
• Protect individual employees who violate the law (legal defense or even helping them go into hiding.)
• Help to found and fund Catholic communities so people can avoid conflict with the unjust law.

At what point does law and government become so oppressive that a revolution is justified? Does such a point actually exist?

 

[Highwayhound]

There is always a way to earn a living without taking part in something against one’s conscience.

 

[Feste_1242]

This is a very good question, and I have given it thought myself. Catholics have an obligation to see that such laws are overturned, and I believe there is indeed a point at which we must overthrow an evil government. With the hospital example you provided, I believe it will cause a great deal of death. Roughly a third of this country’s hospitals are Catholic, and they are known for helping those who would be turned away elsewhere. When Obama gets enough of those laws passed that he’s itching to try out, most of the Catholic hospitals will have no choice but to close.

Highwayhound, you are not incorrect, but the point is that it isn’t going to stop here. It will be one law after another until the government has more or less taken over society. Forgive me if I sound paranoid, but imagine it being illegal to speak out against abortion. Does it really sound that unrealistic? *That *is when our very religion will be “under attack”, for lack of a better term. I would rather it didn’t come to that.

 

[Corki]

With the hospital example you provided, I believe it will cause a great deal of death. Roughly a third of this country’s hospitals are Catholic, and they are known for helping those who would be turned away elsewhere. When Obama gets enough of those laws passed that he’s itching to try out, most of the Catholic hospitals will have no choice but to close.

Well, the head of the Catholic Hospital Association said that Catholic Hospitals will not close, even if FOCA is passed and all conscience rights for individuals and facilities were wiped away. So, she plans to cave. At which point, the Catholic Hospitals will cease to be Catholic.

So, it looks like individuals will be left holding the bag.

Highwayhound,

It’s not just about making a living. Already practicing Catholics are practically shut out of the field of pharmacy in some states. Are we really ready to have the entire medical field devoid of any one who respects life and objects to abortion? Do we want all our future babies delivered by abortioninsts?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Corki, I chose to leave the public sector of education (and return to private and consulting) because of the warped values and behaviors I saw promoted and practiced in public schools. Teachers have left the public system for a variety of reasons (only some of them for moral reasons), but additionally, families have opted to do the same. Some states will soon have half of their public schools run by charters. This abandonment has caused alarm in the public system, and with continued attrition, the result will be in those regions the effective deconstruction of the public school system. For some of us, that is a good outcome for any school system with a heavy political agenda.

Of course, one has to be careful. Charter-run schools sometimes mean parent control of the agenda, but not always. A recent charter school at which I used to teach organized a 3rd grade field trip to a lesbian wedding of a teacher. Amid outcry, the principal defended the activity as “a learning experience.” Also, other charter (by definition meaning publicly funded) schools are being allowed to run as Muslim schools, recognizing Muslim holidays as school holidays, and closing at midday on Fridays, as well as offering Arabic as a foreign language but not other foreign languages.

The above probably sounds completely off-topic, but my point is that sometimes regrouping and resegmenting produces favorable results. For the medical profession, I would look at options and optional legal initiatives to allow religiously-oriented pharmacies, clinics, etc. to thrive. I think that schools and medical facilities are parallel institutions providing socially necessary services. In both cases, both private and public should be allowed to exist without threat of closure or compromise to those religious principles. Catholic schools are not required to teach views opposing the faith, or sponsor lesbian weddings (!), so neither should independent private pharmacies be required to dispense medications against their policy.
JMO.

(Yes, I do understand about the recent federal mandate regarding freedom of conscience. This is regrettable, but in no way final. Catholics need to bring legal arguments to bear in both federal and state jurisdictions, pointing out that Church/State separation is a two-way street: the state can no more dictate to a church than vice-versa. It’s very possible that there will be a Supreme Court challenge to the new mandate.)

 

[Feste_1242]

Well, the head of the Catholic Hospital Association said that Catholic Hospitals will not close, even if FOCA is passed and all conscience rights for individuals and facilities were wiped away. So, she plans to cave. At which point, the Catholic Hospitals will cease to be Catholic.

I hadn’t heard that… it’s terrible. Even if they do not close, it will still result in death – the hospitals will then be forced to murder their patients.

For the medical profession, I would look at options and optional legal initiatives to allow religiously-oriented pharmacies, clinics, etc. to thrive.
…
In both cases, both private and public should be allowed to exist without threat of closure or compromise to those religious principles.

You and the government don’t share the same values.

Catholic schools are not required to teach views opposing the faith, or sponsor lesbian weddings

Not yet.

Yes, I do understand about the recent federal mandate regarding freedom of conscience. This is regrettable, but in no way final. Catholics need to bring legal arguments to bear in both federal and state jurisdictions, pointing out that Church/State separation is a two-way street: the state can no more dictate to a church than vice-versa. It’s very possible that there will be a Supreme Court challenge to the new mandate.

For years the government has been wiping its backside with our civil liberties; you feel safer than you are.

 

[Appleby]

It depends on the circumstances and what the law actually is.

For example, those of us who participated in the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s violated the law and faced the consequences, first of all because we considered the law immoral, and second, in facing the legal consequences we were given a chance to make the argument that the law was immoral, in the proper venue for such arguments.

A more serious situation was the Draft in the 1960s and 1970s. I had many friends who fled to foreign countries (including Kanukistan) to avoid the Draft. The ones with true conscience-driven reasons did not return; the "H*** No We Won’t Go crowd came slinking back when Jimmy Carter offered them all amnesty, to a country they refused to defend but were fine allowing others to defend THEM.

The current situation involving Deserters – people who signed up for a volunteer Army knowing full well that (1) soldiers go to war and (2) sometimes they kill people, then ran away to hide out, lots of them up here, claiming that they only signed up to get Goodies etc. – is much more difficult; in the past, Deserters were shot as cowards, and the law in Canada has changed since we were overrun with Draft Dodgers and requires that Deserters be turned back at the border or deported when caught. If I decided I could not honourably serve in the military, I would resign – I would not run away – and take the consequences.

Finally, the attempt by the government to force medical personnel to commit murder (either by abortion or by euthanasia) is such an unconsionable law that any believing Catholic would rather mop floors at Wal-Mart than participate in such an evil. It would be no different from those things the Nazis forced medical personnel to do to the “unfit”, and you could not make me participate. In my own opinion, closing the hospitals and clinics or rendering them “non-Catholic” would be your only option as a Church, and refusing to participate in the slaughter your only option as an individual.

As for the idea of “our babies being delivered only by abortionists”, it has only been in the last century that babies were delivered by doctors in hospitals. Babies by and large can be delivered by midwives – and if they are outlawed, your sister can be trained in midwifery and do the job.

Just my opinions and what I personally would do.

 

[mapleoak]

The correct response to a civil law mandating performance of an immoral action is disobedience of said law. If the law requires one to murder someone (unborn baby) or be else be required to give referallal to a hitman (abortionist), the only moral response is disobedience to that law. Anything else constitutes a gravely immoral action.

 

[dixieagle]

Corki, I chose to leave the public sector of education (and return to private and consulting) because of the warped values and behaviors I saw promoted and practiced in public schools. Teachers have left the public system for a variety of reasons (only some of them for moral reasons), but additionally, families have opted to do the same. Some states will soon have half of their public schools run by charters. This abandonment has caused alarm in the public system, and with continued attrition, the result will be in those regions the effective deconstruction of the public school system. For some of us, that is a good outcome for any school system with a heavy political agenda.

Of course, one has to be careful. Charter-run schools sometimes mean parent control of the agenda, but not always. A recent charter school at which I used to teach organized a 3rd grade field trip to a lesbian wedding of a teacher. Amid outcry, the principal defended the activity as “a learning experience.” Also, other charter (by definition meaning publicly funded) schools are being allowed to run as Muslim schools, recognizing Muslim holidays as school holidays, and closing at midday on Fridays, as well as offering Arabic as a foreign language but not other foreign languages.

The above probably sounds completely off-topic, but my point is that sometimes regrouping and resegmenting produces favorable results. For the medical profession, I would look at options and optional legal initiatives to allow religiously-oriented pharmacies, clinics, etc. to thrive. I think that schools and medical facilities are parallel institutions providing socially necessary services. In both cases, both private and public should be allowed to exist without threat of closure or compromise to those religious principles. Catholic schools are not required to teach views opposing the faith, or sponsor lesbian weddings (!), so neither should independent private pharmacies be required to dispense medications against their policy.
JMO.

(Yes, I do understand about the recent federal mandate regarding freedom of conscience. This is regrettable, but in no way final. Catholics need to bring legal arguments to bear in both federal and state jurisdictions, pointing out that Church/State separation is a two-way street: the state can no more dictate to a church than vice-versa. It’s very possible that there will be a Supreme Court challenge to the new mandate.)

Really excellent post!

 

[dixieagle]

The correct response to a civil law mandating performance of an immoral action is disobedience of said law. If the law requires one to murder someone (unborn baby) or be else be required to give referallal to a hitman (abortionist), the only moral response is disobedience to that law. Anything else constitutes a gravely immoral action.

Absolutely! Should FOCA or extreme regulations regarding “conscience” issues come to pass, the answer is civil disobedience. Catholic hospitals must simply keep on doing what they are doing. (BTW, the stance of the head of the CHA has been greatly distorted. She (Sister Carol Keehan) has stated this:

*As for the impact on Catholic hospitals, we expect that, even if this bad legislation were to pass, we would not be forced to participate, and we will fight for that. Even with strong conscience protection in the legislation, we will still oppose the bill.

Some have postulated that we might not get conscience protection and what impact that might have on Catholic hospitals. Catholic hospitals are a national treasure, one out of every six Americans hospitalized in this country is cared for in a Catholic hospital. We are a major part of the safety net for the uninsured. In many communities, we are the only health facility.

We in Catholic health care are not going to dismantle that or compromise our principles. We have many examples in this country of how to respond to unjust laws, and we have learned from them. We will protect Catholic health care in this country without compromising our position on abortion.*

Here is that link: chausa.org/Pub/MainNav/Newsroom/NewsReleases/2008/r081124.htm

Civil disobedience has been used before to great effect, and is, in my opinion, the only choice available. I certainly hope that, faced with the prospect of an ugly court battle, or of losing hospital services for about one-sixth of the country’s patients, reality would dawn.

 

[Caesar517]

This is a very good question, and I have given it thought myself. Catholics have an obligation to see that such laws are overturned, and I believe there is indeed a point at which we must overthrow an evil government. With the hospital example you provided, I believe it will cause a great deal of death. Roughly a third of this country’s hospitals are Catholic, and they are known for helping those who would be turned away elsewhere. When Obama gets enough of those laws passed that he’s itching to try out, most of the Catholic hospitals will have no choice but to close.

Well said.

It’s a shame about the hospitals folding, I hope it doesn’t happen that way.

Catholic teaching says that the laws of man are second to the laws of God and that any law of man requiring us to violate a law of God is null and void. It would be immoral for anyone to fold on this issue and abide by something so corrupt.
Fests 1242;:

For years the government has been wiping its backside with our civil liberties; you feel safer than you are.

Very true.

I would like to think that Elizabeth502 is right and that this will be brought before the Supreme Court, but I fear our court system is so corrupt that it may not make it there.

 

[Dale_M]

Well, the head of the Catholic Hospital Association said that Catholic Hospitals will not close, even if FOCA is passed and all conscience rights for individuals and facilities were wiped away. So, she plans to cave.

That not true. She said that she didn’t think that FOCA would be written in a way which would compel Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. If such an obligation was required, she said Catholic hospitals would ignore the law.
stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/religion/story/E6E47067257DB95E862575710014DD57?OpenDocument

Non-violent, civil disobedience is the correct response to an unjust and morally outrageous law.

 

[ahollars]

To answer the question to the point, the answer is yes. There is a point where we are no longer bound to obey the laws of man. The final crossing will occur when doctors are punished with more than unemployment. At that point, you have taken away their free will. No longer will they be offered a pink slip, but they may face fines or jail time for “burdening the system”. Think about this, Pres. Obama has promised help for people paying for college. If you accept that help, you will owe your profession to the gov’t. Parents have used this logic for generations, and some people actually believe that the gov’t is better equipped to raise children than parents.

So be on the look out. When a doctor is punished for refusing to comply, that will be the moment for the Second American Revolution. Are you ready… men?

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. :knight2:

The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. ~Edmund Burke~

 

[Corki]

That not true. She said that she didn’t think that FOCA would be written in a way which would compel Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. If such an obligation was required, she said Catholic hospitals would ignore the law.
stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/religion/story/E6E47067257DB95E862575710014DD57?OpenDocument

Non-violent, civil disobedience is the correct response to an unjust and morally outrageous law.

She’s tap dancing. The article I was referencing was written Jan. 26 and she said:

But even in a worst-case scenario, if the most dire predictions were to materialize and a federal law were to mandate that all hospitals provide abortion services, “I want to make it very clear that Catholic health care will not close and we will not compromise our principles,” Sister Carol told Catholic News Service Jan. 26.

The article you linked was March 6. She evidently realized she was out of step with what many bishops have said which is “no way!”

 

[Dale_M]

The article I was referencing was written Jan. 26 and she said:

The article you linked was March 6. She evidently realized she was out of step with what many bishops have said which is “no way!”

Got it. Sorry for rashly saying you were wrong, without asking first.

 

[Feste_1242]

… and some people actually believe that the gov’t is better equipped to raise children than parents.

:bigyikes:

The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. ~Edmund Burke~

Nice quote.

Corki, even with the January article you posted an excerpt from, I don’t understand what you meant about Sister Carol caving. She clearly stated there would be no compromise.

 

[elts1956]

Well, the head of the Catholic Hospital Association said that Catholic Hospitals will not close, even if FOCA is passed and all conscience rights for individuals and facilities were wiped away. So, she plans to cave. At which point, the Catholic Hospitals will cease to be Catholic.
So, it looks like individuals will be left holding the bag.

Highwayhound,

It’s not just about making a living. Already practicing Catholics are practically shut out of the field of pharmacy in some states. Are we really ready to have the entire medical field devoid of any one who respects life and objects to abortion? Do we want all our future babies delivered by abortioninsts?

So when will this woman be fired? Anyone know who her boss is? Isn’t she in Lynch’s diocese in Fla.?

 

[elts1956]

Well, the head of the Catholic Hospital Association said that Catholic Hospitals will not close, even if FOCA is passed and all conscience rights for individuals and facilities were wiped away. So, she plans to cave. At which point, the Catholic Hospitals will cease to be Catholic.

So, it looks like individuals will be left holding the bag.

Highwayhound,

It’s not just about making a living. Already practicing Catholics are practically shut out of the field of pharmacy in some states. Are we really ready to have the entire medical field devoid of any one who respects life and objects to abortion? Do we want all our future babies delivered by abortioninsts?

This poster, who is normally quite observant and who consistently makes statements that posts attitudes that reflect solid Catholic teachings in matters of faith and moral made this rather observant post.

It got me to thinking. Where is the point where we can no longer obey laws. Where is the point where we must break an unjust law? Where, if there is one, the point where we attempt to actually remove, or even overthrow a government, even our own, that is grossly unjust?

While a direct attack against American sovereignty is not appropriate (yet), I do believe we are bound not to obey an unjust law and to try to get it reversed.

Let me start with a limited, but critical, issue. President Obama want to remove the conscience clause from health care workers. The stated intent is to force health care workers, as well as Church sponsored hospitals and clinics to provide “family planning” services. Of course, the Catholic Church teaches that birth control is intrinsically evil but more than that, “family planning” is a euphemism for abortion.

What are the morally permissible responses?

For individuals:

• Submit to civil authority and obey the law.
• Obey the law but seek to overturn it through legal means.
• Quit your job and change careers to avoid violating the law.
• Withdraw from society and form or join a Catholic Community.
• Violate the law and face the consequences.
• Violate the law and flee to avoid the consequences.

For Church sponsored Hospitals and clinics:

• Submit to civil authority and obey the law.
• Obey the law but seek to overturn it.
• Sell hospitals and clinics to secular agencies.
• Close hospitals and clinics.
• Violate the law and face the consequences.
• Protect individual employees who violate the law (legal defense or even helping them go into hiding.)
• Help to found and fund Catholic communities so people can avoid conflict with the unjust law.

At what point does law and government become so oppressive that a revolution is justified? Does such a point actually exist?

I wish you had put in one more option: Change jobs and fight to overturn the law. I voted violate the law and face the consequences, but I think the above might work also??

 

[Corki]

:bigyikes:

Corki, even with the January article you posted an excerpt from, I don’t understand what you meant about Sister Carol caving. She clearly stated there would be no compromise.

My point is that you only get that impression (no compromises) by reading the January article in light of the March article. In January, she was clearly implying, or leaving open to interpretation, that there was “wiggle room” and that there would be a way to satisfy FOCA and keep the hospitals open.

 

[Corki]

I wish you had put in one more option: Change jobs and fight to overturn the law. I voted violate the law and face the consequences, but I think the above might work also??

I think that is what most Catholics with conscience will be forced to do. But think about it, this would mean that all the pro-life doctors would be forced to leave the medical profession, find a job in another field and fight the good fight from the outside. They would be marginalized, not part of the AMA or any of the boards and the fight would be that much harder.