M
mlchance
Guest
Frequently we read protestations about how it is improper for the people to “impose beliefs” on others. Often, these warnings against imposing beliefs, legislating, morality, and using force to control others are wrapped in a red, white, and blue package. America, we are told to believe, is first and foremost about freedom, which seems to be defined as, “doing whatever one wants to do.”
Other times, these warnings are couched in more philosophical/theological terms, emphasizing “freedom of conscience,” which still means “doing whatever one wants to do.” Whatever the arguments, the goal is the same: to defend individual freedom against outside constraints.
These proponents of liberty (let’s call them liberals) base their arguments on a rejection of authority. The liberal’s argument against “imposing beliefs” stands on the idea that no person and no institution has the authority to dictate limits to the freely chosen actions of others. Unfortunately, this basis for the liberal’s argument is false.
Theologically, God is the supreme authority. God’s creative act makes him the author of reality. He has author’s rights, or authority, over all creation. God intervened decisively in history with the Incarnation. Prior to his Ascension, Jesus vested his authority and mission in the Church, the primary vehicle for communicating truth and grace to the world.
Philosophically, for any human action to be just, it must conform to natural law. Natural law is part of human nature. It is the same for all people everywhere. Human choice and conscience can change neither natural law nor divine truth.
Politically, governments may legislate morality. In fact, since justice (a moral concept) is the goal of all law, it is impossible to legislate anything except some version of morality. Governments enact laws against and stipulate punishments for crimes, such as murder or fraud. Reductio ad absurdum demonstrates clearly that the maxim “no person and no institution has the authority to dictate limits to the freely chosen actions of others” is false.
At all three levels of consideration, it is true that there is an authority which can legitimately set limits to freely chosen human actions. So how do liberals justify their support for immoral activity, such as abortion? Simple: They deny any authority to decide moral questions exists (and this takes place on more issues than just abortion).
Theologically, they deny the authority of God (or even his very existence) as well as the authority of the Church. This equally true for non-Catholics who are “pro-choice” as it is true for Catholics who are “pro-choice.” The Church authoritatively teaches abortion is always wrong. She teaches abortion can never be permitted. She teaches that laws that permit (or worse still compel) abortion are unjust and must be changed. She says that all consciences are bound by these teaches, and that anyone who denies these teaches is in error (if not actually committing a grave sin). The “pro-choice” liberal avoids these teachings not by refuting them, but rather by denying their authority.
The same holds true philosophically and politically. The “pro-choice” liberal denies the authority of natural law. He denies that the government has the authority to “trample woman’s fundamental right to choose.”
So, then, when a debate about abortion arises, any appeal to authority is dismissed a prior, not only as being illegitimate but also as being “oppressive” or “dictatorial.” Authority become synonymous in the liberal imagination with “imposing beliefs” and “using force to control others” and “legislating morality.” By extension, those who accept that there is an authority which can answer moral questions become “oppressors” or “tyrants” or “un-American” or (that favorite perjorative of the liberal) have “Nazi tendencies.”
And here is where liberalism collapses entirely. It starts trying to defend freedom, but does by denying authority. Without authority, the only thing that is left to shape public policy or answer moral questions is that very thing which liberals claim to hate: force. Questions of right and wrong are reduced to “might makes right.” At its heart, liberalism is, in the final wash, Nietzchean.
Which explains the great irony of the “pro-choice” liberal. No person and no institution can take away a woman’s “fundament right to choose” because it is immoral to use force to impose value judgments on others.
Except, of course, when a woman wants to impose a judgment about the value of her unborn child and then use lethal force to put that value judgment into effect.
– Mark L. Chance.
Other times, these warnings are couched in more philosophical/theological terms, emphasizing “freedom of conscience,” which still means “doing whatever one wants to do.” Whatever the arguments, the goal is the same: to defend individual freedom against outside constraints.
These proponents of liberty (let’s call them liberals) base their arguments on a rejection of authority. The liberal’s argument against “imposing beliefs” stands on the idea that no person and no institution has the authority to dictate limits to the freely chosen actions of others. Unfortunately, this basis for the liberal’s argument is false.
Theologically, God is the supreme authority. God’s creative act makes him the author of reality. He has author’s rights, or authority, over all creation. God intervened decisively in history with the Incarnation. Prior to his Ascension, Jesus vested his authority and mission in the Church, the primary vehicle for communicating truth and grace to the world.
Philosophically, for any human action to be just, it must conform to natural law. Natural law is part of human nature. It is the same for all people everywhere. Human choice and conscience can change neither natural law nor divine truth.
Politically, governments may legislate morality. In fact, since justice (a moral concept) is the goal of all law, it is impossible to legislate anything except some version of morality. Governments enact laws against and stipulate punishments for crimes, such as murder or fraud. Reductio ad absurdum demonstrates clearly that the maxim “no person and no institution has the authority to dictate limits to the freely chosen actions of others” is false.
At all three levels of consideration, it is true that there is an authority which can legitimately set limits to freely chosen human actions. So how do liberals justify their support for immoral activity, such as abortion? Simple: They deny any authority to decide moral questions exists (and this takes place on more issues than just abortion).
Theologically, they deny the authority of God (or even his very existence) as well as the authority of the Church. This equally true for non-Catholics who are “pro-choice” as it is true for Catholics who are “pro-choice.” The Church authoritatively teaches abortion is always wrong. She teaches abortion can never be permitted. She teaches that laws that permit (or worse still compel) abortion are unjust and must be changed. She says that all consciences are bound by these teaches, and that anyone who denies these teaches is in error (if not actually committing a grave sin). The “pro-choice” liberal avoids these teachings not by refuting them, but rather by denying their authority.
The same holds true philosophically and politically. The “pro-choice” liberal denies the authority of natural law. He denies that the government has the authority to “trample woman’s fundamental right to choose.”
So, then, when a debate about abortion arises, any appeal to authority is dismissed a prior, not only as being illegitimate but also as being “oppressive” or “dictatorial.” Authority become synonymous in the liberal imagination with “imposing beliefs” and “using force to control others” and “legislating morality.” By extension, those who accept that there is an authority which can answer moral questions become “oppressors” or “tyrants” or “un-American” or (that favorite perjorative of the liberal) have “Nazi tendencies.”
And here is where liberalism collapses entirely. It starts trying to defend freedom, but does by denying authority. Without authority, the only thing that is left to shape public policy or answer moral questions is that very thing which liberals claim to hate: force. Questions of right and wrong are reduced to “might makes right.” At its heart, liberalism is, in the final wash, Nietzchean.
Which explains the great irony of the “pro-choice” liberal. No person and no institution can take away a woman’s “fundament right to choose” because it is immoral to use force to impose value judgments on others.
Except, of course, when a woman wants to impose a judgment about the value of her unborn child and then use lethal force to put that value judgment into effect.
– Mark L. Chance.
