Comments on: Catholics and Democracy

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

But isn't that denying the free speech and freedom of religion guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"First, I am not saying that the government should intervene to stop the Church from supporting Bush (although tax-free status must be questioned at this point). I am saying that the Church should not do it. It is wrong for them to do it, but it is not illegal."

As has been noted elsewhere, the Church does not support Bush. It is merely against the pro-choice position. And what do you mean by wrong? Immoral, or inappropriate?

Also, (sorry for sending a barrage of questions at you), to get back to the point about the Church being in the wrong by opposing certain forms of government, was it wrong for the Church to oppose Leninism as loudly as it did?

This is what I make of your reasoning. Please correct me if I'm not reading you correctly.

IF
1 Abortion is a constitutional right, and
2 Catholicism opposes abortion, and
3 It is wrong for a religious group to oppose a governmental system

THEN
4 Catholicism is wrong to oppose abortion

By: John

John — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"What you are saying is that the Church can tell people how to vote, but not what sort of government should be in power? "
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. There there is a separation between ecclesiastic and civil authorities. When that separation has not occurred, it has been disastrous. Furthermore, the Bible does instruct us that, while God is our spiritual king, we should give unto caesar what is caesar's.

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"Also, one of the articles asks the question of whether having a democracy means having abortions, pornography etc. and it is well worth noting that those problems are no more pervasive in democratic countries than non-democratic countries. Most notably, China engages in widespread infanticide, and a strong majority of Russian pregnancies are aborted."

Perhaps that's the point the author hoped to make. Democracy has a vested interest in protecting the rights of individuals, particularly those who are most vulnerable. If we fail to protect the unborn, we may be discarding an important hallmark of democratic civilization.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

As I understand it, the issue is not what powers the government may have (pace John), but rather what behaviors within a government shoudl be aided and/or abetted by Catholics. If the government permits abortions, it is, according to Catholic dogma (not just doctrine!), permitting an evil. Doesn't matter if it's a monarchy, democracy, or tyranny that's doing it. It's wrong. It goes for Bush and the other branchs of the US government, it goes for Putin, it goes for Jiang Zemin (or whoever's taking over from him–Hu Jintao? Shoot, they're beginning to run together in my head). This is not an argument about the structure of government.

If a Church member aids an evil, he or she may be guilty of mortal sin, depending on the magnitude of the evil and so forth. The Church may then decide whether or not that member is in good standing and thus whether the member is disposed to receive the Eucharist. The nature of government does not fall into that calculus. Kerry has the right under the Constitution to assert that the right to choose is morally permissible even for Catholics. He does not have a Constitutional right to be a Catholic in good standing in spite of whatever he belives, however.

We have a right to association under the Constitution, and groups have the Constitutional right to determine their membership. Hence why Boy Scouts may evict gays from their leadership, or the NAACP may refuse to have anyone but a black person in their upper echelons. Or that an Orthodox Jewish council may exclude a non-Orthodox, non-rabbi goy without said gentile suing them for discrimination, for that matter.

The Church's stance on abortion falls within that framework, and I feel horrible that people leave the Church, but Church must witness to the truth as it sees it, as has always been its mandate.

By: Tom Smith

Tom Smith — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

By the way, which bishop told your Aunt Dorothy that voting Kerry is mortally sinful?

By: Tom Smith

Tom Smith — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Crap. That post was too long. . .

The rest of it should read:
...while the United States sees as its primary goal the protection of the personal liberties of its citizens. I think this belief comes from the essentially individual-centered (Deistic) Protestant ethos of the Founding Fathers.

By: John

John — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

First off, segregation was legal for a hundred years inspite of clearly violating the 14th amendment. I can put up countless such examples, but unless you don't agree that the government has enacted unconstitutional laws, I won't belabor the point.
So the mere fact that abortions were once illegal does not mean that such a law is within the legitimate domain of federal authority.

Our system puts more restraints on government authority than the vast majority of nations on earth. It is built on the notion of tiers of sovereignty. The federal government has soveriegnty over certain things, the state has sovereignty over certain things, all the way down to the individual having soveriegnty over certain things.
There are a wide birth of limited soveriegnties that the individual has. For instance, an individual has soveignty over his property unless a court order forces him to allow police to inspect it.
There is a somewhat narrower birth of nearly absolute soveriegnties. Speech being a great example. My soveriegnty over my speaking is almost complete. (inspiring iminent lawless action is the standard to limit speech, just because that's a good thing to know).
There are some points where that soveriegnty is absolute. For instance, the goverment may not intrude on your conversation with a lawyer or priest.
You also exercise an exceptional measure of soveriegnty over your own body. And courts have ruled that the government may not impugn upon that soveriegnty by forcing you to support a fetus within you.

So it is a question of what powers the government has.

By: John

John — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

First off, these articles are all intellectually vapid. For instance, one of them explains that "liberal democracy" means "secular democracy". That's simply not true, liberal democracy means a democracy in which the fundamental unit of society is taken to be the individual, whereas a conservative democracy says that the society itself is the fundamental unit.

Also, one of the articles asks the question of whether having a democracy means having abortions, pornography etc. and it is well worth noting that those problems are no more pervasive in democratic countries than non-democratic countries. Most notably, China engages in widespread infanticide, and a strong majority of Russian pregnancies are aborted.

I'd also like to point out that my Aunt Dorothy recieving a letter from her bishop saying that voting for kerry is a mortal sin caused yet another member of my family to renounce the Church (this was a woman who was seriously considering becoming a nun till she met my uncle).

Also, that puts in remarkably clear light a fundamental breach of contract on the part of the Church. At countless points in history, starting with the Treaty of Westphalia ending the Thirty Years war, the Church has struck a concord with the state whereby in exchange for not trying to control the government, the Chuch would be left in peace. We need look no further than the French Revolution to see what the price has been for renegging on that agreement.

This meddling is particularly bothersome when it is being perpetrated against a constitutional government. The Church is a moral authority, and it can tell its members what actions are moral. However, what place does it have telling its members what powers should or should not be vested in their governments? That is not a theological question, it is not a question which the Church is in any position to comment intelligently upon.

By: Jerry Nora

Jerry Nora — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

For discussion on the nature of freedom that may indicate more common ground between the Founding Fathers and the Church than credited here, please check out:

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0203/articles/weigel.html