You know what the
problem is with (other) people? That’s
right. They. Just. Won’t. Do. What. I.
Want. Them. To. Do. All those stupid
(other) people simply refuse to acknowledge that I know what’s best for
them. They just won’t do the right thing.
Now . . . is
there anyone who has read this far who doesn’t recognize heavy-handed
sarcasm? This is the bludgeon, not the
rapier. This would need a few upgrades
to qualify as satire. Still, if anyone
is confused by the above two paragraphs, we don’t think we have the right to
force people to do anything, except to prevent them from causing clear and
obvious harm to themselves, other individuals, groups, or the common good — and
we’d better be able to prove that
harm would have resulted.
Further, we are
never justified in taking the law into our own hands unless it is clear that
the law is unable to prevent harm. Unwilling is a somewhat stickier issue,
and gets into an ethical question that would divert us from the point of this
posting, although we have addressed it.
We just won’t get into it today.
The question
today? Can we force people to do what is
right, when what is “right” depends on our faith in something? That is, on subjective opinion instead of
objective knowledge?
No. Freedom of conscience is a fundamental human
right. Someone can believe a piece of
rock or the State is divine and worship it, as long as he doesn’t cause harm
thereby. He can refuse to give
alms. He can even be greedy, nasty,
smell bad, and wear the wrong kind of clothes . . . as long as he doesn’t break
any human law. He is absolutely safe
from any form of coercion from us or anyone else.
Is he breaking
God’s law? That’s a matter of
opinion. Even if it were an established
fact, though, and he agreed that he was breaking God’s law . . . tough. The State is not God, and cannot enforce
God’s law based on faith or will, only human law based on reason. Neither are you God, so don’t try to do it
yourself.
The only one who
can legitimately enforce God’s law is God, so get over it. If you try and force someone to obey what you
think God’s law is, including trying to embarrass, humiliate, or ridicule him,
you’re in more trouble than he could ever be.
Most gods are depicted as being extremely “jealous,” which means that
they get upset when anybody else tries to take over their job or position.
This includes the
Christian God: “For we know him that hath said:
Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again:
The Lord shall judge his people. It
is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Hebrews,
10:30-31.) If your faith is as strong as
you say, do you really want to risk that?
Is coercion ever
justified in anything? Yes — but only in
matters pertaining to the natural law, and sometimes not even then. (Summa
Theologica, IIa IIae, q. 78, a. 1.)
Because the
common good is necessary for the perfection (in the sense of completion) of
human beings as human beings (political animals), it must remain inviolate (Quadragesimo Anno, § 57). No one may legitimately divert the common
good to meet individual interests, no matter how overriding the need may seem.
The State,
therefore, has the obligation to enforce the inviolability of the common good
with coercion, if necessary, and can demand great sacrifices of the members of
society in order to preserve and maintain the common good. This does not extend to State provision of
individual goods, except in “extreme cases” as an expedient (Rerum Novarum, § 22).
A just social
order can be measured by the degree to which people can meet their own wants
and needs through their own efforts, not by the amount of State interference in
individual and family life, regardless of the material benefits thereby
conferred. “There is no need to bring in
the State. Man precedes the State, and
possesses, prior to the formation of any State, the right of providing for the
substance of his body.” (Ibid., § 7).
The case is
different with the Church, understood in this instance as all organized
religion. The Church is legitimately concerned
not with the common good, except insofar as it provides an adequate environment
for the exercise of both natural and supernatural rights by individuals. The Church is not even concerned overmuch with
most individual goods, except to the extent that they provide the foundation
for that which many organized religions view as the greatest individual good of
all: being happy with God in the next world, a matter of faith, not reason.
As the Church is
concerned with an individual good and not the common good, and that individual
good being based on faith, coercion can never be justified in purely religious
or faith-based matters. Compliance in
purely religious or faith-based matters must be strictly voluntary, an exercise
of free will. Anything less would mean
the automatic creation of hypocrites, liars, and “traitors,” as people either
went against their consciences to avoid punishment, or were punished for
treason for choosing what they believed to be right.