Today let’s examine a brief single section:
62. One of the principal duties of any government, moreover, is the suitable and adequate superintendence and co-ordination of (people’s) respective rights in society. This must be done in such a way
- 1) that the exercise of their rights by certain citizens does not obstruct other citizens in the exercise of theirs;
- 2) that the individual, standing upon (their) own rights, does not impede others in the performance of their duties;
- 3) that the rights of all be effectively safeguarded, and completely restored if they have been violated.( Cf. Pius XI’s encyclical letter Divini Redemptoris, AAS 29 (1937) 81, and Pius XII’s broadcast message, Christmas 1942, AAS 35 (1943) 9-24)
Note that a serious consideration of duties in addition to rights widens the equation a bit. An individual’s rights do not extend to impede the rights–or even the duties–of other citizens.
As Christians struggle with the legal reality of a phenomenon of same-sex unions, this principle seems to come into play. Do people who see themselves as morally upright really have options in withholding publicly offered services to LGBT couples? It might be easy enough for me to say “no,” as the services I offer are connected with the Church’s sacramental life. And for the present, I have no interaction with couples of the same sex in marriage preparation.
On the other hand, if I were a florist, and offered a public business to the community, could I deny services for a same-sex union ceremony? If I were standing on a moral high ground, as it were, would I not be obligated to subject all prospective clients to moral scrutiny: sex outside of marriage, previous divorce, couples with open sexual habits? If not, why would I be singling out lesbian and gay couples? Because it was obvious to me? Or because I was lazy? Would I stay in business if I applied the same standard of morality to all potential clients? Or can I get away with a public opposition to LGBT clients because they formed a small fraction of my potential clientele?
At any rate, this section deals more with the action of governments in respecting rights. A government is responsible for overseeing that all citizens respect the rights of their sister and brother citizens, and to watch carefully that boundary where the exercise of one might violate the other.
Your thoughts?
16 May 2013
A New Dictatorship
Posted by catholicsensibility under Commentary, Politics | Tags: economy, financial crisis, pope francis |[2] Comments
Pope Benedict’s “Dictatorship of Relativism” always struck me as a soft adversary. Relativism, as I understand the broad sense of it, is often used as an excuse by some people who otherwise have good intentions. Even the deeply religious Catholic. We explain away war by making it just. We dodge the excesses of hierarchy with encrusted excuses. Some nebulous greater good insulates prelates from consequences for common sins. And those same someones have the nerve to preach a lack of a sense of sin to the laity.
With Pope Francis, I detected in his address to ambassadors today, a new dictatorship. This is one that will be far less elusive. And it’s a cruelty and oppression which is very real for hundreds of millions in our world. If not more.
The dictatorship of an inhumane economy. Now that’s a real dragon.
Rock mentioned this was one of the few times the Holy Father has referred to himself as “the Pope.” That’s the kind of Pope we need today.