Adherents to religious traditions believe that they are members of a divine community that transcends any earthly, political community. Believers might ask, therefore, to what extent they ought to cooperate with such political powers. Conversely, leaders of political communities might ask to what extent they ought to tolerate such religious individuals. If one finds these questions reasonable, either from the perspective of a believer or that of a political leader, then one must admit of some form of natural antagonism between religious and political communities. This antagonism is what makes discussions of religious liberty so difficult. At what point does cooperation with religious communities undermine the ends of the political community in which they reside (and vice-versa)? There is no simple answer to this question, and the recent debate between the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington and the D.C. City Council only highlights this fact.
Donald Wuerl, the Archbishop of Washington D.C., recently declared in the Washington Post that he never threatened an end to the Church's social services and, at the same time, recognized that same-sex marriage legislation was likely to move forward. However, he indicated that without adequate legal protections for religious objectors, the legislation as it stands would compel the Church to cease many of its government-assisted social services because compliance with said legislation would require cooperation in activities that the Church finds contrary to the Gospel. The issue at hand is not that religious communities will be legally forced to perform same-sex marriages (they won't); the issue is whether or not legalizing same-sex marriage may provide a legal basis for punishing religious persons and communities for exercising a conscientious objection to practices which would entail a recognition or promotion of same-sex marriage. It remains an open question as to whether the legal safeguards put in place by the current legislation are sufficient to protect such conscientious objections. For example, under the current legislation, could Catholic hospitals, day-care centers, and adoption agencies be sued or punished for failing to provide same-sex spousal benefits to its employees and/or for failing to provide services to same-sex couples in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs? Additionally, will the right of conscientious objection be safeguarded for individual members of these religious communities? As is, the current legislation offers no protection for individual professionals who object, on religious grounds, to help facilitate a same-sex wedding - e.g. a wedding photographer, caterer, florist, or reception hall owner. The Archdiocese of Washington has accepted that the city council intends to legalize same-sex marriage in the district, but has asked that legislation offer adequate protections for religious objectors.
Still, one is left to ponder whether permitting these exemptions for religious individuals and their respective communities serves to entrench the very kind of discrimination that the legislation seeks to eliminate - the unequal treatment of homosexuals in both their public and private lives. In this sense, allowing religious exemptions would appear to be counterintuitive. However, if exemptions do not place an undue burden on same-sex couples seeking to be married, it appears that the ability of same-sex couples to plan, participate, and civilly ratify their marriage in a public way is safeguarded. Yet, we must then ask whether or not permitting said exceptions would encourage the maintenance of a more vicious and dangerous private attitude towards homosexual persons that is held by some religious persons. It is here where it is imperative to recognize the limits of law in cultural formation. Discrimination cannot be solved through legal means alone, as our experience of racism in this country has ably demonstrated, because it requires an internal change of heart. This change can never be secured by some legal fiat; instead, it requires the fiat given by the Blessed Virgin Mary to the Angel Gabriel, the fiat that flows from our interior freedom and makes itself known in our willingness to see the other (and ourselves) as a divine "gift." This is the Roman Catholic Church's view of the human person and so one should not fear that religious liberty exemptions would be an accommodation to a hateful set of beliefs.
While there may exist various philosophical, theological, and anthropological differences between same-sex marriage advocates and the Roman Catholic Church, we hope that these differences do not obscure from view the Church's insistence that every person, regardless of age, sex, race, orientation, or condition of dependency ought to be seen as a divine gift from God and treated as such. This view, so rigorously defended by Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessor John Paul II, can help reorient the view of all citizens of humanity to see the human person as neither burden nor threat, but as divine "gift." Indeed, it is this view that often puts religious communities and individuals at odds with political power. For on this view the human person is never simply an interchangeable part in a political machine, but is a unique, unrepeatable, and irreplaceable gift from God destined to return to God through her own gift of self. Governments may find the choice to afford legal exemptions for religious communities difficult, but for religious communities and individuals the choice is clear: One ought never participate in a practice contrary to your beliefs even if that choice requires one to give up their life, profession, or legal protections.
Jake Brown is a fourth-year student in the College.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 4 hours agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 21 hours agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 2 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
