My response to Steve

 

 

I thank Steve for his question and his patience in waiting for my response.

 

It is clearly possible for the person who considers himself or herself Catholic to form conscience subjectively. But, as I have said before, this is not synonymous with the well-formed conscience that I have spoken of on several occasions here at the Mirror of Justice over the past several years. It may well be that Steve and I disagree on this point (I believe we do), but I understand that the Catholic’s well-formed conscience will reflect the Church’s teachings. I think it is relevant to point out here that this is not something that is forced upon the Catholic, for that would itself be a problem. Nonetheless, the Catholic who exercises the well-formed conscience understands the justifications given for the Church’s teachings and accepts them into his or her views. This is done consistent with the principle: the Church proposes, not imposes. The person is then free to be Catholic or not. If the personal selection is one to be Catholic, then the person’s fidelity would necessitate adopting and following Church teachings. It may be that Steve and I have disagreement on this point. If so, then we disagree.

 

Steve raises an important point about the Smith (the peyote) case. I am sympathetic to what he says considering the fact that the outcome in the animal-sacrifice case from Florida (Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye) was quite different. But it is relevant here to take stock of the fact that both of those cases principally focused on religious freedom based on the First Amendment. They did not pose the question of conscientious objection (although some references to conscience were made in dicta). Recalling what I said in my second response to Rob posted yesterday afternoon, the draft cases seem to provide an important precedent to the kind of circumstance Steve raises.

 

I don’t think one could successfully argue conscientious objection to homicide laws if the religious perspective condones or mandates human sacrifice. The exercise of this kind of conscience would be most subjective and would not reflect the teachings of the Church. When it comes to the use of peyote, the response must be more nuanced. The Church does have teachings about substance abuse, but I wonder, given the context of Smith, if the “sacramental use of peyote” is sufficiently similar to the exemptions from the prohibition laws regarding the sacramental use of wine. If so, Steve’s hypothetical arguably falls within the category of the well-formed conscience.

 

RJA sj