Catholics and Protestants Together On Law: Is There A Christian Approach To Law?

Some Protestant and Catholic lawyers, professors and writers have come together to suggest a basis for a Christian approach to law. I have skimmed it and came away thinking that they didn’t really come together. But I intend to review it in more depth. Here is the link, let’s discuss…
Begin reading at page two.
Hat tip to Sarah Jones for her article on the document.

24 thoughts on “Catholics and Protestants Together On Law: Is There A Christian Approach To Law?”

  1. I haven’t understood the argument.
    Is it that Christians ought to have no moral rules ( a position sometimes popular and characterised as “situationism”)?
    Or is it that Christian moral rules ought to have no connexion with state laws?
    Does that mean that there ought to be no state laws at all? Or that all laws of all states are equally valid? Or that state laws ought to be determined by a procedure in which everyone shall have its say, except Christians?
    Or what?

  4. I haven’t understood the argument.
    Is it that Christians ought to have no moral rules ( a position sometimes popular and characterised as “situationism”)?
    Or is it that Christian moral rules ought to have no connexion with state laws?
    Does that mean that there ought to be no state laws at all? Or that all laws of all states are equally valid? Or that state laws ought to be determined by a procedure in which everyone shall have its say, except Christians?
    Or what?

  5. And of course there have, in human history, been ‘atheistic tyrants’; but there have also been ‘religious/theistic tyrants’ (a crop of English and French monarchs spring immediately to mind!).

  6. I tend to the view that Christians who focus on ‘what laws there should be’ are perhaps ‘in the wrong business’. Our ‘business’ is primarily concerned with hearts and minds and relationships (with God and with each other); if we try to get these things right, then good laws will ultimately flow from that.

  7. “Socratic-Aquinian law is nothing more than another human construct, a human specification or determination in line with a religious philosophy. It has no higher bearing than any other human determination in the law.”
    Yes – I think Christians must accept this, even if they (we) are ‘correct’. It’s as much about humility – and democracy – as anything. (Not entirely an Aquinas fan, if I’m honest. He did seem to like the idea of ‘gradations of sin’ … something which should not be confused with ‘gradations of crime’ – a very reasonable notion in my view.)

  8. And of course there have, in human history, been ‘atheistic tyrants’; but there have also been ‘religious/theistic tyrants’ (a crop of English and French monarchs spring immediately to mind!).

  9. I tend to the view that Christians who focus on ‘what laws there should be’ are perhaps ‘in the wrong business’. Our ‘business’ is primarily concerned with hearts and minds and relationships (with God and with each other); if we try to get these things right, then good laws will ultimately flow from that.

  10. “Socratic-Aquinian law is nothing more than another human construct, a human specification or determination in line with a religious philosophy. It has no higher bearing than any other human determination in the law.”
    Yes – I think Christians must accept this, even if they (we) are ‘correct’. It’s as much about humility – and democracy – as anything. (Not entirely an Aquinas fan, if I’m honest. He did seem to like the idea of ‘gradations of sin’ … something which should not be confused with ‘gradations of crime’ – a very reasonable notion in my view.)

  11. AU comes close to making the argument that MLK was a white Christian nation neoconfederate theocrat.
    How convenient that ignorance removes the necessity of critical thinking.

  12. Before I read the Jones article I’d sum part of it up this way. Catholics are optimists, Protestants are pessimists.
    Second, someone needs to rename “natural law” and take the word “natural” out of it. Socratic-Aquinian law is nothing more than another human construct, a human specification or determination in line with a religious philosophy. It has no higher bearing than any other human determination in the law.
    And I see the Jones article is somewhat in league with my train of thought.

  13. ” How many of those dreadful secular relativist tyrants were in the white Citizens’ Councils?”
    Plenty were in France during their bloody revolution; in Russia, China and Cambodia.
    You might remember that Pope John Paul II facilitated some of the upheaval behind the iron curtain…kind of cool human rights event.

  14. The Joint Declaration mentions the churches which resisted racist officials, racist policies and supported the Civil Rights Movement… but there were all of those churches which supported racist officials, racist policies and “Massive Resistance” to the Civil Rights Movement. How many of those dreadful secular relativist tyrants were in the white Citizens’ Councils?
    Page 4 of the Joint Declaration…. Paul is not a person of the Triune Godhead.
    Page 5: Mentioning the hopeful tradition of Calvinism to make political and legal structures better reminds me of the old saying that ‘communism is secular Calvinism.’
    Page 6: “Marriage and family are natural social forms that the state neither invents nor reinvents.” If it’s not forbidden by the laws of physics, it’s “natural,” so that doesn’t really mean anything. The state can create, “invents,” what it recognizes as well as what it doesn’t recognize; regulates or doesn’t regulate, attends to or ignores.
    “…Central strands of liberal political tradition pit the lone individual against the governing power.” … which doesn’t explain labor unions, political parties, a jury of one’s peers, class action suits, protected classes etc.
    “Social functions should be performed the level to which they have been assigned by creation, divine decree or authoritative human judgment.” That sounds like much like a proslavery and pro-segregationist argument.
    The rest of the page blathers on about social good etc…but as the sentence I quote shows, this is really about justifying theocratic minority rule. As a “common man” lacking in “honesty and integrity” when compared to my glorious, born again aristocrats, I am therefore not privileged and recognized as being a human authority on creation and divine decrees in determining my own social functions, such as me and mine willing our marriage into our existence, legally recognized or not.
    As such, the state should reject my petitions for redress of my marital grievances as illegitimate because I am acting against creation, against nature…I’m being “unnatural.”
    I’m therefore anti-God by disrespecting my “natural” roles and humble social status as assigned by creation and those who preserve, interpret and enforce divine decrees… unnaturally disrespecting those of whom have been divinely assigned as authoritative human judges merely by criticizing them, even if unintentionally.
    Well, I think my brain just got tired, no doubt creation is telling me something, so I’ll try to pick up where I left off later.

  15. AU comes close to making the argument that MLK was a white Christian nation neoconfederate theocrat.
    How convenient that ignorance removes the necessity of critical thinking.

  16. Before I read the Jones article I’d sum part of it up this way. Catholics are optimists, Protestants are pessimists.
    Second, someone needs to rename “natural law” and take the word “natural” out of it. Socratic-Aquinian law is nothing more than another human construct, a human specification or determination in line with a religious philosophy. It has no higher bearing than any other human determination in the law.
    And I see the Jones article is somewhat in league with my train of thought.

  17. “Jesus’ lordship” reminds me of a local megachurch Pastor. Pastor Smothermon’s Legacy church opened its doors to Scott Lively in Oct. 2009…speaking of which, aren’t there several new anti-Gay bills in the Uganda legisture? (I’m a bit ADD…)
    Pastor Smothermon proclaimed that born again Christians are God’s nobility. http://www.tonycooke.org/free_resources/articles_others/at-your-core.html
    “A noble birth is not to be taken lightly. It places an individual above the common man and carries a distinction of honesty and integrity.”
    As you would expect from royalty, there are “The Priveleges (sic) of Nobility.”
    “As a believer you can claim your “noble birth.” …We are elevated to the ranks of prince and princess in God’s family.”
    What does that sort of talk mean in a representative democracy which explicitly rejected the concept of a privileged nobility?
    I certainly approve of generosity, overcoming dysfunctional upbringings etc, but is being an anti-Gay activist respecting the honesty and dignity of Gay people? Gay is, after all, a proclamation of a certain sort of personal integrity.

  18. So, what’s the application? A law practiced in Christian circles to supplement U.S. law or making a Christian national law to replace the positive law? If national law, then….
    I think that their first charge should be to make a definitive statement on what is Christian, who is a Christian, what is the definitive Christian doctrine, and what exactly is the natural law (1). This has immense bearing on evaluating traditional qualifications for citizenship and citizen participation.
    Then, after infinity years hashing that mess out, they can decide if and how to administer uniform justice to the heretic (2), the infidel and the apostate. And, of course, the special and traditional case of witches (I think Africa is currently leading this task – those go getters).
    Then, they can decide on which traditional methods of Christian coercion (3) they will use to avoid the ungodly coercion of the untraditional positive law. Should the Protestants and Catholics first apologize to each other for traditionally burning the other? That would set a nice tone of cooperation. Who would apologize first – maybe picking straws…..um, probably not Biblical, maybe an appeal to the Supreme decider for the traditional definitive ruling?
    Then, kingdom or Hebrew republic?
    I don’t know. This all seems very unwieldy for administering a modern nation. Maybe we should just break down into more traditional tribal family units and let the tribal leaders administer the law and justice as determined by a traditional hereditary priestly class who communicate with God. I may be jumping the gun here on the Hebrew republic thingy.
    Man, they better get things rolling. There are only so many millions of years before the sun flares and the point becomes moot…..unless, do you think the Mormons are right? I’m assuming the Mormons are Christian. Right? See “first charge” reference above. I think more journals are going to be needed.
    Oh yeah, will have to disappear the not-traditional U.S. Constitution. Maybe David Barton could write a new more traditional U.S. Constitution. He seems to be good at rewriting for the occasion.
    Otherwise, looks like a plan.
    1) I vote for Spinoza’s natural law. Pending, of course, the outcome of my citizenship determination and voting eligibility. I’m not optimistic. On the other hand, definitive answers to these fundamental questions would sure have a bearing on a number of blogs.
    2) “I have heard frequent use,” said the late Lord Sandwich, in a debate on the Test Laws, “of the words ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘heterodoxy;’ but I confess myself at a loss to know precisely what they mean.” “Orthodoxy, my Lord,” said Bishop Walburton, in a whisper,—“orthodoxy is my doxy; heterodoxy is another man’s doxy.”—Priestley: Memoirs, vol. 1. p. 572.
    This is important or else the cherished tradition of identifying and eliminating blasphemy is thrown right out the window. Perhaps they could set up a supreme board of inquiry to determine an effective method of inquisition. Maybe there’s an existing model laying around somewhere. I’ll bet the Vatican can help. They took notes.
    3) Since towns have grown so large, will traditional stoning have to be administered at the neighborhood level in order to adhere to the intent of keeping justice local? Etc., etc., etc.

  19. ” How many of those dreadful secular relativist tyrants were in the white Citizens’ Councils?”
    Plenty were in France during their bloody revolution; in Russia, China and Cambodia.
    You might remember that Pope John Paul II facilitated some of the upheaval behind the iron curtain…kind of cool human rights event.

  20. The Joint Declaration mentions the churches which resisted racist officials, racist policies and supported the Civil Rights Movement… but there were all of those churches which supported racist officials, racist policies and “Massive Resistance” to the Civil Rights Movement. How many of those dreadful secular relativist tyrants were in the white Citizens’ Councils?
    Page 4 of the Joint Declaration…. Paul is not a person of the Triune Godhead.
    Page 5: Mentioning the hopeful tradition of Calvinism to make political and legal structures better reminds me of the old saying that ‘communism is secular Calvinism.’
    Page 6: “Marriage and family are natural social forms that the state neither invents nor reinvents.” If it’s not forbidden by the laws of physics, it’s “natural,” so that doesn’t really mean anything. The state can create, “invents,” what it recognizes as well as what it doesn’t recognize; regulates or doesn’t regulate, attends to or ignores.
    “…Central strands of liberal political tradition pit the lone individual against the governing power.” … which doesn’t explain labor unions, political parties, a jury of one’s peers, class action suits, protected classes etc.
    “Social functions should be performed the level to which they have been assigned by creation, divine decree or authoritative human judgment.” That sounds like much like a proslavery and pro-segregationist argument.
    The rest of the page blathers on about social good etc…but as the sentence I quote shows, this is really about justifying theocratic minority rule. As a “common man” lacking in “honesty and integrity” when compared to my glorious, born again aristocrats, I am therefore not privileged and recognized as being a human authority on creation and divine decrees in determining my own social functions, such as me and mine willing our marriage into our existence, legally recognized or not.
    As such, the state should reject my petitions for redress of my marital grievances as illegitimate because I am acting against creation, against nature…I’m being “unnatural.”
    I’m therefore anti-God by disrespecting my “natural” roles and humble social status as assigned by creation and those who preserve, interpret and enforce divine decrees… unnaturally disrespecting those of whom have been divinely assigned as authoritative human judges merely by criticizing them, even if unintentionally.
    Well, I think my brain just got tired, no doubt creation is telling me something, so I’ll try to pick up where I left off later.

  21. “Jesus’ lordship” reminds me of a local megachurch Pastor. Pastor Smothermon’s Legacy church opened its doors to Scott Lively in Oct. 2009…speaking of which, aren’t there several new anti-Gay bills in the Uganda legisture? (I’m a bit ADD…)
    Pastor Smothermon proclaimed that born again Christians are God’s nobility. http://www.tonycooke.org/free_resources/articles_others/at-your-core.html
    “A noble birth is not to be taken lightly. It places an individual above the common man and carries a distinction of honesty and integrity.”
    As you would expect from royalty, there are “The Priveleges (sic) of Nobility.”
    “As a believer you can claim your “noble birth.” …We are elevated to the ranks of prince and princess in God’s family.”
    What does that sort of talk mean in a representative democracy which explicitly rejected the concept of a privileged nobility?
    I certainly approve of generosity, overcoming dysfunctional upbringings etc, but is being an anti-Gay activist respecting the honesty and dignity of Gay people? Gay is, after all, a proclamation of a certain sort of personal integrity.

  24. So, what’s the application? A law practiced in Christian circles to supplement U.S. law or making a Christian national law to replace the positive law? If national law, then….
    I think that their first charge should be to make a definitive statement on what is Christian, who is a Christian, what is the definitive Christian doctrine, and what exactly is the natural law (1). This has immense bearing on evaluating traditional qualifications for citizenship and citizen participation.
    Then, after infinity years hashing that mess out, they can decide if and how to administer uniform justice to the heretic (2), the infidel and the apostate. And, of course, the special and traditional case of witches (I think Africa is currently leading this task – those go getters).
    Then, they can decide on which traditional methods of Christian coercion (3) they will use to avoid the ungodly coercion of the untraditional positive law. Should the Protestants and Catholics first apologize to each other for traditionally burning the other? That would set a nice tone of cooperation. Who would apologize first – maybe picking straws…..um, probably not Biblical, maybe an appeal to the Supreme decider for the traditional definitive ruling?
    Then, kingdom or Hebrew republic?
    I don’t know. This all seems very unwieldy for administering a modern nation. Maybe we should just break down into more traditional tribal family units and let the tribal leaders administer the law and justice as determined by a traditional hereditary priestly class who communicate with God. I may be jumping the gun here on the Hebrew republic thingy.
    Man, they better get things rolling. There are only so many millions of years before the sun flares and the point becomes moot…..unless, do you think the Mormons are right? I’m assuming the Mormons are Christian. Right? See “first charge” reference above. I think more journals are going to be needed.
    Oh yeah, will have to disappear the not-traditional U.S. Constitution. Maybe David Barton could write a new more traditional U.S. Constitution. He seems to be good at rewriting for the occasion.
    Otherwise, looks like a plan.
    1) I vote for Spinoza’s natural law. Pending, of course, the outcome of my citizenship determination and voting eligibility. I’m not optimistic. On the other hand, definitive answers to these fundamental questions would sure have a bearing on a number of blogs.
    2) “I have heard frequent use,” said the late Lord Sandwich, in a debate on the Test Laws, “of the words ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘heterodoxy;’ but I confess myself at a loss to know precisely what they mean.” “Orthodoxy, my Lord,” said Bishop Walburton, in a whisper,—”orthodoxy is my doxy; heterodoxy is another man’s doxy.”—Priestley: Memoirs, vol. 1. p. 572.
    This is important or else the cherished tradition of identifying and eliminating blasphemy is thrown right out the window. Perhaps they could set up a supreme board of inquiry to determine an effective method of inquisition. Maybe there’s an existing model laying around somewhere. I’ll bet the Vatican can help. They took notes.
    3) Since towns have grown so large, will traditional stoning have to be administered at the neighborhood level in order to adhere to the intent of keeping justice local? Etc., etc., etc.

Comments are closed.