Can the Immoral become Moral by legislation?
In 1858, by a decision of the United States Supreme Court (Dred Scott v. Sandford) a whole segment of the American population was declared to be less than fully human. This decision, in the minds of many Americans, justified their " owning" other human beings. It was legal and THEREFORE quite acceptable to their own consciences. To the contemporary American it is mind boggling to believe that, in the past, our fellow citizens so unconscionably juggled inherent values based on a consensus of Supreme Court Jurists. To believe that the patently immoral is acceptable simply because it is declared legal seems right out of some kind of sociological Mad House. In effect, it says that anything legal is consequently moral.
In the then Republic of South Africa where I lived for seven years as a Missionary, a political system called " Apartheid" ruled the country. Human beings were classified according to race and levels of skin coloration, which classification further determined the level of schooling, housing, employment, travel, health care and social relationships. Separation was enforced down to drinking fountains and places of worship. The effect was, in fact, to humiliate millions of people in their own eyes, since the apartheid clearly signaled " inferiority."
This structure was created by intelligent and supposedly God-fearing people, through their Legislature and approved by their judiciary. The majority of the " superior" class (read: white) accepted this way of life because " it was "legal." This class was generally a Church going group which was able, under the system, to hire poorly paid " help" from the under classes, and live a generally comfortable life. This superior class, called "Europeans" (with all other classes called " non-Europeans")somehow managed to bury any spiritual guilt about the iniquitous system and permitted themselves to live the "legal" and therefore moral South African way of life.
This rationalization to accept evil under the seductions of immediate gratification is a common trap for the mind. And it is gradual. On my arrival at Capetown, I was incensed and infuriated at such blatant un-Christian and Un-American attitudes and fully intended to "do something about it." Within a few years, however, I was appalled that I was hardly noticing the social and spiritual evils about me. The gradual acceptance of social evil is insidious, almost unnoticeable, until one day one is stunned by one's own personal if passsive complicity in the evils themselves. How much of this " compliicity" is traceable to the easy way out that "legal makes it right"? Apartheid was legal but monstrously immoral.
No amount of fancy legalese could wipe out the enormous social sin in that period. Only one's own conscience and awareness could do that. Yet, brainwashing and conscience numbing by regular if miniscule bombardment always takes its toll.
In Nazi Germany, another whole class of human beings, the Jews, were, in effect, declared sub-human and therefore were without all the rights previously held by them as faithful and valuable citizens of the Germany they loved. Court after court upheld the unbelieveable distortions fostered by the Third Reich. Human beings declared that certain other human beings were unworthy to live and consequently could be exterminated with approval of the "Government." I shudder when I realize that I, as a half Jew, would have been fodder for the fire had I been in Munich or Berlin in 1933 when I was 12 years old. Yet, would the government or the general population protest that my civil rights were being abused? Was this right and just? Certainly not. Yet, it was "legal" and therefore in the minds of many Germans, it was RIGHT! Is it not patently clear that the Legislation and judicial positions deeply influence the thinking and evaluations of the people? Scratch the surface of the average citizen anywhere and he will agree that since it is legal, it must be " all right." (read: moral).
When President George Bush signed into law the Ban on Partial Birth abortion with the overwhelming support of both Houses of Congress and the American people, he was acting in concord with the will of the Governed and the Governing. Crunching the skull of a partially born child is to most people a savage and barbarous act. It is seen as an intrinsically evil behavior. Yet, if he had vetoed and blocked the will of the people (as his predecessor did), he would have, in effect, approved (within the law) that which is immoral. Whether he or anyone else takes any position whatever on that which is intrinsically wrong, the evil remains regardless of the law. Morality does not derive its power from civil law but, contrarywise, civil law derives its power from morality, or from the eternal law of God, the almighty Lawgiver.
This is why it IS appropriate for spiritual guides in every age to remind politicians that ALL law derives its " right to life" (like Nathan's hot dog) from a Higher Authority. To neglect to point this out would be delinquent for a Pastor or Rabbi or a Dalai Lama and certainly for the Bishop opf Rome, the Pope, who, in his own self concept, is the Vicar of Christ, Himself!
It is interesting to recall one of Catholicism's great heroes and models, Thomas More, who has been acclaimed as SAINT Thomas! When faced with pressure to cave into Government's official "law", More chose death to defy an intrinsically unjust piece of legislation, saying just before his execution: " I am the King's loyal servant, but God's FIRST." This pressure came, not only from Government itself, and from the social pressure of " every one is doing it", but from the painful entreaties of a loving family to "go along with the Government."
Similarly, when the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, reminds CATHOLIC politicians around the world of their obligation to stand for GOD'S LAW as opposed to secular and/or irreligious values, he simply follows the pattern of true religious leaders of history. Consider the example of the famed and courageous Martin Luther King Jr. who reminded the members of his congregation that it was their duty to oppose their Government should that Government conflict with the Law of God. (1956 Sermon on American Christians). Do we hear echos of what we saw in Dred Scott and Apartheid and Nazi-ism?
But did any one shout that King or anyone opposing social evil was 'CROSSING THE LINE"? Why did not politicians of the Congressman Patrick Kennedy type accuse King of "crossing the line" at THAT time? Is it simply a matter of expediency? Of playing to the voters? Of blind, unthinking discipleship to a political party rather than to God and truth? Is it simple superficiality or religious ignorance? Does it depend on whose ox one gores? How does one explain Kennedy's accusation that the Pope is, in effect, speaking out of turn when he simply enunciates a basic principle of morality---which seems to have been passed over in the rush to win elections and to play to certain special interest groups?
Stephen Carter, a professor of Law at Yale University law school, summarized balanced and fair views on the meaning of Integrity in his book of the same name. The person of integrity, he holds, has three essential qualities.
They are as follows:
1. He knows through critical and rigorous thinking what he passionately believes. His values are clear to him. There is little or no ambiguity in his right and wrong system.
2. He lives in accord with his thinking and his convictions. His life is without lifestyle compromise. Hypocrisy and deceit have no place in his manner of life.
3. He is willing to articulate his values even if this means personal inconvenience---perhaps suffering or even death.
Seeing the issue put so clearly illustrates the difficulty of maintaining one's own integrity and helps one realize why this virtue is so rare. One such clear if rare individual is Dr. Ambassador Alan Keyes who, with obvious and unmistakeable clarity, publicly and often, declared in his run for the Republican nomination for President, that he would NEVER under any circumstances vote for or support any candidate of any party who was Pro Abortion.
This was eye raising talk for those who were politically ambitious. When asked his views of the "lesser of two evils" (with implication of working with pro abortion politicians in the hope of getting some advantage for the unborn), he replied that -to him- " evil is evil and should evil triumph, it will be without my help." This is obviously poor political strategy but glorious integrity. Dr. Keyes is a man of morality and true integrity. Cut from the cloth of More and King and Ignatius of Antioch, he sees, unlike some high profile (alleged) Catholic politicians, the moral logic of the Pope's injunction to legislate according to what one KNOWS to be right!
There is a thunder from the enlightened conscience which reverberates, for example, in Elie Weisl's principle that " Silence in the face of Oppression helps only the aggressor" and in Burke, the English parliamentarian, who shouts " The only thing needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." Yet, what can honest political leaders do when faced with the dilemma of conscience and pragmatism?
The flimsy evasive mechanism of "Privately, I think it is evil but,publicly, I support it", can no longer be ethically held as has been demonstrated by Judge John Noonan of the California Supreme Court. Presenting a public persona of agreement while cultivating an interior dispositon of disagreement, inevitably creates an inner tension and the spiritual maliase of duplicity. Antitheticals cannot easily co-exist in the same space. What kind of duplicitious souls do the 14 Catholic SENATORS have, who voted in support of the skull crushing of partially born babies?
If that is a harsh question, it is justified not only by revulsion to hypocrisy but by the pitifiul cries to heaven from those who have NO chance at life - - - at all! Or would others say that THEY have integrity when they support infant skull crunching, same sex marriages and the like? Is integrity relative? Or is there something inherent in the very notion of right and wrong? Clearly this paper comes down heavy on the side of a basic absolute, namely that God decides what is immoral or moral and not legislatures. What has been called the Ten Commandments embodies that which is the Right way to go! But who decides which is THE moral way? Who decides what the Commandments really mean? Government? Individuals? God? (or is God out of date?). In any event, morality came long before Governments and derives its validity from something deeper than trends and special interest groups.
These troubling questions can have many consequences. For example, a colleague of mine, a cleric and a life time almost knee jerk member of a political party, was deeply ruffled at the Pope's reminder to Catholic politicians relative to their voting in accord with their Faith. "If we follow his criterion, we would all have to leave our political party." I quizzed him whether or not he knew what he was saying. If one knows that something is intrinsically evil, as partial birth abortion, and STILL supports that evil by vote or money or membership in the machine which does the evil doing, clearly, then, one becomes complicit in that evil!!!! Knowing this and remaining with that party would seem to me (and, hopefully, to any honest and clear thinking person) to be no less than thumbing one's nose at Morality - - and in effect, at the Giver of the Moral, God Himself.
I am further mystified, embarrassed and even angered when I see essentially the same behavior in what the brave Bishop in Nebraska, Fabian Bruscowitz(?), calls the "hapless bench of Bishops." To see the men I believe to be the successors of the Apostles with teaching and leadership authority become No-see, No-do, No-hear, Jump-through-the-hoops-to please-the-media types, is eminently disappointing. To see Catholic Prelates fawning over the "high and mighty" who live or perform politically opposite to Catholic values makes me and many other tend to "up-chuck." When the upright Bishop of San Diego, a few years ago, excommunicated a faithless female Catholic politician for her blatant abortion voting record, the uproar from the Press was deafening. Fr.Niehaus of FIRST THINGS reports that one Bishop told him that should our Leaders implement the Pope's directive, there would be a reaction in the media far beyond the "scandal" debacle of 2002. Is it Fear, perhaps,which drives these leaders rather than fidelity to Jesus?
The Bishops should know that the Catholic laity do NOT want a set of Bishops like the wimpy Henry VIII Mitred Yes Men. If an unmarried young woman procures, in panic, an abortion and suffers the punishment of excommunication, why should not erring (alleged) Catholic politicians who make such sinful behavior possible, be subjected to the same fate?
Does this come back to the basic point of legislating the "evil" so that it becomes "good"? Shades of Thomas Aquinas again: Make the evil look good so that the human will can embrace it! Even good people (or those fearful of disapproval) can then become enthusiastic about "upholding" the law - - - regardless of Tradition or Right reason or witness of History.
A longtime friend of mine, a high ranking officer in the NYPD and I, dining in a New York City restaurant, were somewhat affronted by "in your face" behavior of two homosexual men at a nearby table. Our conversation focused on the legal as opposed to the moral. He, as a law enforcement officer, felt such behavior was really no problem as long as they did not break the law. I, on the contrary, felt that such a lifestyle, particularly when publicized as normal and legitimate, felt (and feel) that such a philosophy is extremely harmful to society besides being immoral. In a sense we were both right and neither could convince the other of the validity of his respective viewpoint. Still, it does symbolize how even good people can be confused about right and wrong. This highlights the good sense of the Lord in setting up the Church to lead us through darkness and perplexity. Patrick Kennedy should read a little bit on the Role of Christ's Church in society. It might enlighten him and endless others on " the way to go."