The State is not a Source or Beginning of Ethics

Pope Benedict XVI told the Pontifical Academy for Life "History has shown how dangerous and deleterious a State that proceeds to make legislation on matters that touch the person and society can be, when it tries to be the source and beginning of ethics."

In a talk that addressed current bioethics issues such as embryonic stem cell research, the Pope noted that the human dignity, which is fundamental to all rights, is not "written by the hand of man, but... by God the Creator in the heart of man."


Indeed, natural law as posited by Aquinas shows that all law proceeds from God's law.  The state may create municipal or positive law to better order society but that law must reflect an understanding of God's law.  Positive law that violates God's law is null.  Our own Declaration of Independence sets forth this understanding as the basis for the American Revolution. 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

In addition, international law upheld the same conception of law as our Declaration of Independence during the Nazi war crime trials.  German officers argued that they were simply following orders... following positive law.  It was held that this was insufficient to exonerate them.  We are all held to a higher power... to disobey laws that violate natural law.

Those who would tell us that our religious beliefs have no place in the political debate are not only wrong about the content of public discourse but also about the fundamental source of law, ethics, and public policy.  Of course, they know they are wrong and are only trying to win the debate without arguing the merits of their position. 

Pope Benedict and Equality

Check out this article on Pope Benedict and equality from Michael Miller of the Acton Institute.  In it he states "Radical equality now has become praiseworthy as something good in itself, separated from any question of truth, common sense, or even biological realities." 

Radical equality is based upon philosophical nominalism.  Nominalism posits that we can not "know" anything about reality.  Its best expression is Descarte's "I think, therefore I am."  The only thing that can be known is the self, and we can know precious little of that, only that we exist.  The outside world is unknowable.   All categories of "things" out in the world are artificial.  We really do not know what "rocks" are and all attempts to categorizes various similar phenomena (i.e. various types of rocks) as rocks are artifical constructs that we impose upon the world.  Thus we can not know "gender."  The concepts "male" and "female" are simply artifical constructs.  These social constructs are created by those in power.  Language is an instrument of power.  Critical Legal theory goes on to say that these constructs are used by the majority to subjugate and exploit the minority.  Further, since we ourselves have no knowable essence, we are simply the sum total of our experiences.  Since others are in charge of that experience, we are their victims; victims of social pressure and language.  Only by overthrowing the "male, female" constructs can the minority be free.  Fortunately, this is hogwash.

We can and do "know" things about the outside world.  Science has shown that there is a kind of dialog between the perceiving mind and the object being perceived.  Thus, before you thought, you were.  We are not simply the sum of our experiences.   We interact with our experiences, accept some, reject others.  If the nominalists were right, then all change would be impossible as everone would be bound by their experience.  Thus, another nominalist, Karl Marx, had to resort to the "vanguard" to lead his revolution.  The vanguard would be a group of people who had (magically) escaped the bonds of their social position.  When we deny reality, equality can only be enforced by state power.  All will be forced to hold the position of the minority, or, at least, act as though they held that belief.  Radical equality leads to oppression.  True equality requires an understanding of our nature and our standing equally before the state.