So there's this in the news.
I've always thought it a serious theological mistake for Christians to use moral law as a basis for creating civil law.
That's because I've read Augustine and Aquinas. Both had serious moral qualms with a variety of measures -- like prostitution, for example -- but thought that those qualms shouldn't prevent taking civil measures to ensure the safety of women.
Faith motivates lots of people in politics. I get it. But at the same time, I think it's a mistake to take moral law and fashion civil law measures from it. Each politician has to look at moral law, look at what's good for society (not for their own interpretations of that moral law), and look at what's actually possible, then fashion civil laws.
I hear certain politicians saying that abortion should be made illegal in this country. But I believe that that measure fails to account for the fallen world in which we live. It simply isn't morally realistic. And a measure to make abortion illegal only fails to protect real human lives in the process. Which -- at least to me -- is the real violation of moral law.
When you create civil laws, your duty is to protect the most vulnerable in our society. That's what we've always meant by "the civil good". "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" and all that. If you fashion economic policies, for example, that hurt the poor while protecting the wealthy, you're hardly being morally responsible with your civil law. I have no moral objection to the redistribution of wealth by the government. In fact, I think that's what the government exists to accomplish -- a public good.
So when it comes to economics and abortion, for example, the goal is to protect those who need protection, not to demand that certain interpretations of moral law become the civil measure of our good society.
Is this a popular opinion? Nope -- at least not if I take the news cycle as a measure of popularity. But laws are also not fashioned in order to be popular. Try reading Aquinas again and you'll understand why.
I've always thought it a serious theological mistake for Christians to use moral law as a basis for creating civil law.
That's because I've read Augustine and Aquinas. Both had serious moral qualms with a variety of measures -- like prostitution, for example -- but thought that those qualms shouldn't prevent taking civil measures to ensure the safety of women.
Faith motivates lots of people in politics. I get it. But at the same time, I think it's a mistake to take moral law and fashion civil law measures from it. Each politician has to look at moral law, look at what's good for society (not for their own interpretations of that moral law), and look at what's actually possible, then fashion civil laws.
I hear certain politicians saying that abortion should be made illegal in this country. But I believe that that measure fails to account for the fallen world in which we live. It simply isn't morally realistic. And a measure to make abortion illegal only fails to protect real human lives in the process. Which -- at least to me -- is the real violation of moral law.
When you create civil laws, your duty is to protect the most vulnerable in our society. That's what we've always meant by "the civil good". "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" and all that. If you fashion economic policies, for example, that hurt the poor while protecting the wealthy, you're hardly being morally responsible with your civil law. I have no moral objection to the redistribution of wealth by the government. In fact, I think that's what the government exists to accomplish -- a public good.
So when it comes to economics and abortion, for example, the goal is to protect those who need protection, not to demand that certain interpretations of moral law become the civil measure of our good society.
Is this a popular opinion? Nope -- at least not if I take the news cycle as a measure of popularity. But laws are also not fashioned in order to be popular. Try reading Aquinas again and you'll understand why.