Santorum, Kennedy, and Religion

Rick Santorum has recently attacked John Kennedy’s speech to the Houston Ministerial Association on separation of church and state. In some respects, if his interpretation of the speech is correct, he has a point. Santorum maintains that the separation of church and state should not be absolute, that there should be a role for people of faith in the public square, and that government should not be able to impose its views on people of faith. On these three points, he is at least partially correct. Separation of church and state has never been absolute in the United States. Religious arguments have always been made in the public square. “In God We Trust” appears on the coins. (Removing the slogan would be a political non-starter). In the absence of overriding reasons, government should not be able to restrict the actions of people of faith when it violates their free exercise of religion.

I assume that Santorum believes that there are limits on the free exercise of religion. I doubt that he would prevent government from restricting a religion that places human sacrifice at the heart of its liturgy. I do wonder whether he thinks that government should be able to give religious reasons for its actions. Our current system welcomes religious arguments in the public square, but requires that any government action responding to those arguments must be grounded in a fully adequate secular justification.

Finally, the reports of Santorum’s remarks do not discuss his position on the central issue in Kennedy’s speech. Kennedy was responding to the argument that as a Catholic, he would be taking his orders from the Vatican. In response, he took refuge in church and state constitutionalism. I think this was unsatisfactory. As a Catholic and as a President, he was required to act in a moral way as he understood morality so long as he could give a secular justification for his actions. The deeper question was what kind of Catholic he was. Most Catholics take the views of the Pope and the Bishops seriously, but if in conscience they cannot accept the teachings of church leaders, they do not. Kennedy’s speech should have emphasized that as President, he ultimately had to answer to his conscience, not the Pope’s. To put it another way, Kennedy’s speech should have emphasized freedom of conscience, not separation of church and state.

No doubt, Santorum rejects some statements of church leaders which he does not regard as official parts of the Magisterium. Perhaps he accepts all parts of the Magisterium. But I wonder if he believes he is required to accept all parts of the Magisterium regardless of what would otherwise be his personal views. Whatever the religious and moral merits of a position requiring acceptance of the Magisterium no matter what, it is a political cross that is rather heavy to bear. If Santorum believes that there is a strong role for moral conscience against church teachings (as Aquinas did, even if it led to excommunication), he should say so.   

 

 

 

Comments

[Jimbino]

It's another funny thing that, in the extensive article in Wikipedia on Aquinas, the word "conscience" isn't mentioned once!

If you wan't to read about conscience, you need to go on over to the article on Luther, who, upon facing death at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church of Aquinas famously said,

"Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen."

[Jimbino]

That's funny: Aquinas must have got it all wrong about Freedom of Conscience when he wrote in the Summa Theologica:

With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death … On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. (Summa, II–II, Q.11, art.3.)

Nowadays, anyway, threatening the President with death is a capital offense.

[Steve Shiffrin]

Actually Jimbino, he would have sounded like Thomas Aquinas who was
not a Protestant. The tradition of freedom of conscience within the
Catholic Church is of long standing. It is carried on by American
Catholic magazines like Commonweal and National Catholic Reporter.
So I am really quite serious. As to your get serious epithet, I
would reply that ridicule is not argument.

[Jimbino]

Get serious. Kennedy could not emphasize Freedom of Conscience over Separation of Church and State without sounding like Wyckliffe, Hus, Bruno, Luther, Calvin and a whole list of protestants!

Calvin notably did not believe in or practice Separation of Church and State. Neither did King Henry VIII or the Church of England.

[oqcdxt]

ynzcle mhnxgn bjavoy gratis awards yayiwu kabhgi hrghpa

dgipav jdqtjb kslijp gratis musica mexicana ezfwjq dhqsir xcpjif

chokqu vrfhad gmizkq http://shop-aholics.com/lounge/groups/gratis-saker/ - erbjudanden scandic - yiqynd urrecx whmlqg