My limitation, my failure…

I am grateful for Susan Stabile’s and Rob Vischer’s postings earlier today on the question of conscience and the Church in the modern world. I am surprised that Susan thought my concerns about totalitarianism are restricted to the Catholic institutions. They are not. As she states, “Robert Araujo has raised concerns in several recent posts… about efforts to force Catholic institutions to conform to norms that threaten their religious beliefs and faith.” Indeed, I am concerned about Catholics and Catholic institutions and the Church, but I thought it was clear that my concerns extended to all, whether or not they had a Catholic connection. After all, I think that Catholic legal theory has a Catholic and catholic application. I must be clear now that the concerns which I hold and previously expressed in my previous postings, while including immense concerns for the Church, go beyond it. That is why I have used the term, most consciously, of “totalitarianism.” So, in good and gracious spirit, I must overcome what has been a perceived limitation and correct this failure on my part to be clearly understood.

The Boy Scouts, while including Catholics, comprise a lot of other people who are not co-religionists with me. My concern was for those who do not share my religion but share my beliefs, private and public. I am consoled by Susan’s reference to the Wisconsin matter brought to our attention by Sister Margaret John Kelly, D.C. regarding the bill before the Wisconsin legislature that will, if enacted, forbid an opt-out provision regarding “emergency contraception” (a fascinating euphemism) measures. My consolation does not extend to this legislative initiative but to Susan’s concern about it. Sister Kelly refers to the possibility that we are in a “Thomas More era” again. Indeed, I think we are—and we know what happens to those who did not subscribe nor acted in accordance with the demands of the state and those who influenced its decisions. As I have stated earlier, the need to believe in a uniform principle on the issues of the day existed in Tudor England as it existed in the twentieth century in Germany and Russia. To depart from the uniformity required by the authority of the state would inevitably lead to one’s doom.

But by joining a consensus with the state (and those who influence it), one could be saved. Nevertheless, by joining the uniformity of the moment, one may have, for the time being, saved one’s life only to lose it later. It profit no one to lose one’s life for the world (or, for Wales). Rob raises a parallel issue when he introduced the insensitivity to pro-life physicians by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Their message is this to pro-life doctors: regardless of your own beliefs, you must be prepared to cooperate and collaborate with those with whom you disagree on grave moral issues—if you do not, beware of the consequences. Dr. Edmund Pellegrino, himself a physician, medical school professor, university president, and ethicist, has previously commented on the issue Rob raises.

He noted that “ethicists” of the present day have begun to suggest that physicians “must separate their personal moral beliefs from their professional lives if they wish to practice in a secular society and remain licensed…” (I would add that we can begin to add here: pharmacists, Boy Scouts, and just about anybody else.) Dr. Pellegrino points out that “health care” is beginning to merge with “death care”, as he calls it and can cover the span of human life from its beginning to end. Consequently, physicians may begin to wonder that if they raise objections to abortion procedures, would they only be entitled to a limited license to practice the healing arts? The question can be taken one step further: would they be given a license at all? And, if they have a license, would it be stripped from them when they refuse out of conscience to engage in these procedures?

If you think that we are not facing the emergence of a totalitarian era, I urge you to reconsider. And as a part of my plea, I ask that you to take stock of what Christopher Dawson said in the early 1930s: “The sphere of action of the State has grown steadily larger until it now threatens to embrace the whole of human life and to leave nothing whatsoever outside its competence.”

Is this not an element of what is going on in Philadelphia? In Wisconsin? In Massachusetts? And elsewhere…? Dawson recognized that not only the totalitarian state but even the modern democratic state is not satisfied with passive obedience. It demands full co-operation from the cradle to the grave. This obedience appears to be necessary to avoid being pushed out of existence. Can the western modern state really be a democracy when it mandates uniformity in both beliefs and action? Time will tell.    RJA sj