Response to Rick, Michael, Richard

I am really quite grateful to Rick, Michael, Richard, and Father Araujo for responding to my recent post (and, of course, to Eduardo for his contribution). I respond here to Rick, Michael, and Richard and will have to respond to Father Araujo later.

In response to Rick: I did not say that “the fact that Americans do not believe that it is immoral to destroy embryos for research purposes establishes that the immorality of destroying embryos for research purposes can only be established by ‘resort to authority.’” I said that the extent to which Americans do not follow Catholic values embarrasses the First Things attempt to show that Catholic values are American values. Moreover, I asked what arguments other than authority can be used to counter the position of the American majority and how natural law doctrine relates to this debate. To claim as Rick and Michael do that America has a “[deep] and core commitment to the equal dignity and worth of every human being from conception to natural death,” is a well phrased statement of a conclusion, but it is not an argument. It begs the question by asserting what many deny: that a human being (as opposed to a human organism exists from the time of conception). I am genuinely interested in determining what arguments can be made for the Catholic position outside resort to authority.

But, in the latter connection, I will add one more question. Suppose a Catholic is unsure about the morality of embryonic stem cell research, and, therefore, accepts the Church’s position (believing that having no strong reason to affirm or dispute it that she should accept it). Suppose further that this Catholic continues to think that the Church position is open to doubt. Does such a Catholic become less than faithful if she takes her doubts into account in the election process? Or must she vote as if she holds the Church’s position as a strong conviction (even though she does not)?

Which leads me to Richard’s response to my post on conscience and democracy:  As I said, I was responding to Father Araujo’s statement that “’Our faith teaches that Catholics cannot, in good conscience, disagree with the Church on questions of morality.’” Although it was not the point of my post, I do believe that a Catholic has the right and the duty to follow his or her conscience (which is informed by reflection, study, and experience, but is in the end subjective) even when it disagrees with the Church on questions of morality. I do not know what led Michael to think that I believe that following conscience can not involve erroneous judgment, but that is not and has never been my view. I did not defend my view of Catholic obligations and rights of conscience. We have been down that road on this site already.

The point of my post was rather was to maintain that if Catholics were to adhere to Father Araujo’s conception of the faith (in the main they do not) anti-Catholicism would rise (wholly apart from whether his conception of the faith is correct). I suggested among other things that most Americans have historically been suspicious of Catholicism on the ground that Catholics follow the dictates of a foreign power rather than exercising independent judgment (i.e., following their “subjective” conscience). I wondered how Father Araujo’s conception of the faith could be reconciled with American democracy. In response, Richard asks, “Does he mean to say that one could not follow the Magisterium on a disputed moral question without somehow breaking faith with American democracy? Or just that one could not support a law that was consistent with a moral view held by the Magisterium because that would violate the Establishment Clause?” The answer to both questions is an emphatic no. I know of no one anywhere who has taken the second position, and I do not believe a serious argument could be made for that view. In fact, I believe that Catholic citizens have a religious duty to act on their religious beliefs in political life and a moral right to express their religious views in political life. (I bypass here the restrictions that the Establishment Clause places on the reasons government can give for its actions, e.g., leaving aside ceremonial monotheism, government could not justify a law on the supposition that it has a privileged insight on what God has to say about a subject).

As to the first question, I think it depends on why the person has followed the Magisterium. If the person has followed the Magisterium through an exercise of independent judgment accompanied by deference, I do not think such deference is incompatible with good citizenship or American democracy (though many might disagree). I do think it is hard to reconcile absolute submission to the Magisterium with American democracy.