Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Indiana: Saying What Needs to Be Said
From the recent open letter, “Now is the Time to Talk About Religious Liberty,” an unapologetic statement of simple political, religious, and legal sanity:
In recent days we have heard claims that a belief central to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — that we are created male and female, and that marriage unites these two basic expressions of humanity in a unique covenant — amounts to a form of bigotry. Such arguments only increase public confusion on a vitally important issue. When basic moral convictions and historic religious wisdom rooted in experience are deemed “discrimination,” our ability to achieve civic harmony, or even to reason clearly, is impossible.
America was founded on the idea that religious liberty matters because religious belief matters in a uniquely life-giving and powerful way. We need to take that birthright seriously, or we become a people alien to our own founding principles. Religious liberty is precisely what allows a pluralistic society to live together in peace.
Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap
Roman Catholic Archbishop of PhiladelphiaRobert P. George
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence
Princeton UniversityWilliam E. Lori Roman
Catholic Archbishop of BaltimoreAlbert Mohler, Jr., President
The Southern Baptist Theological SeminaryRussell Moore, President
Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission Southern Baptist Convention
Have we reached the point at which issuing such a statement requires courage? We have indeed. All five signatories deserve our gratitude–but I despair, I confess, that they include only two–two out of more than 400–Catholic bishops.
Published in Politics, Religion & Philosophy
I think I remember Prop 8 differently than you do. I seem to recall a great deal of threats and vandalism from the SSM supporters against supporters of Prop 8. Several churches were vandalized and there were death threats against the Fresno Mayor.
Something else that struck me here is that in those two cases you mention, it’s about disallowing an activity. You can’t use peyote, you can’t have more than one wife (which, incidentally, while illegal is still practiced in some instances). In this case people who are in all other respects not discriminating but in one instance are being told that if they don’t do something they are in conflict. I wonder if that might be what feels different to people.
You’re the self identified recovering lawyer :), I haven’t even played one on TV. Is there a legal solution to the issue in your personal opinion/expertise? I have to admit that to a laymen it looks like the two potential legal outcomes are mutually exclusive, which may be my problem.
All you’re saying here is that it’s pay-back time, and that we shouldn’t complain about the payback because it’s tiny compared to what we deserve.
Forgive me if I reject your idea of penance.
You didn’t read very carefully.
Specify.
There is no perfect solution to any political/social disagreement, but I thought RFRA was an excellent idea and would happily support seeing it clarified to make clear that religious objectors need not provide services to gay weddings — or gays generally, or blacks for that matter if they want. I think the whole public accommodation edifice is pernicious and has long since outlived its temporary and limited usefulness to deal with Jim Crowe. I have no desire to see anybody crushed under its weight. That includes people I disagree with vehemently and whose views I find reprehensible.
I also think legalizing same sex marriage is an excellent idea, however, and see no reason whatsoever why among reasonable people the two — gay people being free to marry and religious people being free not to participate — can’t co-exist.
Unfortunately, the loud voices on both sides of the question are not reasonable. They are both worked up into a lather of self-righteous hysteria that prevents them from seeing that to get along peaceably in a pluralistic society you have to live and let live quite a bit — which includes at least tolerating both your neighbor’s marriage and his baking habits so long as they neither “pick your pocket nor break you leg.”
That of course does not prevent my friends from deciding not to patronize your bakery because of your stand. If you find that intolerable, I have no solution to offer you. I am as jealous of their freedoms as I am of yours.
Peter Robinson I have a couple of questions (anyone can answer of course).
Let me start with the disclosure that I support the Religious Freedom laws (I say so to prove the genuine quality of my inquiry – this is not a gotcha question).
I’ve never heard of a Catholic baker refusing to make a cake for a heterosexual wedding where one of the parties is previously divorced.
Marrying a divorced person is just as unacceptable as marrying a same sex person in Catholicism – both are against the religious precepts. Neither is allowable. The former even disqualifies the parishioner from receiving Grace through the Eucharist, which is a very serious matter.
So my question is:
Can (should) a Catholic baker refuse to bake for a divorced couple’s wedding ceremony?
Bonus question:
If so, why has this never happened?
Re-read. I spend too much of my day dealing with caricatures of my thoughts. New policy: if someone twists my words, I’ll inform them, but not going down the rathole of trying to explain/argue about it.
And why is that?
It’s because instead of talking to each other so that we can work out a reasonable, civil compromise (that includes voting on the issue and allowing different jurisdictions to maintain their own decisions) … in other words, a country that solves political debates through a representative legislature … we instead have a country where all fundamental questions are decided by unelected agencies (bureaucracies and the Supreme Court) whose diktats are not reviewable.
When you have to play to the audience, even to the back row, you have to shout much louder than when you have to talk to the guy in front of you.
I don’t find it intolerable. I was just reading your objections incorrectly. Ultimately I think we agree on the solution, but I too doubt that the overall rules that are too vague to be of any use anymore will be repealed. We both are then stuck with a solution we agree on that won’t be implemented. I think what people fear is that the imperfect solution that will be chosen will be one that is intentionally used by the left to drive them out of the public sphere by force of law, which I know neither of us want. It does, I think, shed some light on why people are reacting the way they are.
I think the dirty little secret of this debate is that even refusing service to a same sex wedding is amazingly rare. We are all spending an enormous amount of energy on a problem which exists more in theory than in practice.
The answer to why it has not happened may be simple. When two men or two women go to a baker for their upcoming wedding it is clear that this is a same sex wedding. When a man and a woman go to a baker, how is the baker to know this is the guys third wedding? Baker’s in my area do not have questionnaires that they require filled out before baking a cake.
Forgive me if I didn’t mention it on this thread — I’ve said it so many times on so many threads in the last couple weeks I’ve just started to assume people know my views — but I am very much for religious freedom — even the freedom to offend me. Not because I like it, but because I think it is necessary to peace and order, and want my own, reciprocal, freedoms protected.
I agree. This is something that rational people should be able to work out a “fix” for the small number of incidents were this type of thing is a “problem”
Nah. I read your comments exactly. You just don’t like the way they sound when presented that way. Calling it a caricature is just rhetoric; you’re trying to label a reply instead of addressing it.
If you can’t explain what your objection is, your objection is empty. And simply asserting that you’re right is as hollow as it gets.
I’m sorry that I didn’t understand it earlier, thanks for letting me know. It’s frustrating and funny all at the same time to get to the end and go, “Oh, we actually ultimately agree on the solution…” It’s a shame implementing it isn’t so simple.
They know if it’s a Jewish wedding. (The rabbi is a tip off.) They know if it is a civil ceremony outside the church. (Which is no more a valid marriage to a believing Catholic than is a gay wedding.)
The reason it doesn’t happen is because the divorced or Jewish or civil marriage couple aren’t looking to raise a ruckus for political gain. So they go next door and buy a cake.
Understood, and I agree. Part of the reason I’m supporting Jeb Bush is because he’s a grown up to me when it comes to the polarizing, bomb throwing politics. I was pointing out the activist’s efforts to make an issue over things like this.
What of the first question?
We don’t need to converse if you only want to take shots at straw men of my arguments. I will get over it. Enjoy your day.
What would happen if we just discarded the issue of motive and say…
…what Ayn Rand should’ve put above the doorway of John Galt’s powerhouse:
We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
Motives cannot be legislated. The business owner is the business owner.
So black guys at a lunch counter should beware?
That is a little harder. Particularly the difference between can and should. Can a Catholic baker refuse a divorced couple’s wedding? My answer here would be yes. I baker of any type should be able to refuse to bake a cake for any reason whatsoever. So a Catholic Baker thus could refuse to bake a cake for a divorced couple.
Should they refuse to do so? Maybe. I think for consistency sake they should probably refuse to bake this cake as well. I don’t know the Catholic beliefs on this stuff well enough to be more sure of my answer.
Don’t worry – lots of wiggle room here.
Canon law does not penalize you for attending a non-Catholic wedding. By definition, a second marriage is a non-Catholic wedding, unless the spouses received a decree of annulment, in which case the church considers it a first wedding anyway. (Describing canon law is like an ad for a pharmaceutical, where you have to spend all your time making disclaimers. Anyway.) By that same definition, a same-sex marriage ceremony is a non-Catholic wedding, and is covered by the same canon.
On the other hand, as a Catholic, you’re always on the hook to defend the church against calumny or slander – or scandal. That goes for every situation, not just weddings. Is attending a SSM ceremony a scandal? Maybe, since someone can see your attendance as approval. But that isn’t a foregone conclusion either. (I’ve gone to quite a few divorced “ceremonies and everyone knows I don’t approve and I’m only there for my friend or family.)
Participating in a ceremony that contradicts Catholic teaching requires a lot of “ifs.” The biggest if is whether the ceremony is intended to contradict Catholic authority, which happens once in a plaid moon. On the other hand, if your child got divorced and wants to remarry, your basic responsibility is to encourage them to reconcile with the church, but you’re free to attend the marriage – especially as a parent – although you shouldn’t actively participate in it.
The trick is interpreting the word “participate.” For Catholics, that gives you a lot of leeway.
And if you’re a Jesuit … well, it’s like a “get out of jail free” card.
That’s a lot of words used to not answer the question. Naturally the question assumes the lack of an annulment (there would be no question if there were one).
That’s only if you’re asking if there is an absolute objective standard. There isn’t.
But it does depend on motivation, like most Catholic understandings of sin and moral behavior. It challenges the Catholic himself to be honest, and more importantly, to be honest to himself.
And now a question for you, Tommy … how do you answer your own question, and why?
I’m still not sure I got your answer.
Are you saying the same for the Christian baker and the homosexual wedding? Your answer is “it depends?” All I got out of your answers so far is “it depends.” Have I mischaracterized your answer?