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
Unfortunately, yes.
The biggest difference between Jim Crow and what is happening now is that much of Jim Crow was government mandated segregation.
I agree with AL, you can’t legislate motives. I think it is better to have the bigotry more open. Would you rather be denied service by a bigoted lunch counter or be served a spit burger by that lunch counter?
Yes it does depend, but it depends on very specific things. It isn’t an open-ended “it depends” that allows anything under the sun.
The question is whether you participate in the ceremony, which would show that you affirm the purpose of the ceremony. A Catholic cannot affirm the purpose of a non-Catholic wedding. How a Catholic merely attends a wedding, on the other hand, conveys different public signals about whether you’re affirming the purpose of the wedding.
A father who attends his divorced daughter’s wedding does not affirm that it’s a legitimate marriage. He’s attending out of love for his daughter. But if he gave away the bride, it would.
Personally, I wouldn’t interpret a Catholic baker baking a cake as “participating” in the wedding, because I wouldn’t interpret it as affirming the purpose. But that’s not my decision; if the baker does feel that way, that’s his right.
Now that’s clarity! Thank you.
Sometimes you have to spoon feed me like a second grader.
I doubt that.
But I do want to emphasize that in the case of baking the cake, the important freedom here is whether the baker feels that his actions are a “participation” in something which he doesn’t believe. That’s his call to make.
We can haggle over religious law, but I don’t think that’s where the real battle is. This is a case where the state is asserting the authority to make that decision for the baker, and to treat a subjective, personal decision as an objective, slam dunk, no-brainer that they feel entitled to impose.
A baker would never know if a divorced Catholic remarrying had their previous marriage annulled.
This circumstance is rare, but not impossible. Here’s an example of a flowerist who refused to participate in a gay wedding.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2015/04/donations-pour-in-to-support-florist-who-refused-to-provide-flowers-for-gay-wedding/
Funny you should ask, that very situation was discussed on last night’s episode of “The Good Wife”, where a wedding planner being sued for not working with a gay couple was asked that question. Not being Catholic, I don’t feel competent to answer your question, but I think it boils down to a matter of degree and the societal norms that have grown up around divorce. I daresay in 20 years, there will be norms which will arise around gay marriage that will mitigate the reaction we’re seeing now. We aren’t going to stand still no matter how much we think we should.
Aren’t we really arguing over a side issue that has emerged as a result of all businesses having been classified as “public accommodations” under the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Title II, Section 201(a) of the Act states:
Since then, we’ve seen the number of protected classes expanded to such a degree that the section has been stretched to the point of absurdity, and is now engulfing the fundamental protections enshrined in the First Amendment. I’d say that this is where the battle needs to be fought and won.
Perhaps it would help KC to get guidance from the Pope as to whether cakes and photos are endorsing a wedding.
The Pope has done this before. In 2002 the Pope said Catholic lawyers should not participate in divorce law. I stopped.
I’d say this is an inherent problem with law.
If you asked me whether any business should be allowed to refuse blacks in a restaurant, I’d instantly say, yeah, that’s wrong. If you asked me whether a Jewish baker should be allowed to refuse to bake a Nazi cake, I’d also say that’s reasonable.
But the same law demands both.
We take pride in being a “nation of laws, not men.” And well we should be proud that we don’t want officials to gain power to capriciously favor their cronies and punish their enemies. But this case shows that it can have drawbacks – law is a blanket general power that makes it difficult to settle cases with prudence and discretion. And in turn, when we do allow discretion in enforcement, even that can be abused – cf: Obama.
Law and governance isn’t easy.
Yeah, JPII did go papal over divorce, didn’t he?
Actually, my own reaction would be to make the definition of “participation” be more of a diocese-by-diocese guidance at the discretion of each bishop. (I confess to being somewhat of an ecclesiastical federalist. A bishop shouldn’t just be a local flunky.) The Vatican – canon law – makes the underlying principle clear: you can’t endorse such a ceremony. But each bishop can advise whether baking a cake is “endorsing.”
As it turns out, Archbishop Lori is my local ordinary. I will follow whatever he says.
I’m applying for an academic job, and I’m trying to fill up my Facebook page with a innocuous posts to push my political posts down where most people won’t see them. I’m especially trying to push down any comments about gay marriage or bakers, because that stuff is clearly dangerous. A religion teacher got suspended from her job at a Catholic school for criticizing gay marriage on Facebook on her own time (she had the bad luck of teaching the nephew of a Hollywood actress).
There have been numerous cases of Catholic teachers being fired for violating Church teachings, but that is part of their job. I assume a Planned Parenthood counselor who decided that contraception is immoral would probably lose their job too. Are there any examples of people losing their non-religious jobs for supporting gay marriage? Have there been any businesses receiving death threats for stating their support for gay wedding? This is not entirely a rhetorical question. If you know of any examples, I’d like to know about them.
There are many gays in my hometown. While that does not make me an expert on gays, I can state confidently they aren’t having pizza as a wedding entree.
Not Peter, and not Catholic, but responded anyway.
Yes, the Catholic baker should be able to refuse to bake for a divorced couple’s wedding ceremony if that would conflict with their conscientious scruples in the matter. They should be able to do that without fear of being compelled to do so by the force of the state.
I can furnish three non-Catholic examples of similar situations.
For a way back example, John Woolman (a Quaker) refused to write instruments for sale or conveyance of slaves*. It was legal at the time, but he was troubled in his conscience and refused to do it.
While to many people these might seem like miniscule legalistic quibbles. Maybe so, maybe no, but the principle is that people should be free to act in accordance with their consciences without fear that they stand to lose their business, be fined, or even jailed because of it.
Ideally they would be free from death threats emanating from a howling mob of tolerant Leftists too.
* From the Journal of John Woolman. Someone refusing to do something because of conscience even though it was legal and he could have made money doing it!!!
About this time, a person at some distance lying sick, his brother came to me to write his will. I knew he had slaves, and, asking his brother, was told he intended to leave them as slaves to his children. As writing is a profitable employ, and as offending sober people was disagreeable to my inclination, I was straitened in my mind; but as I looked to the Lord, he inclined my heart to His testimony. I told the man that I believed the practice of continuing slavery to this people was not right, and that I had a scruple in my mind against doing writings of that kind; that though many in our Society kept them as slaves, still I was not easy to be concerned in it, and desired to be excused from going to write the will. I spake to him in the fear of the Lord, and he made no reply to what I said, but went away; he also had some concerns in the practice, and I thought he was displeased with me. In this case I had fresh confirmation that acting contrary to present outward interest, from a motive of divine love and in regard to truth and righteousness, and thereby incurring the resentments of people, opens the way to a treasure better than silver, and to a friendship exceeding the friendship of men
Indeed. And if in fact it is a problem, then it sounds like I’ve got a bakery to open.
Tommy De Seno: So black guys at a lunch counter should beware?
_________________
Beware what? No one’s threatening violence. Years ago, a coffee house I used to go to made Tuesday women-only day. So I didn’t run to City Hall or get up a gang to protest and wave signs. I told the management if my money wasn’t green enough on Tuesdays that I wouldn’t be in the rest of the week either.
The old south made the lunch counter deal onerous by refusing to give permits to “colored” businesses. Government again. Only government can close off alternatives.
_____________
Tommy: There are many gays in my hometown. While that does not make me an expert on gays, I can state confidently they aren’t having pizza as a wedding entree.
______________
Now it’s going to become a tradition! Like jumping the broom or – God help us- the Hokey Pokey! :)
I believe Archbishop Lori is also the Supreme Chaplain of the Knights of Columbus. Have either of you – KC or Tommy – considered joining? I think we might just be called on in the next several years to play a more serious and comprehensive role in Catholic communities. We could always use good and serious men like yourselves to join the effort toward charity, unity, fraternity, and patriotism especially in the face of increased marginalization of our way of life.
Not that what we do now isn’t serious; our charity and fraternity are certainly good. However, I suspect that we’ll need to be more than dilettantes going through the motions, and very soon.