What gives us the right to interfere with secular laws?

[kildare]

Catholicism should be apolitical but it does end up usually in confrontation with the trend towards totalitarism. Actually the person quoted by the OP bemoaning the “interference” is of the same mould as all the intolerant autocrats down through history, from the roman and byzantine emperors, to medivel kings such as Henry II (who had St Thomas a Beckett murdered),the European monarchs of the 16th and 17th century who wanted to appoint their own clergy (and in England’s case control religion like they controlled everything else 100%).
Bismarck knew the dangers of catholicism to autocratic control when he united the protestant north of Germany with the Catholic south 140 years ago.And thats why he decided to eliminate it with the Kulturkampf. Fortuntely for the auotcratic rulers of Germany nationalism had become a more powerful force than religion and in any case the protestant majority was secure, so eventually he allowed catholics to continue. Nationalist German parties pre World War I got their biggest support fromnon-catholic areas as would the Nazi´s (despite Hitler being catholic). Catholics, by following two masters, were the biggest breaks on germany’s insane move to radical imperlism in teh 19th century.

Even in the so-called catholic monarchies, the “meddling” jesuits were routinely expelled, and we dont need to dwell upon the anti-catholic atrocities of the French revolution of the Spanish civil war. I would even go so far as to say that the schism which split the Rome from teh Orthodox in the 11th century had even more to do with the autocratic nature of the emperor in Constantinople as it did about the divergence in greek and latin customs.

So you see the catholic church is a power in itself and is therefore presents a very undesireous counterpoint for totalitarian regimes. A person who cant stand another point of view, even if it were radical islam or the reintroduction of slavery, really isnt a democrat or a pluralist at all! To be accepted you have to follow the accepted way of thinking 100% - accept divorce, gay marriage, abortion, the death penalty, homeless people, a two tiered health and education service etc. No dissent allowed!! Thats totalitarianism-benign though it may seem to us right now!

Religion is free, but civil society is a necessity. An atheist need not worry about not going to church, as I may not worry about going to the synagogue, or listening to the mullah or forgetting to read Das Kapital. But if I live in a free society then I should be allow vote for parties which can legislate for things that I believe in. Otherwise its like living in a one party state.

 

[Stylites]

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.

Everyone has free will and can make choices. I hope you are not saying that people should be free from the consequences of their actions, or that the Church disallows the faithful in democratic societies their right to act freely on their own consciences by calling for civil laws which uphold minimal standards of conduct. I am uncertain how laws against wrong-doing thwart free will and the ability to act on conscience.

Does the Church say that only evil-does should have free will and the right to act freely on their consciences? Or do normal people also have free will and the right to act freely on their consciences, too, through their votes and public voice?

 

[Elizabeth502]

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

YOU are the one that allied all these together, not me.

In response to the OP’s more narrow question about same-sex union legislation attempts (not Freedom of Speech), you – not I – responded broadly:

We need not permit, idolatry, abortion, brothels, divorce, gay pride parades, atheists publishing books.

After which I reminded you that atheists’ rights to publish books is protected by the first amendment, to which you responded:

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.

Regulations about who can purchase pornography, laws against pedophilia and the trafficking of child pornography, laws defining what is and is not “hate speech,” are all separate issues from the original comment that “atheists should not be allowed to publish books” in a free society in which the State has not established a specific religion. In the United States of America one gets to be a believer (in any religion) or a non-believer, and one gets to read all the books published which might persuade one to be either a non-believer or a believer. Our Catholic Church does not interpret its own right to speak Universal Truths to extend to the right to abridge the open exchange of ideas about religion, in sovereign countries. If you think that’s what the Magisterium demands that we demand of secular society, then I’m sorry, you’re wrong. Rather, the Church’s stand on atheism is to vigorously oppose such ideas with effective argumentation and publicity about such argumentation.

Originally Posted by Elizabeth502

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.

II don’t see them as morally different. You apparently do. That explains that.

No, sir. The Roman Catholic Church sees them as morally different. That explains that.

But the more important point is the one that JR was trying to make:

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

Let’s get back to allowing others to respond to the OP’s speciific question, rather than introducing atheists publishing books, pornographers publishing books, pedophilia, politically correct speech, abortion, brothels, divorce – and now apparently murder & blasphemy.

 

[Stylites]

Back to the OP’s question:

The world’s powerful have tried for 2,000 years to destroy the Church and haven’t succeeded. You then shouldn’t cower because some internet commando threatens to interfere in Church sacraments unless the Church stop offering her wisdom to the world.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Indeed, this is already happening. Catholics are fired for refusing to participate in abortion, and some Catholic hospitals are in danger of being closed.

One cannot legislate morality, certainly, but we are called of God to be a city on a hill, a lamp on a table - light and salt to our culture. It is imperative that we bring God’s point of view to our world in politics. We also have a moral obligation to defend those who cannot defend themselves, so it is incumbent upon us to be a voice for the voiceless.

You make a good point about the plurality of our society, and the risk to ourselves by others attempting to to forward our values. But it is this dialectical tension that is most likely to result in preservng the values we espouse.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Do you really not see a difference between murder and blasphemy? To put it in legal terms…

What difference is there that makes one of them not a moral evil? there isn’t one. Secular ideas of legality have no bearing on the argument to me.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I think that the problem is that many people want to exclude religion from what they call the public sphere. In doing so they demand that people who have religious faith leave their beliefs at home and behave like those beliefs don’t matter. So a homosexual person is welcome to take his sexuality and beliefs into all spheres of life, both private and public, but Catholics are not free. Double standards anyone?

We are all citizens of some country so these ‘secular’ laws affect us too. If we live in a democracy we vote for people who represent our views. That’s why Catholics have the right to speak up. That is not ‘interfering’ with secular laws but a civil right. What I believe reflects in the way I vote.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…The Roman Catholic Church sees them as morally different. That explains that.

Blasphemy, murder, etc, are all moral evils. There can be no right to commit moral evils. I don’t see what there is to argue about here. These actions are clearly moral evils, and it seems clear that one can never have a right to commit a moral evil.

 

[Christopher68]

Blasphemy, murder, etc, are all moral evils. There can be no right to commit moral evils. I don’t see what there is to argue about here. These actions are clearly moral evils, and it seems clear that one can never have a right to commit a moral evil.

Blasphemy and murder are not even remotely close to being the same thing, especially in how to they relate to one’s ‘rights’.

 

[markomalley]

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?”

We not only have not only to opine about civil laws that violate the natural law, we have an obligation to do so. And if such immoral laws are passed, we have an obligation to not obey those laws.
2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” “We must obey God rather than men”:

When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.
2243 Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.​

My question is not whether we have met the criteria of paragraph 2242 of the Catechism, but whether we have met the criteria listed in paragraph 2243.

(Alas, this is only opining; I recognize that the immorality in our laws is the result of the immorality in the populace: the immorality is not being imposed upon us, it is a direct reflection of our immorality. Therefore, such an effort would be useless. Only a divine chastisement of Old Testament proportions will correct the defects in our case)

 

[Elizabeth502]

Blasphemy, murder, etc, are all moral evils. There can be no right to commit moral evils. I don’t see what there is to argue about here. These actions are clearly moral evils, and it seems clear that one can never have a right to commit a moral evil.

What there is to argue about is that the Catholic Church has made no moral equivalency between publications by atheists and blasphemy, murder, abortion, etc. You are arguing that the Catholic Church takes such a stand: That because she has declared certain evils to be absolute (intrinsic), she has also declared that atheists should be prevented from publishing books. She does not take such a stand, and you are misrepresenting Catholic doctrine by continuing to assert that.

Lots of societal behavior is immoral, but not all immoral behavior is actionable. Otherwise, we could all be thrown in jail for our personal sins. (Because sin is evil, and by your logic, the Catholic Church has the right to act against all evil.) The Church has the right to speak against all evil (as vigorously as she chooses), and that would include to speak against all the evils you named. She has the right to be a voice of moral authority, to engage in legitimate pressure, just like other religious organizations have a right to do, and just as individuals have a right to do.

However, do not expect her any time soon to be so foolish as to oppose the publication of books on atheism. Some would argue that such publications afford the Church greater visibility by giving her an opportunity to expose their irrationality and faulty argumentation.

 

[JRKH]

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.

So - What your saying is is that the Government if the United States has it all wrong…That because it has the right to legislate that it is wrong to rape and murder, that it also should have the right to tell me what I may and may not publish.

You believe that a government controlled by people of faith should be allowed to suppress atheistic publication since atheist ideas are “morally evil” by the standards of people of faith.
And since you believe this, a government controlled by atheists should be allowed to suppress religious publication since religious publications are “morally evil” by the standards of atheists.

Have you looked at countries where this holds true? I believe we have places like - Communist China, North Korea, Iran, and probably a few others…

Frankly I’d rather have the ideas pubished openly so that they can be discussed and debated openly…

(My apologies to any atheists looking in for “lumping” you all together here…I’m doing it only to make a point)

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Everyone has free will and can make choices. I hope you are not saying that people should be free from the consequences of their actions, or that the Church disallows the faithful in democratic societies their right to act freely on their own consciences by calling for civil laws which uphold minimal standards of conduct. I am uncertain how laws against wrong-doing thwart free will and the ability to act on conscience.

It is important to keep comments within the context of the conversation. So please keep this within the context of Petey’s comments. Petey takes the position that Atheists should not be permitted to publish - legally - That they should not have this “right”. This deprives them of the right to act on their conscience and goes against the teaching in the Catechism.
Catholics in this country have the right and obligation to promote morality in both daily life and in law. This must be done in Charity and in Love. Suppressing (not converting) the opposition is not the way to do this.

Does the Church say that only evil-does should have free will and the right to act freely on their consciences? Or do normal people also have free will and the right to act freely on their consciences, too, through their votes and public voice?

This is precisely what the Church teaches.
We believe that we have the Truth. That being the case, what do we have to fear from the opposition.
Jesus when he sent out the 72 told the disciples to go into the towns and preach the good new. If they rejected the news, He did not tell them to burn the place down…or call down God’s wrath…
He told them to leave and shake the dirt from their sandals. To leave them to their fate.

Today, we speak out when we can. We vote. We picket. We pray. We publish. We vote again…
Conversion in open forum…is the way to go - not suppression of that which we do not like.
Love your enemy. Convert your enemy. Changes in legislation will follow as day follows the night.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I think that the problem is that many people want to exclude religion from what they call the public sphere. In doing so they demand that people who have religious faith leave their beliefs at home and behave like those beliefs don’t matter.

This is absolutely true. I have had this conversation with others before. Fortunately I have not found it to be a difficult belief to overcome. Most people, when you point it out to them readily see how this cannot work.

So a homosexual person is welcome to take his sexuality and beliefs into all spheres of life, both private and public, but Catholics are not free. Double standards anyone?

Yes - I actually have less problem with the idea of homosexual rights than I have with the consequent denial of my right to publically disapprove. But this something that has been going on for many many years. “Group think” is not something new to the 21st century - not by a long shot.

We are all citizens of some country so these ‘secular’ laws affect us too. If we live in a democracy we vote for people who represent our views. That’s why Catholics have the right to speak up. That is not ‘interfering’ with secular laws but a civil right. What I believe reflects in the way I vote.

Bingo - and as I said above, once you point this out to others, how each one takes their own “morality” into the voting booth with them, the opponenet usually backs down pretty quickly.
Occasionally someone might say - “Well, you aren’t voting you, you are voting Vatican”. To which I respond, if I did not believe “Vatican” then I wouldn’t be Catholic. So I’m still voting me and my views.
From this standpoint being Catholic and voting Catholic principles, is no different than being “Sierra-club” and voting “Seirra Club” principles.

Peace
James

 

[meltzerboy]

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

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

but the line about the boston adoptions is patently false.

as for the florida abortion counseling, of course an organization that is taking state funds shouldn’t be promoting a certain religious viewpoint. and in virginia, of course teachers should have 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.

I agree with much of what you say; however not with regard to the dress code for teachers, as I discussed in another post on this thread. Yes, there should be a certain dress code, but NOT one that interferes with an individual’s religious rights, such as barring burqas for devout Muslim women or kippahs for Orthodox Jewish men. (The wearing of a crucifix is also a freedom of religious expression, but a somewhat trickier issue since it is not required of religious Catholics. Still I see no harm in it as an endorsement of a particular religion.) And not allowing admittance in public schools of priests or nuns who wear traditional religious attire is patently ridiculous in my view. I agree with your comment on another post that you are indeed a religious minority with regard to religious holidays, for example. You have a good point. I’ve worked in public universities where there was a sizable Muslim student population (I live in NYC) and yet the only religious holidays were Christian and Jewish. Of course, if we had off for EVERY religious holiday, there would be very little teaching–not that I’m complaining necessarily! It is true, however, that even with the separation of Church and State in the US, there are areas in which there is no real separation. For example, why should Christmas be a legal holiday and not Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), the holiest day on the Jewish calendar? Unfortunately, your own faith (Taoism) isn’t even on the radar in the US. The hard facts of the matter are that the majority still rules with regard to religion, even in the public arena. In a way, I suppose, it’s also a practical matter regarding numbers of people; that is, it is inefficient to close an institution or change things for the benefit of only a few members. (But don’t tell that to the physically disabled, who have been long overdue for reform and have finally gotten some.) As more members of a particular religious (or ethnic) community make their presence known, the rules may change, but only gradually and sometimes with opposition.

 

[JRKH]

Blasphemy, murder, etc, are all moral evils. There can be no right to commit moral evils. I don’t see what there is to argue about here. These actions are clearly moral evils, and it seems clear that one can never have a right to commit a moral evil.

Petey - I absolutely agree with you

And we would have no argument whatsoever if what we were discussing was strictly within the confines of the Catholic community.

But that is not what is being discussed here. What is being discussed is Civil - Secular - Social LAW. Under the Consitution of the Untied States, freedom of speech an press are guaranteed.
Therefore - **under US law **there is no such thing as “Blasphemy”. I doubt seriously that the term even appears in either criminal or civil law.

Peace
James

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Blasphemy and murder are not even remotely close to being the same thing, especially in how to they relate to one’s ‘rights’.

They are both moral evils, no? Committing moral evils cannot be a right given by G-d, by definition. So I think my conclusions are rather rational.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So - What your saying is is that the Government if the United States has it all wrong…That because it has the right to legislate that it is wrong to rape and murder, that it also should have the right to tell me what I may and may not publish.

They have the right to restrict what you can publish. They do it all the time. There are any number of things that cannot be printed for a number of reasons.

.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Petey - I absolutely agree with you

And we would have no argument whatsoever if what we were discussing was strictly within the confines of the Catholic community.

But that is not what is being discussed here. What is being discussed is Civil - Secular - Social LAW. Under the Consitution of the Untied States, freedom of speech an press are guaranteed.
Therefore - **under US law **there is no such thing as “Blasphemy”. I doubt seriously that the term even appears in either criminal or civil law.

Peace
James

I am not aware that we are discussing any particular country. America is not the only country on the globe, and the American ideal, pushed by a secular education system I might add, is not the only ideal. Waving the flag doesn’t change anything.

 

[Christopher68]

They are both moral evils, no? Committing moral evils cannot be a right given by G-d, by definition. So I think my conclusions are rather rational.

So you think ‘killing’ someone and ‘offending’ someone are the essentially the same thing? No, that is not rational to me. Quite the opposite, in fact.