What gives us the right to interfere with secular laws?

[JReducation]

so, the catholic church would cut off its nose to spite its face.

That’s your rude opinion.

none of the things you listed (providing health care, adoption services, wearing religious symbols) are religious obligations.

They are to us.

further, they are not cases where the church was compelled to do anything besides treating all of their employees the same way. if a church wants to be exempt from laws regarding equal treatment of it’s employees, then i think they should give up their tax exempt status.

Being a 501(c)3 is not about this. That law was created to allow non-profit organizations to keep as much of their income as possible, because those funds are serving a public good.

but the line about the Boston adoptions is patently false.

Actually, that’s the Boston Globe’s side of the story. The Cardinal, who happens to be one of my confrères, when he was assigned to Boston, told Catholic Charities to close the adoption program, because we could not compromise on this issue.

The law was supposed to protect the interest of the child, on the interest of other adopting parent. After much deliberation, the Commonwealth of Mass decided to act in the interest of the adopting parent.

as for the Florida abortion counseling, of course an organization that is taking state funds shouldn’t be promoting a certain religious viewpoint.

The state funds are targeted to provide material assistance. As long as that assistance is given without prejudice, a law that prohibits the discussion of religion is discriminatory. The FPCN (Florida Pregnancy Care Network) does not exist to interfere with religious belief. It was created to provide needed material assistance to the poor. For them to require silence on religious matters is overstepping the intent of the legislation that brought the FPCN into existence.

and in Virginia, of course teachers should have a dress code.

They don’t have a dress code. They have dress prohibition. You can wear whatever you want as long as it is not religious. Even the Armed forces of the United States allows a religious insignia on the uniform of chaplains. That’s a dress code.

nothing you said would force you to do anything you don’t want to. they are hypothetical situations at best. and when you actually look into the issues that you mention, it’s not like the catholic church is being singled out. all religious institutions have to follow the same rules.

The force you to comply with state laws that are immoral or face a penalty. No one said the Catholic Church was being singled out. As you can see, I mentioned Jews and Muslims too.

Why are you so bent on this point of view? What are you getting out of it?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[z0wb13]

the nose/face comment isn’t rude, it’s accurate. if the church decides that it will no longer do it’s good work because they might inadvertently help someone that they don’t like, then i don’t know what else you would call it. do you think that when you get to the pearly gates, st. peter is going to be like, “well you helped out a bazillion people with health insurance, but it looks like you accidentally covered a gay couple, so no entre.”

maybe i should have said they decided to take their marbles and go home. or maybe, they just didn’t want to pay for health insurance anymore. i honestly don’t know, and it would be stupid of me to speculate. it doesn’t matter though the reason why, because doing good doesn’t suddenly become doing wrong depending on the class of person you are helping out. furthermore, where’s the outrage about having to pay for a spouse that has been divorced and remarried? i never hear about that, even though jesus singles out divorce as a mortal sin, and yet is completely silent on the issue of gay people.

and i know that catholics are expected to do good works, which is commendable and is actually the reason i like catholics so much. but i know that it doesn’t say thou shalt wear a crucifix to work anywhere in the bible or apocrypha. a dress code and a dress prohibition are the same thing. no flip flops, no hats, no jewelry. when a teacher goes to work, they are expected to check their beliefs at the door and start doing their job, which is to teach kids xyz. if they want to teach kids about the gospels, public school is the wrong setting. but if you bring any religious beliefs in with you, as a teacher, you are introducing unnecessary distractions into your classroom.

regarding the FPCN, the organization has a definite pro-life agenda that it pushes. it was distributing information that was scientifically inaccurate. and, it is redundant, because medicaid will pay for any under-privileged mother’s pregnancy, and WIC will help raise the kids too. the FPCN is a way of funneling public money into a decidedly religious organization, it isn’t like they are providing a service that pregnant mothers couldn’t get anywhere else.

They force you to comply with state laws that are immoral or face a penalty. No one said the Catholic Church was being singled out. As you can see, I mentioned Jews and Muslims too.

this is inaccurate. if you want to get free money from the government, or hold 503c tax exemption status, then you have to follow state and federal laws. that’s not the same thing as being penalized. churches aren’t having to pay some fine because they won’t marry gay people or hand out birth control.

Why are you so bent on this point of view? What are you getting out of it?

i get out what i put in. but i’m bent on this point of view because some christians act like they are an oppressed minority in this country, when they aren’t. i actually belong to a minority religion, and i don’t get any special consideration for it. i don’t get to take the day off because it’s a new moon. i’m not complaining, but christians in this country tend to take it for granted the perks and benefits they get for being the majority. i thank my lucky stars that i was born in a country that has so much religious tolerance, but i know that i have to push back or i risk losing my freedoms. unless you are a a rich white guy, you have had to fight for your rights in this country, and even those first rich white guys had to fight the british.

 

[Elizabeth502]

There can be no right to commit a moral evil.

We’re talking about publishing a book – a book about ideas, a book about thought (no matter how illogically argued or unintelligently presented, no matter that you and I would laugh at anyone taking the trouble to write a book about atheism). And again, the way opponents of such books deal with such ideas is to discredit them in the public square (or ignore them, driving their authors crazy), and/or to write books of superior contradictory content. And the latter happens all the time. Often authors are featured in the mainstream media – not to mention in religious media – who have written books in explicit opposition to Hitchens, Dawkins, and many more authors. These authors, and religious authors, are all protected equally by the First Amendment, which ensures the rights of citizens to speak out and write about evils in their country and what to do about those evils. Freedom of speech – as long as it’s universally available – is not one of those evils.

 

[meltzerboy]

Recently in Brazil same-sex unions have been legalised despite condemnation from the Catholic Church -

bbc.co.uk/news/world-13304442

This thread is not a news thread, it is only using the above story as an example.

While reading the comments, I notice one person had posted this below the story -

“Why is the Catholic Church trying to interfere with secular unions? Do they think non-Catholics have a similar right to interfere with Catholic sacraments?”

What is everyone’s opinion on this? If we believe we have a right to campaign against secular laws including civil partnerships, does that mean it is okay for non-Catholics to start telling us how to apply our religious rules e.g. the Catechism?

Let’s say that there was a group of Catholics campaigning for same-sex marriage to be outlawed. Would it then be fair for a group of non-Catholics to campaign for Catholics to be forced to allow same-sex marriages?

Or -

Let’s say Catholics successfully managed to campaign for same-sex marriage to be made illegal, would it then be fair if non-Catholics successfully managed to campaign for Catholic Churches to be forced to marry any heterosexual couple, whether they are Catholic or not? If not, why not?

After all, we are interfering in the “secular” world by campaigning against a law, so why can’t secular people interfere in our religious world by campaigning against our “rules”?

Essentially, this thread is about the concept of religious freedom versus freedom of living how you choose, and telling other people/attempting to force people to live how you want them to.

Non-Catholics have NO right to campaign for Catholic Churches to be forced to marry any heterosexual couple or to change any other doctrine of the Church; just as Catholics have NO right to campaign to change any doctrine of another religious institution. This is a matter of institutional religious freedom. However, both groups (Catholics and non-Catholics) have EVERY right to campaign in the political arena to change an existing secular law which they disagree with, whether it is opposing or favoring same-sex marriage, abortion, gun control, or any other existing law. This is a matter of the individual right to dissent in a democracy.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…is to discredit them in the public square (or ignore them, driving their authors crazy), and/or to write books of superior contradictory content. And the latter happens all the time. … are all protected equally by the First Amendment, which ensures the rights of citizens to speak out and write about evils in their country and what to do about those evils. Freedom of speech – as long as it’s universally available – is not one of those evils.

If the correct way to deal with speech that one finds immoral is not to disallow its public expression, but to offer counter speech, then why do we restrict who can purchase pornography? Where is the speech and counter speech concerning pedophilia? In our society it is acceptable to limit speech because of its moral content. Both the power of the state and peer pressure are acceptable means to achieve a regulated speech. They are currently being used to push a progressive speech code under the rubrics “Hate Speech” and “Politically Correct Speech”. That is unacceptably counter to the Christian worldview.

 

[meltzerboy]

Washington DC:

The Archdiocese of Washington has had to drop family health care packages for all of its employees, because the District of Columbia has passed a law the requires that employers provide family benefits to employees who are not married, straight or gay, but are domestic partners. This has forced the Archdiocese, which covers the District of Columbia and Southeastern Maryland, to drop the coverage. By consequence, the employees who live in Maryland are also deprived of the benefits package.

Boston

The Archdiocese had to close its adoption program, because the State rules that Catholic Charities violated civil rights when it refused to consider applications for adoptions by same-sex couples heterosexual couples that are not validly married.

Florida

The State of Florida’s Pregnancy Care Network does not allow religious pregnancy centers to discuss religion in counseling sessions without financially penalizing them. In other words, the State refuses to provide funds that help poor families in crisis pregnancies, if you discuss religion. They monitor it by asking every person who enters a pregnancy center to complete a form that has to be sent to the state. Question number 1: Was religion discussed? They don’t hide the fact that they prefer to allow poor parents and children to go without material assistant rather than allow the discussion of religion. It’s OK to go hungry or not to have what your infant needs, but it’s not OK to talk about God, chastity, family and marriage.

Catholic hospitals have come under fire because they do not allow patients, family members and doctors to choose to pull feeding tubes and water from patients who are terminally ill. To do so violates moral law. Every patient has the right to ordinary palliative care, food and water as long as it does not cause undue hardship to the patient. Every doctor, family member and patient must accept ordinary palliative care, hydration and nutrition except when it aggravates the patient’s condition. The Supreme Court of Florida ruled that it is unconstitutional to deny patients the right to accelerate their death.

Commonwealth of Virginia

Public school teachers may not wear any religious sign or symbol that is visible. This means that a Jew may not wear a kippah, a Muslim may not wear a bulka, a Catholic may not wear a visible crucifix, nor may clergy and religious enter public schools wearing a habit or a collar.

If you comply with civil law you violate the moral code. Your only choice is to stop doing a greater good in order to avoid a violation or go to court.

Allow me to ask a question. Why are people of any faith so protective of the US Government and far less protective of their faith?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

While I understand the Commonwealth of Virginia’s law opposing the wearing of religious symbols (which is why I agree with the prohibition of the display of religious symbols in public school buildings) since they may be construed as an endorsement of a particular religious belief, I also believe this specific law involving personal attire may be a violation of individual religious freedom. I don’t see it as an issue of promulgating a religious belief or one of dress code, but rather a matter of religious freedom of expression. The case is perhaps a little less solid for Catholics who wish to wear a crucifix since, as far as I know, they are not morally required to wear one. But for orthodox Muslim women and Jewish men, the burqa and kippah respectively ARE required. Further, to forbid religious and clergy from entering public schools wearing a habit or collar also seems to me a violation of individual religious rights. Has there been any protest or dissent about this law? Also, is this the only State (Commonwealth) in the Union in which it exists, and how long has it been in effect? Do the same dress code restrictions apply to public school students?

 

[Elizabeth502]

If the correct way to deal with speech that one finds immoral is not to disallow its public expression, but to offer counter speech, then why do we restrict who can purchase pornography? Where is the speech and counter speech concerning pedophilia? In our society it is acceptable to limit speech because of its moral content. Both the power of the state and peer pressure are acceptable means to achieve a regulated speech. They are currently being used to push a progressive speech code under the rubrics “Hate Speech” and “Politically Correct Speech”. That is unacceptably counter to the Christian worldview.

You’ve leapt from publishing a book about atheism (ideas --not pornography, not pedophilia, not political speech or action) to oral speech with explicitly evil content. While they are all broadly covered under the First Amendment (within limits), they are different things.

I was limiting myself only to the action you call evil: publishing a book about atheism. The authors may or may not be evil. They may be ignorant, they may be trying to convince themselves more than anyone else, they may be not very bright, but it doesn’t make them pornographers, pedophiles, or political activists as such.

 

[JReducation]

Let’s not go all over the place, because we will only derail the thread and make it impossible for other posters to follow.

You asked for examples of civil law that impose violations of moral law. I gave them to you and you have embarked on a campaign to defend civil law and completely disregard the beliefs of Jews, Muslims and Christians who feel that these civil laws are asking us to violate moral law. It would seem to me that the appropriate approach is not to defend the right of the state to dictate over conscience, but to prove that conscience and moral law are flawed and therefore, the state is not in violation of moral norms.

the nose/face comment isn’t rude, it’s accurate. if the church decides that it will no longer do it’s good work because they might inadvertently help someone that they don’t like, then i don’t know what else you would call it.

Either you don’t understand the problem or you’re being deliberately offensive. Catholics, Jews and Protestants have been the major provider of health care and other outreach services to the poor and the sick for centuries, without discriminating. We still run hospitals, community health centers, nursing facilities, hospice programs and homes for people of all walks of life. When they can’t pay, they receive free care. That has never been an issue. To say that we deny services to someone that we don’t like is rude and dishonest.

The real problem here for Catholics, many Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Orthodox Christians, and Muslims is that the state is demanding that we give benefits, not assistance, to same-sex couples and non-married couples as if they were married. In other words, the state is saying that we must treat them as something that they are not. It’s asking us to lie. If a religious institution has a benefit package for married people, then it would be unfair to deny it to a couple, regardless of their religious, cultural or political background as long as they are married. We do not recognize as married these couples that the state is demanding that we do. It is contrary to our moral laws to do so. Therefore, the state is asking us to violate our moral laws. The only way to avoid doing so is to stop providing a benefit to married couples… It is up to you to prove that the state is not violating our right to deny the validity of such unions and our right to refuse to treat such unions as if they were true marriages.

doing good doesn’t suddenly become doing wrong depending on the class of person you are helping out.

Same-sex couples and couples that cohabit are not a class of people. They are simply not a married couple. Therefore, they cannot be treated as if they are. To do so is a grave sin.

furthermore, where’s the outrage about having to pay for a spouse that has been divorced and remarried?

Actually, that is not allowed either. Catholic and Muslim institutions, rarely emply divorced and remarried people. Orthodox Christians tolerate it, but are not happy to do it. Protestants run the continuum, from indifferent to zero tolerance for divorce and remarriage.

they are expected to check their beliefs at the door and start doing their job,

The state does not have the moral authority to demand this of its citizens. That is a violation of religious freedom. In addition, it is immoral for a person of faith to “check his or her religious beliefs at the door”. Tell that to a Muslim or an Orthodox Jew and you may find yourself shot on the spot. Catholics and Protestants will just tell you that you’re crazy.

if you bring any religious beliefs in with you, as a teacher, you are introducing unnecessary distractions into your classroom.

A human being is a Gestalt, not a sum of parts. You cannot separate Judaism from a Jew, Islam from a Muslim, Christianity from a Christian. Any law that attempts to enforce this is asking people to shut off their conscience while on duty in a certain setting. Shutting off your conscience is a grave sin. Therefore, the law is asking you to sin.

 

[BobCatholic]

I see.

Catholic Church has no right to speak on secular laws.

That’s the typical secular mentality.

Of course, when secularists want to interfere with the Catholic Church’s operations, that appears to be fine. Got to legally require Catholic health care institutions to provide abortions, or have their health plans require contraceptions, etc.

Double standard?

Yup.

That’s the secularist way.

 

[JReducation]

this is inaccurate. if you want to get free money from the government, or hold 503c tax exemption status, then you have to follow state and federal laws.

We get back to the same point. The state does not have the right to interfere or to create laws that require citizens to regulate their consciences in order to make use of money that these citizens paid into the system. Given that over 80% of the voters in the USA are Judeo-Christians, the state has a moral duty to channel the the voter’s money where ever those voters want to use it, not where legislators and special interest groups want to use it. When there is a disagreement between two schools of thought, as in the article that you cited, the state has the moral duty to focus not on the disagreement, but on its commitment to the people that it promised to help. If the stat had an issue with the expressed beliefs of these organizations, it should not have offered assistance in the first place. These organizations did not hide their moral beliefs. They make them very public. If I read the quote correctly, one of the groups named in the article said that it exists to uphold the sanctity of life. Well, they did not lie nor did they hide their mission. Why require them not to talk about it? If their mission was a problem, don’t offer to help.

i get out what i put in. but i’m bent on this point of view because some christians act like they are an oppressed minority in this country, when they aren’t. i actually belong to a minority religion, and i don’t get any special consideration for it. i don’t get to take the day off because it’s a new moon. i’m not complaining, but christians in this country tend to take it for granted the perks and benefits they get for being the majority. i thank my lucky stars that i was born in a country that has so much religious tolerance, but i know that i have to push back or i risk losing my freedoms. unless you are a a rich white guy, you have had to fight for your rights in this country, and even those first rich white guys had to fight the british.

In other words, you have an agenda. Answering the question in the OP is not on your agenda. Your agenda is to oppose anything that is religious, even if it means violating consciences and pushing laws that are contrary to the moral laws that govern the citizens of a nation.

That brings me to another question, why are you on a Catholic forum? As Catholics, we’re interested in exploring what your faith and ours have in common. We’re interested in sharing our faith and moral laws with you. We’re interested in enjoying your company and learning from your insight. We’re interested in working together for the common good. But that’s not the reason that you’re giving for being here.

Therefore, we have a problem, because this forum is about Catholic Moral Theology. So far, you have not shown any respect for our moral beliefs. You have spent a lot of time defending the secular state, as if the secular state needed to be defended. It is the man and woman of conscience who needs to be defended from the secular state that would render us all neutral on any moral question. It is quite obvious that the agenda of the secular state is to push moral relativism. Even George Washington did not subscribe to that one. In fact, he actually said that it is risky business when the state tries to separate itself from religion.

It is one thing for the state not to have an official state religion and quite another for the state to pretend that religion does not exist, that moral absolutes do not apply to law makers.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I see.

Catholic Church has no right to speak on secular laws.

That’s the typical secular mentality.

Of course, when secularists want to interfere with the Catholic Church’s operations, that appears to be fine. Got to legally require Catholic health care institutions to provide abortions, or have their health plans require contraceptions, etc.

Double standard?

Yup.

That’s the secularist way.

What is interesting is that if you tried this on Jews and Muslims you would have a riot. Therefore, the governments of the world tread gingerly around them. Because Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and Protestants don’t riot, it’s fair game to demand that we adopt neutral consciences.

A neutral conscience is more sinful than one that unintentionally embraces error. In the former case, the person is denying the voice of conscience. In the latter case, the person is simply mistaken, but is trying to be honest.

Denying the voice of conscience to comply with civil law is morally unjustifiable. This was the demand that Nazis and Communists imposed on their people. Neutralize your conscience so that the state can do whatever it wants without impunity.

I don’t think so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JRKH]

I am not talking about conversion by force.

No - you are talking about curtailing their rights to act on their conscience…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

This is fine as long as we do not tolerate legislation that violates moral law. Never forget the example of Thomas More. “I die the loyal servant of the King, but the faithful son of the Church.” If a law is immoral, then it cannot be tolerated in the name of religious freedom. That’s not what Dignitatis Humanae says. It says that we may not force faith on anyone. It does not say that in order to allow religious freedom, we must allow immoral laws. **We do have a duty to push for moral legislation. **

A good read for this subject would be my confrere’s book. Render Unto Caesar{/u] Bishop Charles Chaput, OFM Cap. Caesar’s rights are determined by divine law, not by Caesar or by the governed. When Caesar violates divine law, the governed have a moral obligation to rebel.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Then we get into what constitutes a proper definition of “Not Tolerate” and “Push for”.

Your reference to Thomas More is interesting in this regard.
Thomas refused to sign and oath. He did not actively or vocally renounce the oath.

In the US, We have abortion laws - Which, “cannot be tolerated in the name of religious freedom”. Yet what measres are acceptable in “not tolerating” these laws. We can’t shoot abortion providors, we can’t storm the halls of congress and take over the government.
So the issue begins to resolve itself down to, just HOW and to what extent can we “Rebel” so that we do not have to tolerate “immoral laws”? How hard and with what tools may we legitiamtely “push for moral legislation”?

Since we are restricted by our moral code from using radical solutions such as armed rebellion, it seems we MUST tolerate immoral lawas while at the same time seeking, legally, to have them changed through the avenues of evangelization and conversion etc rather than by sedition.

Peace
James

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You’ve leapt from publishing a book about atheism (ideas --not pornography, not pedophilia, not political speech or action) to oral speech with explicitly evil content. While they are all broadly covered under the First Amendment (within limits), they are different things.

I don’t see how it is germane to the issue.

I was limiting myself only to the action you call evil: publishing a book about atheism. The authors may or may not be evil. They may be ignorant, they may be trying to convince themselves more than anyone else, they may be not very bright, but it doesn’t make them pornographers, pedophiles, or political activists as such.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No - you are talking about curtailing their rights to act on their conscience…

Peace
James

I must be missing what you are saying here. It seems that you are saying we have to permit evil acts because they are an exercise of conscience. I am probably misconstruing what you mean, so if you can clarify what you mean it would help.

 

[JRKH]

I must be missing what you are saying here. It seems that you are saying we have to permit evil acts because they are an exercise of conscience. I am probably misconstruing what you mean, so if you can clarify what you mean it would help.

I will try.

First you said that,
“We need not permit …atheists publishing books.”

Which Elizabeth took issue with under first amendment rights.

You responded with:
“There can be no right to commit a moral evil.”

To which I responded that the Catechism guarantees a person’s right to act freely on their conscience.

You seem to think that this refers somehow to “conversion by force”, which I guess it could, but in the larger and more modern sense it refers to not oppressing or coercing.
To deny the Atheist the right to openly publish because it violates our moral code is to oppress his moral code and to deny him the right to act on that moral code. This is a violation of Catholic teaching in the Catechism.

Such laws, and such rights are as much for our protection as theirs. JR above mentioned St Thomas More. It reminds me of an exchange between Thomas and his son-in-law in the movie “A Man For All Seasons” about the protection of Law – It might be useful here:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

So my dear Petey, we give others the benefit of Law for our own safety’s sake. The atheist has the right to publish because we have the right to publish.

Peace
James

 

[kildare]

May I answer the title question?

Citizenship and democracy gives us the right to interfere with secular laws and a damm good thing it is too.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

To deny the Atheist the right to openly publish because it violates our moral code is to oppress his moral code and to deny him the right to act on that moral code. This is a violation of Catholic teaching in the Catechism.
… The atheist has the right to publish because we have the right to publish.

Peace
James

I don’t agree with this at all. the CC you quoted reads as a matter of conversion to me, not of “moral code”. If what you say is true then we cannot deny the killer or the rapist the right to kill or rape because it is an oppression of their moral code. There is no right to commit a moral evil. Whether that be Murder or Blasphemy. Its all a moral evil.

 

[Stylites]

No person would want to live in a society where the faithful have no public voice or ability to uphold Christian values, as it would be an utter hell.

 

[meltzerboy]

I don’t agree with this at all. the CC you quoted reads as a matter of conversion to me, not of “moral code”. If what you say is true then we cannot deny the killer or the rapist the right to kill or rape because it is an oppression of their moral code. There is no right to commit a moral evil. Whether that be Murder or Blasphemy. Its all a moral evil.

Do you really not see a difference between murder and blasphemy? To put it in legal terms, murder directly removes other people’s civil liberties by depriving them of their life. Blasphemy, on the other hand, may make others feel uncomfortable, but it does not deprive them of their civil liberties to protest and defend their own views. If we deny others their individual rights to express their religious or anti-religious beliefs in a book (which we need not purchase or read), then they may deny us the same individual rights to express our religious beliefs.