What Scares Me About America Today

We have in America a set of factions with the mindset that says one must tolerate views in opposition to our own—except when the view is that of the Christian view of morality. Then we are told that people have no right to impose their views on others.

This view can be summed up as, "What's mine is mine, what's yours is up for grabs." Basically, the mindset is not an appeal to mutual tolerance, but a demand for Christians to surrender their beliefs whenever a person takes offense.

Indeed, when the courts actually defend the rights of the Christian faith, the result is outrage . . . how dare that court not side with the popular movements.

Think about this for a second. What we have here is a mindset that behaves in a partisan manner, unwilling to tolerate, unwilling to let equal justice under the law be done. If a politician or a judge rules or votes against them, it is proof of their intolerance and justifies anything being done with them. If a private citizen takes a stand, that justifies anything being done against them.

This isn't cheap rhetoric here. High ranking members of the Senate are trying to overturn the RFRA and obligate religious business owners to pay for things they find immoral. Brendan Eich was "encouraged" to leave Mozilla because he made a campaign donation for the defense of marriage. We are seeing groups castigate the "Five male Catholic" members of the Supreme Court "forcing their views on others," saying they have too much power and that needs to change . . . Never mind the fact that the Constitution says in Article VI that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

So the results are a foregone conclusion. More people get intimidated by these tactics and decide it is easier to stay quiet. Fewer individuals stand up for what they believe is just under the law and just go along with the flow. Then there is less resistance to the next round of demands. We've already reached a point I never expected to see in America in my lifetime. How much worse will it get?

Obviously the Catholic Church will not accept changes to what she believes Jesus Christ commands, even if some members of the Church should fall away. So then the partisans will have to make a decision. What will they do with those of us who refuse to put the state above God?

This is a dilemma that all Americans, religious or not, will have to face:

1. If people choose to respect the rights and freedoms this nation at its founding recognized as belonging to all peoples, they have to respect that the Freedom of Religion in the First Amendment expressly forbids the infringement of the Free Exercise of religion. Thus they must accept that they cannot compel us to do that which we believe is evil.
2. If people choose to go along with the factions insisting that their ideology trumps the rights and freedoms of those who disagree with them, then it means they tolerate a decision where these factions only respect the law when it serves them and set it aside when it doesn't.

Now remember that choosing the first option will earn you the enmity of these factions, which will YOU choose?

Most people tend to go along with option #2 . . .

. . . and that's what scares me about America today.

What Scares Me About America Today

We have in America a set of factions with the mindset that says one must tolerate views in opposition to our own—except when the view is that of the Christian view of morality. Then we are told that people have no right to impose their views on others.

This view can be summed up as, "What's mine is mine, what's yours is up for grabs." Basically, the mindset is not an appeal to mutual tolerance, but a demand for Christians to surrender their beliefs whenever a person takes offense.

Indeed, when the courts actually defend the rights of the Christian faith, the result is outrage . . . how dare that court not side with the popular movements.

Think about this for a second. What we have here is a mindset that behaves in a partisan manner, unwilling to tolerate, unwilling to let equal justice under the law be done. If a politician or a judge rules or votes against them, it is proof of their intolerance and justifies anything being done with them. If a private citizen takes a stand, that justifies anything being done against them.

This isn't cheap rhetoric here. High ranking members of the Senate are trying to overturn the RFRA and obligate religious business owners to pay for things they find immoral. Brendan Eich was "encouraged" to leave Mozilla because he made a campaign donation for the defense of marriage. We are seeing groups castigate the "Five male Catholic" members of the Supreme Court "forcing their views on others," saying they have too much power and that needs to change . . . Never mind the fact that the Constitution says in Article VI that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

So the results are a foregone conclusion. More people get intimidated by these tactics and decide it is easier to stay quiet. Fewer individuals stand up for what they believe is just under the law and just go along with the flow. Then there is less resistance to the next round of demands. We've already reached a point I never expected to see in America in my lifetime. How much worse will it get?

Obviously the Catholic Church will not accept changes to what she believes Jesus Christ commands, even if some members of the Church should fall away. So then the partisans will have to make a decision. What will they do with those of us who refuse to put the state above God?

This is a dilemma that all Americans, religious or not, will have to face:

1. If people choose to respect the rights and freedoms this nation at its founding recognized as belonging to all peoples, they have to respect that the Freedom of Religion in the First Amendment expressly forbids the infringement of the Free Exercise of religion. Thus they must accept that they cannot compel us to do that which we believe is evil.
2. If people choose to go along with the factions insisting that their ideology trumps the rights and freedoms of those who disagree with them, then it means they tolerate a decision where these factions only respect the law when it serves them and set it aside when it doesn't.

Now remember that choosing the first option will earn you the enmity of these factions, which will YOU choose?

Most people tend to go along with option #2 . . .

. . . and that's what scares me about America today.

It Is Really That Painfully Simple

But Peter and the apostles said in reply, “We must obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29)

Because if a man is ignorant of the fact something is wrong and acts in ignorance, he incurs no guilt, provided natural reason was not enough to show him that it was wrong.  But while ignorance may excuse the man, it does not excuse the act, which is wrong in itself.  If I permitted the act simply because the man is ignorant that it is wrong, then I would incur guilt, because I do know it to be wrong.  It is really that painfully simple. (Canticle for Liebowitz, p296)

The Obama administration argues that those religious nonprofit groups that object to the contraception mandate only have to sign a form showing their objections and let the insurer provide the coverage directly instead.

They can't understand why we Catholics object.

The fact is, if it is wrong for us to do, it is wrong for us to get another to do it in our place.

The supposed compromises are no compromises. It may confuse those improperly educated in the faith. It may provide a deception to the wrongly formed conscience. But it remains wrong, and because we know it to be wrong, it is painfully simple. As St. Peter said, we must obey God rather than man because what man decrees is against what God commands.

It Is Really That Painfully Simple

But Peter and the apostles said in reply, “We must obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29)

Because if a man is ignorant of the fact something is wrong and acts in ignorance, he incurs no guilt, provided natural reason was not enough to show him that it was wrong.  But while ignorance may excuse the man, it does not excuse the act, which is wrong in itself.  If I permitted the act simply because the man is ignorant that it is wrong, then I would incur guilt, because I do know it to be wrong.  It is really that painfully simple. (Canticle for Liebowitz, p296)

The Obama administration argues that those religious nonprofit groups that object to the contraception mandate only have to sign a form showing their objections and let the insurer provide the coverage directly instead.

They can't understand why we Catholics object.

The fact is, if it is wrong for us to do, it is wrong for us to get another to do it in our place.

The supposed compromises are no compromises. It may confuse those improperly educated in the faith. It may provide a deception to the wrongly formed conscience. But it remains wrong, and because we know it to be wrong, it is painfully simple. As St. Peter said, we must obey God rather than man because what man decrees is against what God commands.

TFTD: Missing the Main Point

There was much said on the airwaves, in print and online about the glitches on the Obamacare website and the number of people either dropped from coverage or having their rates jacked up.

While these show the lack of prudence and perhaps honesty about the ACA, these are somewhat of a distraction.

Even if the website worked flawlessly and nobody had their rates jacked up, we still have heathcare where Christian employers still have to pay (through a shell game) for abortion and contraceptive coverage against the teachings of their faith.

Let's not forget this in the media circus currently in play.

TFTD: Missing the Main Point

There was much said on the airwaves, in print and online about the glitches on the Obamacare website and the number of people either dropped from coverage or having their rates jacked up.

While these show the lack of prudence and perhaps honesty about the ACA, these are somewhat of a distraction.

Even if the website worked flawlessly and nobody had their rates jacked up, we still have heathcare where Christian employers still have to pay (through a shell game) for abortion and contraceptive coverage against the teachings of their faith.

Let's not forget this in the media circus currently in play.

Thoughts on the Pope's Second Interview

Thus far, the mainstream media seems to pay little attention (as of yet) to the Pope's second interview -- probably because there wasn't much to misrepresent. A few commentators on the Internet seem to have missed the point however, either implying or accusing that the Pope is guilty of outright relativism.

That's understandable though. A few statements in there initially gave me a WTF? kind of reaction, almost looking as if the Pope took a relativist view of truth, when he said:

" Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place."

Rereading the interview, I don't think that is a correct interpretation.

What the Pope is talking about is that all individuals are obligated to seek out the truth. See, a lot of people take an argument from silence approach to conscience -- "I don't feel anything wrong so it must be OK."

But that isn't conscience. Conscience says "I must do X" or "I must not do Y." Conscience can be wrongly informed,  yes. But the erroneous conscience still commands the person who does not know better.

But too many people are willing to rationalize away their conscience out of fear, expedience, ambition or other reasons. But what if  Germans in Nazi Germany had heeded this when they were told to do evil?  What if the woman considering abortion listened to her conscience instead of her fear?

The Pope is speaking to an atheist, not to a practicing Catholic. The atheist does not have an understanding of the complete truth as Catholics do. He can't say, "listen to the Church," because they don't recognize the authority of the Church. But he can appeal to the conscience because that is at least a common point of reference.

But the thing is, conscience requires one to seek and follow the truth. The man or woman who does not seek out whether they err are doing wrong. The person who, through no fault of their own, does not realize the importance of Christianity won't be condemned for that. But he or she will be judged if they refuse to seek out what is true.

As Catholics we should understand this, and not bash the Pope for trying to help an atheist begin to see his obligations.

Thoughts on the Pope's Second Interview

Thus far, the mainstream media seems to pay little attention (as of yet) to the Pope's second interview -- probably because there wasn't much to misrepresent. A few commentators on the Internet seem to have missed the point however, either implying or accusing that the Pope is guilty of outright relativism.

That's understandable though. A few statements in there initially gave me a WTF? kind of reaction, almost looking as if the Pope took a relativist view of truth, when he said:

" Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place."

Rereading the interview, I don't think that is a correct interpretation.

What the Pope is talking about is that all individuals are obligated to seek out the truth. See, a lot of people take an argument from silence approach to conscience -- "I don't feel anything wrong so it must be OK."

But that isn't conscience. Conscience says "I must do X" or "I must not do Y." Conscience can be wrongly informed,  yes. But the erroneous conscience still commands the person who does not know better.

But too many people are willing to rationalize away their conscience out of fear, expedience, ambition or other reasons. But what if  Germans in Nazi Germany had heeded this when they were told to do evil?  What if the woman considering abortion listened to her conscience instead of her fear?

The Pope is speaking to an atheist, not to a practicing Catholic. The atheist does not have an understanding of the complete truth as Catholics do. He can't say, "listen to the Church," because they don't recognize the authority of the Church. But he can appeal to the conscience because that is at least a common point of reference.

But the thing is, conscience requires one to seek and follow the truth. The man or woman who does not seek out whether they err are doing wrong. The person who, through no fault of their own, does not realize the importance of Christianity won't be condemned for that. But he or she will be judged if they refuse to seek out what is true.

As Catholics we should understand this, and not bash the Pope for trying to help an atheist begin to see his obligations.

Movies Worth Watching Before November 6th

As we get nearer to election day, I've found certain movies resonating with me because they remind the viewer that the obligation to do what is right calls people to make a stand in the face of government intrusion – even at the cost of mistreatment.

Three that come to mind are:

1. For Greater Glory
2. Sophie Scholl: The Final Days
3. A Man for All Seasons (Both the 1966 movie and the 1988 Charlton Heston version are well done)

In all three movies, we see the theme of a government which behaves in a way that people of conscience cannot accept.  In all of them, we see characters who are told that if they just "compromise a little" and accept the government intrusion, all will be well with them.  In all of them, these characters make the decision that stands up for doing what is right and suffer the consequences – consequences the government has no right to impose because the government had no right to create such laws in the first place.

Another good movie is After the Truth.  A German movie from 1999, it takes as the premise, What if the infamous Nazi Doctor Josef Mengele came back to Germany to face trial with the intent of justifying his position?  The trial points out that the callous Nazi medical experiments and euthanasia did not arise in 1933, but before with German doctors questioning whether a human life is really worth living in the case of the insane or the deformed.  As the movie progresses, we see that Mengele's positions are not born in the extreme ideology of the Nazis, but instead can be found in the assumptions of pro-euthanasia and pro-abortion supporters – that some life is not worthy of life and should be ended.  When we realize that some people in modern society who are definitely not Nazis have a similar mindset and are promoting these things in the name of "compassion," it makes one realize that evil is not simply done by tyrannical regimes, but also by governments and individuals who think their ideas are "merciful."

I think in all of these movies, we should be brought to asking why such government injustices were permitted to go so far as they did that they ended up doing such injustice.

Of course the members of the government in each movie have their own responsibility, but every one of us should be asking questions about governments and individuals who make policies that force or encourage people do do wrong and to ask questions about what it means when a government makes use of its power to coerce people who say "I will not comply with this evil."

Movies Worth Watching Before November 6th

As we get nearer to election day, I've found certain movies resonating with me because they remind the viewer that the obligation to do what is right calls people to make a stand in the face of government intrusion – even at the cost of mistreatment.

Three that come to mind are:

1. For Greater Glory
2. Sophie Scholl: The Final Days
3. A Man for All Seasons (Both the 1966 movie and the 1988 Charlton Heston version are well done)

In all three movies, we see the theme of a government which behaves in a way that people of conscience cannot accept.  In all of them, we see characters who are told that if they just "compromise a little" and accept the government intrusion, all will be well with them.  In all of them, these characters make the decision that stands up for doing what is right and suffer the consequences – consequences the government has no right to impose because the government had no right to create such laws in the first place.

Another good movie is After the Truth.  A German movie from 1999, it takes as the premise, What if the infamous Nazi Doctor Josef Mengele came back to Germany to face trial with the intent of justifying his position?  The trial points out that the callous Nazi medical experiments and euthanasia did not arise in 1933, but before with German doctors questioning whether a human life is really worth living in the case of the insane or the deformed.  As the movie progresses, we see that Mengele's positions are not born in the extreme ideology of the Nazis, but instead can be found in the assumptions of pro-euthanasia and pro-abortion supporters – that some life is not worthy of life and should be ended.  When we realize that some people in modern society who are definitely not Nazis have a similar mindset and are promoting these things in the name of "compassion," it makes one realize that evil is not simply done by tyrannical regimes, but also by governments and individuals who think their ideas are "merciful."

I think in all of these movies, we should be brought to asking why such government injustices were permitted to go so far as they did that they ended up doing such injustice.

Of course the members of the government in each movie have their own responsibility, but every one of us should be asking questions about governments and individuals who make policies that force or encourage people do do wrong and to ask questions about what it means when a government makes use of its power to coerce people who say "I will not comply with this evil."

The State Attack on Conscience is a Dangerous Thing

Preliminary Note:

It should be noted of course that conscience involves what one must do or must not do, not what one might want to do.  Freedom is the ability to do as I ought, not to do whatever I feel like doing.  It involves duty, not self-gratification.  Because of this, it would be wrong to interpret the freedom of conscience as the justification to do whatever I want to do.  Conscience tells us "I must do [X] because it is good, I must not do [Y] because it is evil."  It doesn't tell us, "I don't feel bad about getting an abortion, so I'm just following my conscience."  It is unfortunate that America confuses conscience with self-indulgence.

The Threat

The thing that concerns me most about the Obama regime and the attempts to impose their will on people who feel conscience bound to refuse to obey is not the threat to the Church.  We may end up small, poor and persecuted, but we will survive whether Obama is reelected or not.  No, what worries me is the extreme recklessness of the supporters of the HHS mandate who seem to be so short sighted as to be unaware of what the significance of this attack is.

The fact that the government thinks it can impose its views on people who are morally bound to disobey under the claim that there is more benefit than harm done shows a very dangerous fact:

If the US government believes it can set aside the conscience of an unpopular group for the benefit of "the people," then there is no limits to what it can set aside in the name of "the good of the people."  That includes the Constitution itself.

After they come for us, they will eventually come for you

Even if the reader should reject the Catholic position on the HHS mandate, they should recognize that if the attack on conscience is allowed to stand, then there is nothing to stop a future government from invoking "the good of the people" in demanding compliance with the law they see fit.

That's right.  Both political parties can make use of such a precedent to justify what they want.  Today's liberals who cheer the HHS mandate may be shocked when the wheel eventually turns and conservatives get control of the government and start using this tool to start attacking what they dislike.

This isn't speculation.  History tells us of governments which rejected conscience in the name of "the good of the people."  We used to recognize these governments as Fascist or Communist.   We used to know that these governments would steamroller the conscientious objectors, labeling them as enemies of the state for "imposing" their "bourgeois," "reactionary" attitudes on "the people."

The Fascist and Marxist governments believed the rights came from the state and the state could take away those rights.  In contrast, Americans believed that human rights were inalienable.  They couldn't be taken away by the State, because they came from a source higher than the state.  A government which tried to take away such rights was recognized as unjust and had to be opposed.

Partisanship blinds us to this danger

Unfortunately, partisanship has reached the point that the prevailing mentality seems to be, "Whatever I do to harm my enemy is acceptable.  Nothing he does to harm me is acceptable."  You can't build a just society on such a partisan mentality.  You can't build a free society on such a mentality.  Such a society must eventually become corrupted, where one faction is perceived as evil solely because it isn't a faction a person disagrees with.  Conscience is replaced by self indulgence.

It is also a danger because those people who do truly follow what is right are confused for partisans.  "You oppose abortion, Republicans oppose abortion, therefore you are a right wing Republican!"  It is also a menace for those practicing the faith.  The Church position on contraception and abortion is seen as "right wing" and the Church is denounced by the political "Left."  On the other hand, the Church position on immigration is condemned as "left wing" and the Church is denounced by the political "Right."

When a whole nation makes use of these hostile labels to attack what they dislike, we have lost the ability to look for truth.  We become blind to the fact that the Church can be motivated by what is necessary for salvation and not "increasing the Sunday collections" or "wanting to suppress women."  When we look at the world through a partisan lens, we have an obscured view.

Objective Truth Exists

However, things that are true can be known, and it is also true that moral things can be known.  Things that are true by their nature are always true regardless of time or place.  So if the concept, "slavery is wrong" is objectively true, that means it was wrong regardless of whoever practiced it in the past, and it would be objectively wrong to practice it in the future.

However, if the statement, "slavery is wrong" is not objectively true then it means that it was right in at least some circumstances in the past and might be right in some circumstances in the future.

Likewise, the principle of "We must always follow our conscience."  If this is not objectively true in all times and places, then it means there can be a time or a place where it is acceptable where one can deliberately do evil or refuse to good for a higher cause.  We've had nations which operated under such principles – nations where I would not care to live.

QED

This brings us back to the original point, from a different angle.  Without the concept of objective right and wrong, a government can invoke anything they choose under the justification of the greater good, and can force a person to comply.  Who defines the greater good?  The government which is forcing people to disobey their conscience or suffer repercussions.

Thus every person should see the danger of tolerating a government which places itself above the freedom to do what is right.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

The State Attack on Conscience is a Dangerous Thing

Preliminary Note:

It should be noted of course that conscience involves what one must do or must not do, not what one might want to do.  Freedom is the ability to do as I ought, not to do whatever I feel like doing.  It involves duty, not self-gratification.  Because of this, it would be wrong to interpret the freedom of conscience as the justification to do whatever I want to do.  Conscience tells us "I must do [X] because it is good, I must not do [Y] because it is evil."  It doesn't tell us, "I don't feel bad about getting an abortion, so I'm just following my conscience."  It is unfortunate that America confuses conscience with self-indulgence.

The Threat

The thing that concerns me most about the Obama regime and the attempts to impose their will on people who feel conscience bound to refuse to obey is not the threat to the Church.  We may end up small, poor and persecuted, but we will survive whether Obama is reelected or not.  No, what worries me is the extreme recklessness of the supporters of the HHS mandate who seem to be so short sighted as to be unaware of what the significance of this attack is.

The fact that the government thinks it can impose its views on people who are morally bound to disobey under the claim that there is more benefit than harm done shows a very dangerous fact:

If the US government believes it can set aside the conscience of an unpopular group for the benefit of "the people," then there is no limits to what it can set aside in the name of "the good of the people."  That includes the Constitution itself.

After they come for us, they will eventually come for you

Even if the reader should reject the Catholic position on the HHS mandate, they should recognize that if the attack on conscience is allowed to stand, then there is nothing to stop a future government from invoking "the good of the people" in demanding compliance with the law they see fit.

That's right.  Both political parties can make use of such a precedent to justify what they want.  Today's liberals who cheer the HHS mandate may be shocked when the wheel eventually turns and conservatives get control of the government and start using this tool to start attacking what they dislike.

This isn't speculation.  History tells us of governments which rejected conscience in the name of "the good of the people."  We used to recognize these governments as Fascist or Communist.   We used to know that these governments would steamroller the conscientious objectors, labeling them as enemies of the state for "imposing" their "bourgeois," "reactionary" attitudes on "the people."

The Fascist and Marxist governments believed the rights came from the state and the state could take away those rights.  In contrast, Americans believed that human rights were inalienable.  They couldn't be taken away by the State, because they came from a source higher than the state.  A government which tried to take away such rights was recognized as unjust and had to be opposed.

Partisanship blinds us to this danger

Unfortunately, partisanship has reached the point that the prevailing mentality seems to be, "Whatever I do to harm my enemy is acceptable.  Nothing he does to harm me is acceptable."  You can't build a just society on such a partisan mentality.  You can't build a free society on such a mentality.  Such a society must eventually become corrupted, where one faction is perceived as evil solely because it isn't a faction a person disagrees with.  Conscience is replaced by self indulgence.

It is also a danger because those people who do truly follow what is right are confused for partisans.  "You oppose abortion, Republicans oppose abortion, therefore you are a right wing Republican!"  It is also a menace for those practicing the faith.  The Church position on contraception and abortion is seen as "right wing" and the Church is denounced by the political "Left."  On the other hand, the Church position on immigration is condemned as "left wing" and the Church is denounced by the political "Right."

When a whole nation makes use of these hostile labels to attack what they dislike, we have lost the ability to look for truth.  We become blind to the fact that the Church can be motivated by what is necessary for salvation and not "increasing the Sunday collections" or "wanting to suppress women."  When we look at the world through a partisan lens, we have an obscured view.

Objective Truth Exists

However, things that are true can be known, and it is also true that moral things can be known.  Things that are true by their nature are always true regardless of time or place.  So if the concept, "slavery is wrong" is objectively true, that means it was wrong regardless of whoever practiced it in the past, and it would be objectively wrong to practice it in the future.

However, if the statement, "slavery is wrong" is not objectively true then it means that it was right in at least some circumstances in the past and might be right in some circumstances in the future.

Likewise, the principle of "We must always follow our conscience."  If this is not objectively true in all times and places, then it means there can be a time or a place where it is acceptable where one can deliberately do evil or refuse to good for a higher cause.  We've had nations which operated under such principles – nations where I would not care to live.

QED

This brings us back to the original point, from a different angle.  Without the concept of objective right and wrong, a government can invoke anything they choose under the justification of the greater good, and can force a person to comply.  Who defines the greater good?  The government which is forcing people to disobey their conscience or suffer repercussions.

Thus every person should see the danger of tolerating a government which places itself above the freedom to do what is right.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Reflections on Conscience and Utilitarianism

The Argument to Consider

Major Premise: We Must always Do Good and always Avoid Evil

Minor Premise: [X] is Good or [Y] is Evil.

Conclusion: We must do [X] or We must not do [Y]

The major premise cannot be denied.  While people may argue over whether [X] is truly good or whether [Y] is truly evil, normal people do not say it is permissible to do evil.  If a person's conscience tells him that something is evil, he must not do it.  This is where the questions of morality come into play, invoking situations where it is not always right to do [X] or wrong to do [Y].  For example, it is wrong to withhold a person's property from him.  However, if the neighbor is drunk and wants me to give him his car keys, it would be wrong to give him his car keys until that situation has changed.  Once that situation is changed however, I do not have the right to continue to withhold his keys from him.  These are questions that are in line with the major premise of, "We Must always Do Good and always Avoid Evil."

This Major Premise is the concept of conscience.  It says, I must do [X].  I must not do [Y].  Yet too many people think of conscience as an impulse that puts a stamp of approval on what we want to do and a stamp of disapproval for what we oppose.  Such people are indeed following an impulse, but that impulse is not conscience.

Impulse and Conscience

Impulse tells me:

• "I am hungry, I want food."
• "I have sexual desires, I want conjugal relations."
• "I am in fear for my life, I want to flee."

Conscience, on the other hand, counters my impulse and tells me:

• "Even though I am hungry, I must not eat the whole pizza."
• "Even though I have sexual desires, I must not have sexual relations with my neighbor's wife who is making her body available for me."
• "Even though I am afraid for my life, I must not flee because innocents will be harmed if I do."

Impulses can be right at some times and wrong at other times.  I seem to recall CS Lewis making reference to impulses as the keys on a piano… each one can be right or wrong depending on whether they are used in the proper time or not.  Conscience then, must be thought of as the conductor, telling us when it is the right time to act on the impulse and when it is not. 

Unfortunately, in America, we have tended to deaden our conscience and give in to our impulses.  "Why shouldn't I have sexual relations with my neighbor's wife?  She is willing and I want gratification."  When faced with conscience which tells us we did wrong, the response is to react with anger, often blaming people who say what the conscience says for "attempting to impose guilt."

Remember, people don't get outraged when a religion teaches something not involving conscience.  Non Jews (normally) don't get offended because Jews keep Kosher laws in their personal life or in their businesses.  They don't demand a Jewish deli serve them a ham sandwich.  They do get angry when a religion speaks on a topic which the conscience also condemns. 

1. Conscience tells us we must not do [X]
2. The Catholic Church tells us we must not do [X]
3. Therefore the Church is accused of causing guilt over [X]

The problem comes when we go from "How Can I Be Just?" to "How Can I Justify This?"

To escape guilt, many move from "How must I act to be just?" to asking "How can I justify my Act?"  It is sometimes argued by moral relativists that there are no absolutes, and right and wrong are entirely dependent on the circumstances, the culture and many other considerations.

This argument is absurd.  If slavery is wrong, it was always wrong and will always be wrong.  A society that practiced it in the past was wrong, even if the society considered it morally acceptable.  It was not wrong in the Northern United States and right in the Southern United States.  Nor was it right prior to 1865 and wrong after 1865.

Likewise, if genocide is wrong, a society which practices it is wrong.  No sane person would argue that because Nazi Germany had the "Final Solution," it was right in Germany but wrong elsewhere.

These two examples show we can indeed know that some things are absolutely (in all cases, circumstances and times) wrong, even if a society practiced them.  We look back to those times with sorrow and revulsion – we DON'T think they were right then but not now.

Indeed, these principles show us something key.  That is the fact that it is irrelevant to appeal to the fact that a thing is popular.  If 99% of the population decides that it is expedient to persecute an innocent 1% of the population, that 99% is wrong, because it is true that it is not right to deliberately harm innocent people. 

If you question this, consider whether it would be right for someone to push your child into the path of a speeding car as a way to warn a larger group of people to get out of the path of the car.

Utilitarianism vs. Catholicism

"Whenever A annoys or injures B on the pretense of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel."

- H.L. Mencken

The above question isn't just an imaginary example in poor taste.  This is an application of utilitarianism.

utilitarianism
  ■ noun the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.
   ▶      the doctrine that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct.

The principles of utilitarianism can be held to different degrees of course, but generally utilitarianism will recognize that no act can harm no person, so if a small number of people are harmed or inconvenienced when the greater good is invoked, that harm can be justified.  This is how the justification of abortion tends to work (even if those taking part in abortion aren't formally utilitarians).  "Even if the unborn is a person, the right to abortion will benefit women, therefore it can be justified."

It also is used to justify the current HHS attack on religion.  "Some religions may be inconvenienced by being forced to pay for contraception and abortion coverage, but more people may benefit from such a requirement.  Therefore religions can be compelled to pay for such coverage."

Ultimately, Utilitarianism justifies tyranny in the name of "good."  If a government program can benefit many at the cost of harming a few (say the rich, landowners, the Jews…) then it is acceptable to harm the few to benefit the many.  That kind of utilitarianism can be brutal (Nazism, Stalinism) or mild (America today), but it still operates under the principle of, "The Ends Justify the Means."

The danger of course is the fact that the person making the decision of what is more important will never put themselves in the position of being "less important" – though they might consider placing YOU in that category.

In contrast, the Catholic position says, evil may never be done so good may come from it.  This isn't merely two conflicting ideologies.  This is a statement on the importance of the human person.  Under Utilitarianism, a conservative could argue, "Since most AIDS cases come from homosexuals, we should place all homosexuals in relocation camps.  Many would benefit and only a few would be harmed."

The Catholic view would condemn that view because such a view treats human persons as mere pawns to be used instead of looking at them as persons who must be treated as persons even if they do wrong (whether by choice or by disordered passion).  That doesn't mean we treat felons as if they were innocent, or treat homosexuality as the same as heterosexuality.  That which is wrong must be opposed, even if the person doing wrong thinks it is right.

It does mean we may not treat a person as if he were less than human because he is a felon, because he is not white, because he is religious and so on.

Conclusion

The difference between the view of utilitarianism (so prominent in America today) and the Catholic view can be summed up this way:

The Golden Rule states that we must do unto others as we would have them do unto us.  Would we have others treat us as a means to an end where we can be harmed for a greater good?  No?  Then we must not treat others in such a way.

Ultimately, we must then do what is good and avoid what is evil in all our actions.

QED.

Reflections on Conscience and Utilitarianism

The Argument to Consider

Major Premise: We Must always Do Good and always Avoid Evil

Minor Premise: [X] is Good or [Y] is Evil.

Conclusion: We must do [X] or We must not do [Y]

The major premise cannot be denied.  While people may argue over whether [X] is truly good or whether [Y] is truly evil, normal people do not say it is permissible to do evil.  If a person's conscience tells him that something is evil, he must not do it.  This is where the questions of morality come into play, invoking situations where it is not always right to do [X] or wrong to do [Y].  For example, it is wrong to withhold a person's property from him.  However, if the neighbor is drunk and wants me to give him his car keys, it would be wrong to give him his car keys until that situation has changed.  Once that situation is changed however, I do not have the right to continue to withhold his keys from him.  These are questions that are in line with the major premise of, "We Must always Do Good and always Avoid Evil."

This Major Premise is the concept of conscience.  It says, I must do [X].  I must not do [Y].  Yet too many people think of conscience as an impulse that puts a stamp of approval on what we want to do and a stamp of disapproval for what we oppose.  Such people are indeed following an impulse, but that impulse is not conscience.

Impulse and Conscience

Impulse tells me:

• "I am hungry, I want food."
• "I have sexual desires, I want conjugal relations."
• "I am in fear for my life, I want to flee."

Conscience, on the other hand, counters my impulse and tells me:

• "Even though I am hungry, I must not eat the whole pizza."
• "Even though I have sexual desires, I must not have sexual relations with my neighbor's wife who is making her body available for me."
• "Even though I am afraid for my life, I must not flee because innocents will be harmed if I do."

Impulses can be right at some times and wrong at other times.  I seem to recall CS Lewis making reference to impulses as the keys on a piano… each one can be right or wrong depending on whether they are used in the proper time or not.  Conscience then, must be thought of as the conductor, telling us when it is the right time to act on the impulse and when it is not. 

Unfortunately, in America, we have tended to deaden our conscience and give in to our impulses.  "Why shouldn't I have sexual relations with my neighbor's wife?  She is willing and I want gratification."  When faced with conscience which tells us we did wrong, the response is to react with anger, often blaming people who say what the conscience says for "attempting to impose guilt."

Remember, people don't get outraged when a religion teaches something not involving conscience.  Non Jews (normally) don't get offended because Jews keep Kosher laws in their personal life or in their businesses.  They don't demand a Jewish deli serve them a ham sandwich.  They do get angry when a religion speaks on a topic which the conscience also condemns. 

1. Conscience tells us we must not do [X]
2. The Catholic Church tells us we must not do [X]
3. Therefore the Church is accused of causing guilt over [X]

The problem comes when we go from "How Can I Be Just?" to "How Can I Justify This?"

To escape guilt, many move from "How must I act to be just?" to asking "How can I justify my Act?"  It is sometimes argued by moral relativists that there are no absolutes, and right and wrong are entirely dependent on the circumstances, the culture and many other considerations.

This argument is absurd.  If slavery is wrong, it was always wrong and will always be wrong.  A society that practiced it in the past was wrong, even if the society considered it morally acceptable.  It was not wrong in the Northern United States and right in the Southern United States.  Nor was it right prior to 1865 and wrong after 1865.

Likewise, if genocide is wrong, a society which practices it is wrong.  No sane person would argue that because Nazi Germany had the "Final Solution," it was right in Germany but wrong elsewhere.

These two examples show we can indeed know that some things are absolutely (in all cases, circumstances and times) wrong, even if a society practiced them.  We look back to those times with sorrow and revulsion – we DON'T think they were right then but not now.

Indeed, these principles show us something key.  That is the fact that it is irrelevant to appeal to the fact that a thing is popular.  If 99% of the population decides that it is expedient to persecute an innocent 1% of the population, that 99% is wrong, because it is true that it is not right to deliberately harm innocent people. 

If you question this, consider whether it would be right for someone to push your child into the path of a speeding car as a way to warn a larger group of people to get out of the path of the car.

Utilitarianism vs. Catholicism

"Whenever A annoys or injures B on the pretense of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel."

- H.L. Mencken

The above question isn't just an imaginary example in poor taste.  This is an application of utilitarianism.

utilitarianism
  ■ noun the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.
   ▶      the doctrine that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct.

The principles of utilitarianism can be held to different degrees of course, but generally utilitarianism will recognize that no act can harm no person, so if a small number of people are harmed or inconvenienced when the greater good is invoked, that harm can be justified.  This is how the justification of abortion tends to work (even if those taking part in abortion aren't formally utilitarians).  "Even if the unborn is a person, the right to abortion will benefit women, therefore it can be justified."

It also is used to justify the current HHS attack on religion.  "Some religions may be inconvenienced by being forced to pay for contraception and abortion coverage, but more people may benefit from such a requirement.  Therefore religions can be compelled to pay for such coverage."

Ultimately, Utilitarianism justifies tyranny in the name of "good."  If a government program can benefit many at the cost of harming a few (say the rich, landowners, the Jews…) then it is acceptable to harm the few to benefit the many.  That kind of utilitarianism can be brutal (Nazism, Stalinism) or mild (America today), but it still operates under the principle of, "The Ends Justify the Means."

The danger of course is the fact that the person making the decision of what is more important will never put themselves in the position of being "less important" – though they might consider placing YOU in that category.

In contrast, the Catholic position says, evil may never be done so good may come from it.  This isn't merely two conflicting ideologies.  This is a statement on the importance of the human person.  Under Utilitarianism, a conservative could argue, "Since most AIDS cases come from homosexuals, we should place all homosexuals in relocation camps.  Many would benefit and only a few would be harmed."

The Catholic view would condemn that view because such a view treats human persons as mere pawns to be used instead of looking at them as persons who must be treated as persons even if they do wrong (whether by choice or by disordered passion).  That doesn't mean we treat felons as if they were innocent, or treat homosexuality as the same as heterosexuality.  That which is wrong must be opposed, even if the person doing wrong thinks it is right.

It does mean we may not treat a person as if he were less than human because he is a felon, because he is not white, because he is religious and so on.

Conclusion

The difference between the view of utilitarianism (so prominent in America today) and the Catholic view can be summed up this way:

The Golden Rule states that we must do unto others as we would have them do unto us.  Would we have others treat us as a means to an end where we can be harmed for a greater good?  No?  Then we must not treat others in such a way.

Ultimately, we must then do what is good and avoid what is evil in all our actions.

QED.

Commenting on the New Comment Period

Reports are that we're having a new comment period for those institutions which are non-profit, but don't fall under the Obama administration's exceptionally narrow definition of a religious organization, like say Catholic Hospitals and Universities.  I'm not impressed.

First of all, the Obama administration doesn't even have the Constitutional authority to do this.  The Constitution forbids laws which interfere with the free practice of religion.  The only reason this can happen is because members of our government aren't bothering to stand up to the Obama administration's violation of the Constitution and the Presidential Oath of Office:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." (US Constitution Article II, Section I).

Merely commenting on the extent of the violation of the Constitution ought to be allowed falls short of the defense of the Constitution.

Second, Those who have freedom of religion under the Constitution do not merely consist of churches and non-profit organizations.  Men and women who are religious believers but also work in a for-profit business also have the freedom of free exercise of religion.  If Catholics in the Insurance industry believe it is their moral obligation not to cooperate with the moral evils of contraception by funding them, and if the government forces insurers to fund contraception and abortion, then it follows that the government is interfering with their moral obligations according to their religion.

No matter how Obama and his supporters may spin it, the HHS Mandate, and even the Comment Period are open and flagrant violations of the Constitution simply by their existence.

Ultimately, the morality of contraception and abortion will have to be settled in America, and the Catholic Church will certainly need to make clear why our teaching is not mere opinion in order to lead people to the truth – and this is what they are trying to do.  They are not trying to pass any "stealth legislation" to ban these things by trickery.  So long as the voters and politicians of America fail to recognize this truth, the issues of contraception and abortifacients will continue to be accepted.

However, even the acceptance by a majority does not mean it is permitted to force the minority, who believes it to be evil, to accept it.

We used to recognize this was tyranny (oppressive and arbitrary rule seized without legal right to do so).

Why not now?

 

+Pray for our Country

Commenting on the New Comment Period

Reports are that we're having a new comment period for those institutions which are non-profit, but don't fall under the Obama administration's exceptionally narrow definition of a religious organization, like say Catholic Hospitals and Universities.  I'm not impressed.

First of all, the Obama administration doesn't even have the Constitutional authority to do this.  The Constitution forbids laws which interfere with the free practice of religion.  The only reason this can happen is because members of our government aren't bothering to stand up to the Obama administration's violation of the Constitution and the Presidential Oath of Office:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." (US Constitution Article II, Section I).

Merely commenting on the extent of the violation of the Constitution ought to be allowed falls short of the defense of the Constitution.

Second, Those who have freedom of religion under the Constitution do not merely consist of churches and non-profit organizations.  Men and women who are religious believers but also work in a for-profit business also have the freedom of free exercise of religion.  If Catholics in the Insurance industry believe it is their moral obligation not to cooperate with the moral evils of contraception by funding them, and if the government forces insurers to fund contraception and abortion, then it follows that the government is interfering with their moral obligations according to their religion.

No matter how Obama and his supporters may spin it, the HHS Mandate, and even the Comment Period are open and flagrant violations of the Constitution simply by their existence.

Ultimately, the morality of contraception and abortion will have to be settled in America, and the Catholic Church will certainly need to make clear why our teaching is not mere opinion in order to lead people to the truth – and this is what they are trying to do.  They are not trying to pass any "stealth legislation" to ban these things by trickery.  So long as the voters and politicians of America fail to recognize this truth, the issues of contraception and abortifacients will continue to be accepted.

However, even the acceptance by a majority does not mean it is permitted to force the minority, who believes it to be evil, to accept it.

We used to recognize this was tyranny (oppressive and arbitrary rule seized without legal right to do so).

Why not now?

 

+Pray for our Country

What Will You Do If They Come For You?

With the recent news of the government first forbidding the reading of the letter issued by Archbishop Timothy Broglio (who oversees the Catholic chaplains) condemning the HHS decision, and then after a protest, censoring the letter that was read, we must ask… how can anyone pretend that the Obama administration is not a menace to the rights and liberties of all Americans?

First we have the imposing of a directive which demands that religious institutions either comply with providing coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortifacients or shut down.  Now the government is beginning to stifle the freedom to oppose such directives.

Now I recognize that not all Americans share the views of this blog or of the Catholic Church that this blog seeks to reflect.  However, even those who do not share these views need to consider something.

If the Obama administration succeeds in their tactics, then there is nothing to prevent them from using these tactics against any other body who displeases them.  Moreover, if the administration is removed from power and if these tactics are left in place, then whoever succeeds the Obama administration will also have these tools to stifle dissent.

Regardless of one's views of politics or morality, the Obama administration is taking a path which all people of good will must oppose.  Otherwise the American concept of freedom ends in failure and we become yet another nation with an authoritarian regime. 

What Will You Do If They Come For You?

With the recent news of the government first forbidding the reading of the letter issued by Archbishop Timothy Broglio (who oversees the Catholic chaplains) condemning the HHS decision, and then after a protest, censoring the letter that was read, we must ask… how can anyone pretend that the Obama administration is not a menace to the rights and liberties of all Americans?

First we have the imposing of a directive which demands that religious institutions either comply with providing coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortifacients or shut down.  Now the government is beginning to stifle the freedom to oppose such directives.

Now I recognize that not all Americans share the views of this blog or of the Catholic Church that this blog seeks to reflect.  However, even those who do not share these views need to consider something.

If the Obama administration succeeds in their tactics, then there is nothing to prevent them from using these tactics against any other body who displeases them.  Moreover, if the administration is removed from power and if these tactics are left in place, then whoever succeeds the Obama administration will also have these tools to stifle dissent.

Regardless of one's views of politics or morality, the Obama administration is taking a path which all people of good will must oppose.  Otherwise the American concept of freedom ends in failure and we become yet another nation with an authoritarian regime. 

USCCB Rebuts Obama Administration

You can find the article HERE.

We're in a nasty battle for the freedom to do as we ought to do, with the propagandists for the government seeking to mislead people into thinking we're mindless bigots.

This is the time for all people to do what they can depending on their talents.  We're now in a battle over the souls in our nation.

USCCB Rebuts Obama Administration

You can find the article HERE.

We're in a nasty battle for the freedom to do as we ought to do, with the propagandists for the government seeking to mislead people into thinking we're mindless bigots.

This is the time for all people to do what they can depending on their talents.  We're now in a battle over the souls in our nation.