|
|
Thursday, February 27, 2003
Here's a little something that I posted on the FredTalk website concerning the Vatican's new directive concerning Catholic politicians. Re: Catholics, religious views & the law 1/30/2003 Greetings all, I typically don't reply to letters of this nature in FredTalk or otherwise, but knowing that the Vatican document concerning Catholics in political life applies to me and every other Catholic invovled, let me give you my US$0.02 for what it is worth. My concern with Mr. Mickle's 17 Jan 03 LtoEd is with this quote right here:
Now whenever I see comments like this, some warning bell in the back of my mind goes off. One has to question this method of trumping of morality with absolute freedom, because it ultimately places the will of the individual above the rights of one's neighbor, for better or (more often than not) worse. The problem with this - and Eric explains this quite well - is that there are certain choices that are antitheticial to commonly held concepts of right and wrong. Objectively, such things as murder of innocents, theft, infidelity, all of these things are frowned upon. These commonly held principles are simply not fly-by-night preferences, and those who believe that they are debateable open themselves up to the condemnation of their respective societies. That's why we have laws - to punish evildoers and protect citizens. Laws are inherently moral, and arguments to the contrary are dichotic and self-destructive in the long run. What the Vatican document concerning Catholic politicians does is promote the idea that these commonly shared principles are non-negotiable. In other words, one cannot be pro-abortion and still call oneself Catholic, and it is a Catholic politicians duty to uphold them. It would be akin to Sen. Lieberman coming forward and announcing that everyone should work on Saturday. Could he still call himself an Orthodox Jew? While this comparison is trivial compared to the gravity of other issues such as abortion, it makes the same point. In order to be a Jew, there are certain beliefs one must uphold. It's the same for any religious tradition. One wonders why should it be any different for Catholicism. Is that conformity to chosen religious beliefs a restriction on the freedom of choice of the individual? Not at all. One can choose to be pro-abortion, but at the cost of being opposed to Catholic teaching, not to mention losing the monkier of 'faithful Catholic'. Was it Rep. Pelosi who called herself a conservative Catholic, even though she is one of the foremost proponents of abortion in America? It is comparable to being a Muslim yet denying that Muhummad was the sole prophet of Allah. There's a theology that is being undermined, and for what? So someone can win Catholic votes? Mr. Mickle does have a point by stating:
But as already discussed, there are two arguments to this. Firstly, unless one is willing to argue that any of these religions advocate the right to murder innocents, steal, or practice infidelity, then Mr. Mickle's concern is well-intentioned, but baseless. Secondly, the Vatican document is directed only at Catholic politicians, and not towards those of other religious faiths. The logic is simply that if one is Catholic, one must faithfully exercise one's beliefs. For any religious tradition ask its membership to do otherwise seems counterintuitive. The only route where the Vatican document leads IMHO is that such non-negotiable wrongs such as the murder of innocents, theft, and infidelity would be emphasized not as trivial matters, but as objectively wrong. Who could argue against that? Hopefully that explains the Vatican document a bit better, and its implications. Credit Mr. Mickle for bringing up an excellent point of concern, and Eric for explaining it in proper terms. Regards,
|
|
JEFFERSONIAD POLL: Whom do you support for Virginia Attorney General?1) John Brownlee2) Ken Cuccinelli AboutShaunKenney.com is one of Virginia's oldest political blogs, focusing on the role of religion and politics in public life. Shaun Kenney, 30, lives in Fluvanna County, Virginia.ContactThe Jeffersoniad
ArchivesMarch 2002 April 2002 May 2002 June 2002 July 2002 August 2002 September 2002 October 2002 November 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 April 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009
|
|
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Home