Secular Law and (Christian) Morality

[Rau]

Our societies are made up of peoples of different backgrounds, faith systems and principles of morality (call these “traditions”). As a society, we seek to live together in harmony, and under a system of law which (mostly) distances itself from alignment with any one tradition. That is, the law does not intentionally elevate one tradition to a special place, or mirror the strictures of a particular tradition. Of course, history being what it is, almost every society can identify elements of its law that do reflect the dominance that various traditions have now or had in the past. (NB: for purposes of this discussion, I put aside those societies where there is in fact a high degree of alignment between secular law and a religious tradition - some Islamic countries come to mind.)

This state of affairs raises the question of how adherents of a particular tradition ought to react to secular laws (or lawmaking) that are at odds with their tradition. Two cases arise (actually, there are more than this):
1). Laws which compel (or forbid) someone contrary to their tradition;
**2). **Laws which forbid an action **on the basis of **a particular tradition’s **moral **beliefs.

Case (1) arises less commonly and is not the focus of this thread.

Consider two Examples of Case 2:

Example 2a: If the US enacted a law (supported, democratically, by the majority) which forbade the sale of contraceptives (medical purposes excepted), should (faithful) Catholics support that, and should a tradition for which ABC (contraception) is allowed be outraged at the infringement on their liberties? Or, is this in fact an inappropriate law on the grounds that it is not needed - the Catholics are already guided in their conduct by the Church, and likewise for all others. Therefore, should (faithful) Catholics, motivated by social harmony and respect for the rights of others, reasonably object to the law as inappropriate / unnecessary?

Example 2b: Another example of Case 2 might be assisted suicide. Many countries have laws against this, and those laws are supported by citizens either on **secular **grounds (eg. “Such a law is dangerous and may lead to grave mistakes and wrongly-motivated (vs. the legislated purposes of the law) actions”), or on **moral **grounds ( eg. “We have no right to go about ending our life - that is for God to decide”). We may agree or not on the secular arguments, or weigh the risks differently, but no-one objects to one’s right to put them. What about the **moral **arguments (where the morality derives from a particular tradition)? Should Catholics argue that the law should forbid assisted suicides for the reasons expressed in our Catechism (which are intrinsically moral teachings)? Or is it inappropriate to set aside the position of others (not sharing our tradition) and seek to have our tradition (which already exists to bind us) applied - in the secular law - to all?

**Case 2 is where I’d like to focus. **

But **PLEASE **note that the subject being put up for debate on this thread is neither same sex marriage nor assisted suicide. Please do not post about the merits or ills of these exemplars.

 

[Rau]

Well, this is a lonely-looking thread! Has the issue been done to death - in case, can anyone point me to the insightful views? It does seem to underpin the discussions I’ve encountered in many other threads, on topics such as homosexuality, same sex unions, assisted suicides and so on, yet I’ve not seen it confronted head-on. Those debates always focus on what is right based on a particular tradition’s morality, not what is proper ground for lawmaking in a diverse secular society.

 

[animalis]

A lawmaker is exhorted by Vatican has a call to the role of the highest expression of charity. This would be to will the good of another. The moral law informs the intellect to the right esteem among the choices we face. This esteem is to be exhibited in all circumstances. For we are judged by it, in all things - among all traditions. We regard the tradition inasmuch as it leads to God, and his moral law.

Grant it the judgement of God is supremely simple, and so we cannot comprehend to the term the essence of what it is that judges in the divine intellect. Wherefore, we are called to fear him in awe of his love.

 

[Rau]

A lawmaker is exhorted by Vatican has a call to the role of the highest expression of charity. This would be to will the good of another. The moral law informs the intellect to the right esteem among the choices we face. This esteem is to be exhibited in all circumstances. For we are judged by it, in all things - among all traditions. We regard the tradition inasmuch as it leads to God, and his moral law.

Grant it the judgement of God is supremely simple, and so we cannot comprehend to the term the essence of what it is that judges in the divine intellect. Wherefore, we are called to fear him in awe of his love.

In light of those thoughts, how do you see the issues posed in the original post?

 

[markomalley]

**Case 2 is where I’d like to focus. **

But **PLEASE **note that the subject being put up for debate on this thread is neither same sex marriage nor assisted suicide. Please do not post about the merits or ills of these exemplars.

It’s very simple:
But, if the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with the divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the Church, or conveying injunctions adverse to the duties imposed by religion, or if they violate in the person of the supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a crime; a crime, moreover, combined with misdemeanor against the State itself, inasmuch as every offense leveled against religion is also a sin against the State.

- Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae (On Christians as Citizens), 10
​

The point being that whatever a person’s moral beliefs are, if a law either prescribes something gravely contrary to the teachings of the Church or proscribes something that is a positive obligation per the teachings of the Church, it is wrong-headed and false. No matter what the popular opinion is at that moment.

And, as he said in his Encyclical Immortale Dei (On the Christian Constitution of States),
34. Doctrines such as these, which cannot be approved by human reason, and most seriously affect the whole civil order, Our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs (well aware of what their apostolic office required of them) have never allowed to pass uncondemned. Thus, Gregory XVI in his encyclical letter “Mirari Vos,” dated August 15, 1832, inveighed with weighty words against the sophisms which even at his time were being publicly inculcated-namely, that no preference should be shown for any particular form of worship; that it is right for individuals to form their own personal judgments about religion; that each man’s conscience is his sole and allsufficing guide; and that it is lawful for every man to publish his own views, whatever they may be, and even to conspire against the State. On the question of the separation of Church and State the same Pontiff writes as follows: “Nor can We hope for happier results either for religion or for the civil government from the wishes of those who desire that the Church be separated from the State, and the concord between the secular and ecclesiastical authority be dissolved. It is clear that these men, who yearn for a shameless liberty, live in dread of an agreement which has always been fraught with good, and advantageous alike to sacred and civil interests.” To the like effect, also, as occasion presented itself, did Pius IX brand publicly many false opinions which were gaining ground, and afterwards ordered them to be condensed in summary form in order that in this sea of error Catholics might have a light which they might safely follow.[22]

1. From these pronouncements of the Popes it is evident that the origin of public power is to be sought for in God Himself. and not in the multitude, and that it is repugnant to reason to allow free scope for sedition…
   Our freedom is to give us the liberty to do the right thing…not license to authorize or, God forbid, mandate evil.

 

[Rau]

It’s very simple:
But, if the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with the divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the Church, or conveying injunctions adverse to the duties imposed by religion, or if they violate in the person of the supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a crime; a crime, moreover, combined with misdemeanor against the State itself, inasmuch as every offense leveled against religion is also a sin against the State.

- Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae (On Christians as Citizens), 10
​

The point being that whatever a person’s moral beliefs are, if a law either **prescribes **something gravely contrary to the teachings of the Church or **proscribes **something that is a positive obligation per the teachings of the Church, it is wrong-headed and false. No matter what the popular opinion is at that moment.

The above addresses what I called “Case 1” - secular laws which **bind **or **forbid **contrary to ‘tradition’, and I agree it is somewhat simpler. Cases are less common, or at least less topical. Indeed, it is probably part of the practice of lawmaking these days to avoid such a scenario, and often to specifically carve out exceptions to avoid it. Mind you, Catholics might argue that the “non-discrimination” laws that obligate the baker, irrespective of religious beliefs, to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex ‘marriage’ do fall foul of this scenario.

The Case I was more interested in is what I called Case 2 - The making of a secular law to give effect to a moral teaching of a particular tradition, when that teaching is not one that adherents of another tradition consider binding. I gave 2 examples in the original post.

And, as he said in his Encyclical Immortale Dei (On the Christian Constitution of States),

… On the question of the separation of Church and State the same Pontiff writes as follows: “Nor can We hope for happier results either for religion or for the civil government from the wishes of those who desire that the Church be separated from the State, and the concord between the secular and ecclesiastical authority be dissolved. It is clear that these men, who yearn for a shameless liberty, live in dread of an agreement which has always been fraught with good, and advantageous alike to sacred and civil interests.”
​

I am not a student of history, so can’t comment on the circumstances when the above was written, however, today, in most countries, there is substantial separation of Church and State (and indeed of “Church” and “Other Church”) and not much concord between secular and ecclesiastical authorities in many areas. The secular authorities are mostly “of the people”, and the people are mostly diverse. There is also not one accepted “ecclesiastical authority” to add to the complexity.​

 

[markomalley]

The above addresses what I called “Case 1” - secular laws which **bind **or **forbid **contrary to ‘tradition’, and I agree it is somewhat simpler. Cases are less common, or at least less topical. Indeed, it is probably part of the practice of lawmaking these days to avoid such a scenario, and often to specifically carve out exceptions to avoid it. Mind you, Catholics might argue that the “non-discrimination” laws that obligate the baker, irrespective of religious beliefs, to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex ‘marriage’ do fall foul of this scenario.

The Case I was more interested in is what I called Case 2 - The making of a secular law to give effect to a moral teaching of a particular tradition, when that teaching is not one that adherents of another tradition consider binding. I gave 2 examples in the original post.

Actually, it covers both cases. You said case two was:* **2). **Laws which forbid an action **on the basis of **a particular tradition’s **moral *beliefs.

While I don’t suggest that we should force ecclesiastical law onto civil law, morality that is based upon the natural law as understood by the Church should be the basis of our civil law. Catholic politicians (and, for that matter, all Christian politicians) should have that as the basis of our civil jurisprudence.

There is nothing particularly theological about the ecclesiastic proscription on the use of artificial contraception. An objective study of human anatomy shows the importance of reproduction in the functioning of the body. Our desire to reproduce is hardwired and human anatomy, with the concentration of nerves that transmit pleasure stimuli to the brain, reinforce this necessity with extremely good feelings. The functioning of the hormones oxytocin and vasopressin on the brain show that we are designed to be monogamous for long periods in order to rear children over long periods of time.

The other thing to remember about that particular example (contraception) is that, from a historical perspective, the religious proscription against contraception was not solely a “Roman Catholic” one. Prior to the 1930 Lambeth Conference (of the worldwide Anglican Communion), all Christian denominations forbade artificial contraception for their adherents. (Once the Anglicans reversed their proscription, all the other Protestant denominations reversed their course)

I, frankly, don’t have a problem with some ecclesiastical laws being imposed on a locality. For example, if you have an area that is mostly Christian, I think it would be appropriate if the government leaders wanted to impose a “blue law” (keeping most retail establishments closed on Sunday, at least Sunday morning) in order to protect peoples’ opportunity to go to their worship services. If an area is mostly Catholic, I would also not have a problem if they had certain Holy Days as designated holidays (for example, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, the day for the local Patron Saint).

On the other hand, I think it would be inappropriate to civilly bind a person by purely ecclesiastical law. For example, I would not want to see heresy incorporated into the US Code. I also would not want to mandate that a person go to an approved house of worship each week.

The difference between the two is that the former would allow people the opportunity to practice their faith but does not mandate it; the latter would mandate people believe a certain thing.

You requested that thread participants not discuss homosexual “marriage”, so I won’t list that as an example (though it has all the hallmarks of imposing a religion on an unwilling populace).

Another example, though, is anthropogenic global warming. It has a dogma that may not be questioned, heresy against that dogma is proscribed, and there is an inquisition to root out heresy.

I am not a student of history, so can’t comment on the circumstances when the above was written, however, today, in most countries, there is substantial separation of Church and State (and indeed of “Church” and “Other Church”) and not much concord between secular and ecclesiastical authorities in many areas. The secular authorities are mostly “of the people”, and the people are mostly diverse. There is also not one accepted “ecclesiastical authority” to add to the complexity.

The time period between the pontificates of Gregory XVI and St Pius X saw the violent separation of the State from the Church in what were previously considered “Catholic” countries. Of course, we saw this, to a degree, during the Reformation; however, even then, most countries that were involved with the Reformation still had some type of Established Religion (for example, the CofE in Britain, the Church of Sweden [Lutheran] in Sweden, etc.). By the time Leo wrote this in 1885, such places as France, Mexico, and Italy had already been taken by regimes that were largely hostile to the Church.

 

[Rau]

Actually, it covers both cases. You said case two was:* **2). ***Laws which forbid an action **on the basis of **a particular tradition’s **moral **beliefs.

The Papal quotes seem only to address Case 1??

While I don’t suggest that we should force ecclesiastical law onto civil law, morality that is based upon the natural law as understood by the Church should be the basis of our civil law. Catholic politicians (and, for that matter, all Christian politicians) should have that as the basis of our civil jurisprudence.

To the extent that the natural is in large part widely acknowledged, that works, though personally I’m not sure where the boundaries of natural law finish and other laws/morality start.

There is nothing particularly theological about the ecclesiastic proscription on the use of artificial contraception. An objective study of human anatomy shows the importance of reproduction in the functioning of the body. Our desire to reproduce is hardwired and human anatomy, with the concentration of nerves that transmit pleasure stimuli to the brain, reinforce this necessity with extremely good feelings. The functioning of the hormones oxytocin and vasopressin on the brain show that we are designed to be monogamous for long periods in order to rear children over long periods of time.

Yet that argument is hardly compelling, as it does not make it apparent that that each and every instance of sexual intimacy needs to be procreative. Given there is not a secular argument (that I know of) to support such a proscription - would Catholics not be utterly unreasonable to seek to set aside the views of others to even suggest legislating such a thing, even if it were to be supported by a majority? Since it is not apparent (to a non-believer in the proscription) that any good flows from avoiding contraception, how could their be justification to legislate for it? Perhaps evangelisation would need to be a pre-requisite?

I, frankly, don’t have a problem with some ecclesiastical laws being imposed on a locality. For example, if you have an area that is mostly Christian, I think it would be appropriate if the government leaders wanted to impose a “blue law” (keeping most retail establishments closed on Sunday, at least Sunday morning) in order to protect peoples’ opportunity to go to their worship services. If an area is mostly Catholic, I would also not have a problem if they had certain Holy Days as designated holidays (for example, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, the day for the local Patron Saint).

On the other hand, I think it would be inappropriate to civilly bind a person by purely ecclesiastical law. For example, I would not want to see heresy incorporated into the US Code. I also would not want to mandate that a person go to an approved house of worship each week.

The difference between the two is that the former would allow people the opportunity to practice their faith but does not mandate it; the latter would mandate people believe a certain thing.

This sounds reasonable, because the (Christian) majority may enjoy a benefit and the minority don’t seem to be unduly disadvantaged.

You requested that thread participants not discuss homosexual “marriage”, so I won’t list that as an example (though it has all the hallmarks of imposing a religion on an unwilling populace).

All I meant was let’s not get side-tracked into a debate of the rights and wrongs of that subject - but no objection to considering it in the context of this debate. Indeed those in favour of “same sex marriage” do accuse Catholics who argue against “same sex marriage” as seeking to “force” their definition of marriage onto others, thus denying same-sex couples a “right”.

My view on this is that the State is free to define an institution into which a same-sex couple may enter if it finds there to be good reason. There may well be - eg. two individuals who plan to look after each other till death. My only comment however is that this ought not to be called “Marriage”, for it is a different kind of relationship. [Of course, this is not widely accepted!]

Two other areas that could be considered:

• Is campaigning for laws forbidding assisted suicide justified on moral grounds alone?
• Would campaigning for laws forbidding IVF be justified on moral grounds alone?
  [the moral grounds being as set out in the Catechism]

 

[CaliLobo]

Honestly, I think Christians are slowly understanding that they are no longer the persuasive force in society as they used to be. However, it’s possible that it would be for the church’s benefit.

I posted this in another thread but it was ignored. Here it is again:

This article may prove relevant:
redletterchristians.org/death-dynasty/

Since her inception, **American Christians have had a hard time resisting the temptation to confuse our particular and fallible set of political and economic ideologies with the cause of Christ, justifying the use of power and cultural dominance to coerce cultural morality. **Generation after generation of evangelical Americans believe that America is great because America is good, leading to the false assumption that insofar as The United States is a capitalistic democracy, she is Christian, and that supporting democracy is a means to support Christianity and vice versa. The first step in shedding this over lording past is to confess our national sin of compromising the lordship of Christ by identifying God’s kingdom with the American establishment, creating a dangerous patriotic fervor promoting the sweeping sanctification of American political, economic, social and foreign policy. **But thankfully, as religious pluralism expands in the U.S. and the fallacies of Christendom are unmasked, this era of Christian cultural dominance is finally coming to an end. Rising up in her place is the existence of a peripheral, multi-cultural church living as seeds scattered in the global diaspora, prevailing as witness against the poverty of our accommodating civic religion.
**
As Stanley Hauerwas states, “Christians would be more relaxed and less compulsive about running the world if we made our peace with our minority situation.” As citizens of heaven, living in pluralistic communities here on earth, the church must re-educate her residents for a brave new world where she no longer has the power and authority to bend society to her will. Perhaps the toughest habit to break deriving from our privileged past is the assumption that if Christians do not rule society, it will surely slide down the slippery slope to anarchy and chaos…

As expatriate’s in a strange land, the church has the opportunity to offer the world a new ethic, if for nothing else because she finally understands what it means to be the outcast. When this new, disenfranchised community is now confronted with evil, she models forgiveness instead of vengeance, because she knows what it is like to feel the wrath of empire. When she is tempted to engage in social stratification, this new powerless community of Christ equalizes the status of women, slaves and the immigrant because she has become one of them. When the world is fat on the gluttony of economic self-consumption, the church can finally act to transform economic principals by insisting on the economic principles of Shabbat and Jubilee instead of further defending and exploiting unfettered capitalism. Ultimately, in this new environment, the post-Christian church moves from colonizers to subalterns, seeking to find our way in a world we no longer create and control. And, much like Daniel in Babylon, we bear witness to a new way of life by exposing the lies, domination and violence so readily available and utilized by the powers that be. It’s an incredible opportunity. As Murray points out:

We really do need to embrace post-Christendom now. The term ‘post-Christendom’, contrary to the claims of some critics, does not imply the withdrawal of Christians or the church from the public realm. Rather, it suggests that the nature of our involvement in politics, culture and society needs to be renegotiated in light of changing circumstances and changing theological convictions. The ‘post’ aspect of the term invites us to leave behind the compromises of the past; the ‘Christendom’ aspect is a reminder of the legacy with which we must grapple and from which we must learn as we explore uncharted territory.

The end of the Christian world as we know it will create space for the recovery of authentic forms of Christianity. **In fact, ‘Post-Christendom’ may very well prove to be far more Christian than Christendom. ** As Christians embrace the reality of this new age and recognize the opportunities as well as the challenges, perhaps we can find the courage and creativity to re-imagine a church on the margins of empire that abandons her propensity to rule and instead accepts her God given role to serve.

 

[dmar198]

Our societies are made up of peoples of different backgrounds, faith systems and principles of morality (call these “traditions”). As a society, we seek to live together in harmony, and under a system of law which (mostly) distances itself from alignment with any one tradition. That is, the law does not intentionally elevate one tradition to a special place, or mirror the strictures of a particular tradition. …

This state of affairs raises the question of how adherents of a particular tradition ought to react to secular laws (or lawmaking) that are at odds with their tradition. …

…

Example 2a: If the US enacted a law (supported, democratically, by the majority) which forbade the sale of contraceptives (medical purposes excepted), should (faithful) Catholics support that, and should a tradition for which ABC (contraception) is allowed be outraged at the infringement on their liberties? Or, is this in fact an inappropriate law on the grounds that it is not needed - the Catholics are already guided in their conduct by the Church, and likewise for all others. Therefore, should (faithful) Catholics, motivated by social harmony and respect for the rights of others, reasonably object to the law as inappropriate / unnecessary? …

Should Catholics argue that the law should forbid assisted suicides for the reasons expressed in our Catechism (which are intrinsically moral teachings)? Or is it inappropriate to set aside the position of others (not sharing our tradition) and seek to have our tradition (which already exists to bind us) applied - in the secular law - to all?

By my reading, the Catechism of the Catholic Church invites nations to base their laws on Catholic doctrine and calls upon lay Catholics to try and make this happen: CCC 2244 Every institution is inspired, at least implicitly, by a vision of man and his destiny, from which it derives the point of reference for its judgment, its hierarchy of values, its line of conduct. … The Church invites political authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against [the] inspired truth about God and man.

CCC 899 The initiative of lay Christians is necessary…for permeating social, political, and economic realities with the demands of Christian doctrine and life. This initiative is a normal element of the life of the Church.

CCC 898 By reason of their special vocation it belongs to the laity to seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing them according to God’s will. … It pertains to them in a special way so to illuminate and order all temporal things…to Christ…

CCC 1979 The natural law is immutable, permanent throughout history. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. It is a necessary foundation for the erection of moral rules and civil law.

CCC 1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.

CCC 1886 Human society must primarily be considered something pertaining to the spiritual. … [Spiritual] benefits not only influence, but at the same time give aim and scope to all that has bearing on cultural expressions, economic, and social institutions, political movements and forms, laws, and all other structures by which society is outwardly established and constantly developed. Therefore, I think Catholics should support civil laws that line up with Catholic doctrine. But this should be done in such a way that it doesn’t lead to people being penalized for not following Catholic morality. To apply this to your contraception example, political leaders should say that, in their view, contraception is wrong. If contracepting citizens ask for the government to buy them contraception via government-paid healthcare plans, they should refuse to do so, because they must withhold their hands from evil. But they should not coerce them to follow Catholic morality.

If the sale of contraceptives was banned out of a desire to coerce non-Catholics into living by Catholic morality, I don’t think it could be done legitimately. But I think there are perhaps other reasons for banning contraceptives besides a desire to coerce conformance to Catholic morality.

 

[Rau]

… I think Catholics should support civil laws that line up with Catholic doctrine. But this should be done in such a way that it doesn’t lead to people being penalized for not following Catholic morality. To apply this to your contraception example, political leaders should say that, in their view, contraception is wrong. If contracepting citizens ask for the government to buy them contraception via government-paid healthcare plans, they should refuse to do so, because they must withhold their hands from evil. But they should not coerce them to follow Catholic morality.

If the sale of contraceptives was banned out of a desire to coerce non-Catholics into living by Catholic morality, I don’t think it could be done legitimately. But I think there are perhaps other reasons for banning contraceptives besides a desire to coerce conformance to Catholic morality.

I am not sure it is possible to pursue legislation, justified by (Catholic) morality, yet not penalise those not sharing the same moral beliefs. As you say, banning contraceptives would fail that test. What about banning assisted suicide on moral grounds? Would not those suffering grave end of life conditions argue that they have been denied their (legal) ability to end their life because of another faith’s teaching. (Many people hold that there is nothing immoral in choosing their time of death.)

There seem to be two standpoints that one can adopt:
1). It’s a democracy so we all get to say what we think the law should be;
2). We take the view that secular law ought not limit individual freedoms where exercise of those freedoms does not unjustly impinge on others.

 

[dmar198]

I am not sure it is possible to pursue legislation, justified by (Catholic) morality, yet not penalise those not sharing the same moral beliefs. As you say, banning contraceptives would fail that test. What about banning assisted suicide on moral grounds? Would not those suffering grave end of life conditions argue that they have been denied their (legal) ability to end their life because of another faith’s teaching. (Many people hold that there is nothing immoral in choosing their time of death.)

There seem to be two standpoints that one can adopt:
1). It’s a democracy so we all get to say what we think the law should be;
2). We take the view that secular law ought not limit individual freedoms where exercise of those freedoms does not unjustly impinge on others.

In the U.K. the Church has been fighting an effort to legalize assisted suicide, and the pro-suicide argument is that this is a matter of free will and conscience. If you feel that your life is worthless, they say, the dignity of life argument no longer works, and to enforce that is a violation of your conscience. One of the Church’s responses to that is that it’s not just your conscience that is involved here, because in assisted suicide you bring a doctor in as well, along with the state’s medical standards. And even if you think that your life is worthless, the State’s standards have an obligation to be based on the truth, which is that all life has enormous value. They therefore have to hold their doctors to that standard, because everyone has to pay attention to the truth and hold firm to that, not just do whatever you want them to do. I think this argument is effective because it grounds the objection to assisted suicide in an objective responsibility to the truth. So keep that in mind as well.

 

[Rau]

In the U.K. the Church has been fighting an effort to legalize assisted suicide, and the pro-suicide argument is that this is a matter of free will and conscience. If you feel that your life is worthless, they say, the dignity of life argument no longer works, and to enforce that is a violation of your conscience. One of the Church’s responses to that is that it’s not just your conscience that is involved here, because in assisted suicide you bring a doctor in as well, along with the state’s medical standards. And even if you think that your life is worthless, the State’s standards have an obligation to be based on the truth, which is that all life has enormous value. They therefore have to hold their doctors to that standard, because everyone has to pay attention to the truth and hold firm to that, not just do whatever you want them to do. I think this argument is effective because it grounds the objection to assisted suicide in an objective responsibility to the truth. So keep that in mind as well.

A patient may agree his life has intrinsic value, but that his personal suffering (and maybe that caused to others) outweighs it. He may also believe he has the right to “waive” the honouring of that value (though no one else does).

I am not confident that assisted suicides will be effectively outlawed on moral grounds - but more likely on the secular grounds of the risk of ‘wrong’ (in a secular sense) outcomes (eg. wrongful deaths, accidents, etc.)

 

[dmar198]

In the U.K. the Church has been fighting an effort to legalize assisted suicide, and the pro-suicide argument is that this is a matter of free will and conscience. If you feel that your life is worthless, they say, the dignity of life argument no longer works, and to enforce that is a violation of your conscience. One of the Church’s responses to that is that it’s not just your conscience that is involved here, because in assisted suicide you bring a doctor in as well, along with the state’s medical standards. And even if you think that your life is worthless, the State’s standards have an obligation to be based on the truth, which is that all life has enormous value. They therefore have to hold their doctors to that standard, because everyone has to pay attention to the truth and hold firm to that, not just do whatever you want them to do. I think this argument is effective because it grounds the objection to assisted suicide in an objective responsibility to the truth. So keep that in mind as well.

I wanted to add the following words to my post but I was past the 20 minute mark:

Although one could object to the above argument by saying that it lets the State enforce morality by forcing doctors to go by a doctrine with which they may disagree, that counter argument seems to prove to much. If you were allowed to act on your beliefs no matter what they were, you could argue that killing Polish people was okay according to your conscience, and therefore you must be allowed to do it. The state can’t allow that because its laws protecting life must be based on the truth. In the same way, if a doctor argues that assisting people with suicide is okay with his conscience, the State must not allow that because its laws protecting life must be based on the truth, which is that no one’s life may be legitimately taken.

Thus forbidding assisted suicide is no more an example of enforcing morality than forbidding murder is. (But is THAT enforcing morality? Maybe it is, but for legitimate reasons.)

 

[Brendan]

I am not sure it is possible to pursue legislation, justified by (Catholic) morality, yet not penalise those not sharing the same moral beliefs. As you say, banning contraceptives would fail that test. .

No it would not. For such an act to penalize others, it would mean that a right is being denied to them.

If we are talking about a purely civil right, that right would not exist, any more than a speed limit penalizes me. I do not have a right to drive 120mph in a residential zone.

If you are talking about a moral right to contraception, there is none. It is against the natural moral law.

Therefore the restriction of contraceptives involves no actual penalty. No rights were taken away via the passage of the law.

 

[Rau]

No it would not. For such an act to penalize others, it would mean that a right is being denied to them.

If we are talking about a purely civil right, that right would not exist, any more than a speed limit penalizes me. I do not have a right to drive 120mph in a residential zone.

If you are talking about a moral right to contraception, there is none. It is against the natural moral law.

Therefore the restriction of contraceptives involves no actual penalty. No rights were taken away via the passage of the law.

What is your favourite dessert? I agree that if your favourite restaurant takes it off the menu, no right of yours is denied. But if the government legislates that that dessert must not be prepared (perhaps because it includes a fruit that is not to be eaten in some religious tradition) would you (and the chef) still feel that no right had been taken away?

There are excellent secular reasons to legislate restrictive rules for the road. The beliefs of the Ahmish, however, are not among them.