|
|
|
The voters in Louisiana, following the lead of several other states, voted
this fall to not allow homosexual "marriage." Obligingly, within a very short
period of time, a judge declared this to be unconstitutional.
I say "obligingly" because for many years people pushing for social change have
known that, if they shop around a little, they can find a court that will give
them just about anything they want. We have in effect two different, even
opposed, governments - that of elected officials answerable to the voters and
that of judges who are beyond anyone's control except that of judges at a higher
level.
During the election season, polls showed that people usually mentioned the war and
the economy as the issues that concerned them most, which is not surprising but is
misleading, because I think most people do not fully understand how the judiciary
functions and what great effect it has on national life. When courts hand down
unpopular decisions people are outraged, but they seldom seem to ask themselves
how that came about.
Polls show that an overwhelming majority of people oppose homosexual "marriage"
and partial-birth abortion and think religion should play a major role in public
life, to take only some of the obvious issues. Over half the electorate should
now be classified as pro-life.
But that is precisely the point, say the defenders of the courts. The people
simply cannot be relied upon to do the right thing, thus we have to have
unelected guardians who correct the people's ignorance. Liberals who are
passionate about what they consider undemocratic elements in our system, and talk
continuously about giving more power to the people, here take the exactly
opposite position. The justification for all-powerful judges simply comes down to
the fact that the people really cannot be trusted.
Of course the rationale for all this is the Constitution, the fact that the Bill
of Rights exists to prevent a majority from oppressing minorities. The fallacy is
the courts' claims that they have "found" a right to abortion or homosexual
marriage in the Constitution and that the Constitution decrees a secular society.
This is as blatant an exercise of power as any king ever thought of, government
not by law but by decree -- "the law is what the judges say it is."
In the coming election it is not clear how much the main candidates actually
differ over the war in Iraq, and it is always doubtful how much any president can
do about the economy. Thus I think that, especially for religious believers, the
future of the courts ought to be the primary consideration. The war will
eventually end, the economy will continue to have its ups and downs, but changes
decreed by courts in the very fabric of social life will endure for many decades.
The Supreme Court had been divided along a 5-4 knife edge for some time, with the
"swing votes" going now one way, now another. It is reasonable to assume at least
three new appointments during the next presidential term, and the character of
those appointments will have immense effect on national life.
To mention only the most obvious, there will probably be court cases over
homosexual marriage, abortion, human cloning, the role of religion in public
life, suicide, euthanasia, and the rights of parents over the education of their
children. If the courts are remade in a permanently liberal way, the "culture
wars" will be over and the moral and religious beliefs of the majority of
Americans will have been permanently excluded from public life. In the coming
election no issue is more important than that.
Dr. James Hitchcock, professor
of history at St. Louis University, writes and lectures on contemporary
Church matters. His column appears in the diocesan press. He is the author
of several books, including The Recovery of the Sacred, What is Secular
Humanism?, and Years of Crisis: Collected Essays, 1970-1983.
Princeton University Press just published his two-volume history of the Supreme Court,
The Supreme Court and Religion in American Life:
The Odyssey of the Religion Clauses (Vol. 1) and
From "Higher Law" to "Sectarian Scruples"
(Vol. 2). He is also a regular contributor to many Catholic periodicals, including
Catholic World Report.
This article originally appeared in October 2004 on the Women
for Faith & Family website. It is reprinted by permission of the author.
|
|
|
|
|
|
G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936) was one of the finest Christian authors and apologists
of the past two hundred years. Raised as an agnostic, he embraced Christianity as a young man, ultimately entering the Catholic Church
in 1922. He wrote hundreds of essays, as well as novels, short stories, poetry, apologetics, literary
criticism, and nearly everything else imaginable. Dale Ahlquist, president and co-founder of the American
Chesterton Society and author of
G.K Chesterton: Apostle of Common Sense, writes, "Chesterton was equally at ease with literary and social criticism,
history, politics, economics, philosophy, and theology. His style is unmistakable, always marked
by humility, consistency, paradox, wit, and wonder. His writing remains as timely and as timeless
today as when it first appeared, even though much of it was published in throw away paper." Read more
about the life and work of this remarkable thinker, author, and apologist.
|
Nothing To Hide: Secrecy, Communication and Communion in the Catholic Church
by Russell Shaw
Shaw, the former communications director for the U.S. Bishops, discusses the abuse of secrecy in the Church, the scandals it has caused and the serious
problem of mistrust that exists in the credibility of the Church. He is not concerned with the legitimate secrecy that is necessary to protect confidentiality and people's reputations, but
with the stifling, deadening misuse of secrecy that has done immense harm to communion and community in the Church in America. Shaw raises such questions as: What kind of Church do we want our Church to be, open or closed? What kind of Church should it be? And how much secrecy is compatible with having
such a Church? As Pope Benedict XVI has stated, "The consequence is clear: we cannot communicate with the Lord if we do not communicate with one another." The Church is a communion, not a political
democracy, and thus openness and accountability are even more crucial for the life of the Church than they are in a democracy. In a talk he gave many years before he became the current Pope,
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had this to say about the reality of ecclesial communion: "Fellowship in the Body of Christ and receiving the Body of Christ means fellowship with one another. This
of its very nature includes mutual acceptance, giving and receiving on both sides, and readiness to share one's goods ... In this sense, the social question is given quite a central place
in the theological heart of the concept of communion." This is a beautiful vision of the Church. Shaw's aim in his book is to make a contribution to realizing this vision in the concrete circumstances
of the present day, by helping to end the culture of secrecy, especially within American Catholicism, and replacing the destructive culture with an open, accountable community of faith.
Read more about Nothing to Hide.
|
|
|
|
