Although differences
and disagreements between people of different faiths and philosophies are
nothing particularly new, they seem to be achieving much greater depths of
depravity than ever before. True, this
might be merely the fact that with modern communications and the growing hunger
of the popular media for sensation and scandal to titillate and entertain
people who should have much better things to do, what was under the radar in
former days is now the stuff of everyday life.
 |
| Pope Gregory XVI |
On the other hand
(and far more likely), the social, political, economic, and religious
earthquakes that have rocked the world for the past two centuries or so are not
being effectively dealt with. This has
caused the rise of ideologies that, while lacking any real consistency, all
have one thing in common. That is a shift away from actual human persons and a focus on
some abstraction, such as “humanity,” “the State,” “the poor,” or what have
you.
This has fostered
the invention and rapid spread of what Pope Gregory XVI back in 1834 referred
to as rerum novarum, “new things,” in
Singulari Nos, the second social
encyclical. Gradually adopting the loose
labels of socialism, modernism, and the New Age, the new things accelerated the
growth of divisions and misunderstandings between people by changing
fundamental assumptions about many subjects — including other people!
This has led to
troubling developments among people of all faiths and philosophies, including
atheism and secularism. Yes, atheism is
a faith, since it is logically impossible to prove the existence of non-existence.
God’s non-existence is therefore a matter of faith; faith applies to that
which is not manifestly true, i.e.,
that can be proved empirically or logically.
Secularism as a
philosophy seeks to interpret life on principles taken solely from the material
world, without recourse to religion (Concise
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church).
The idea has spread
that you must not even speak to people who do not share your particular faith
or philosophy. In extreme cases, you
must not even speak to those of your own faith or philosophy who differ on
minor points of application of religious doctrine or philosophical principles. That is, others may agree completely on a doctrine
or principle, but apply it in a manner with which you disagree, sometimes
violently.
 |
| Msgr. Ronald Knox |
Nowhere is this
more evident than when it comes to the natural law, defined here as the universal
code of human behavior; the agreement that certain things constitute right and
wrong for every human being. No
exceptions. Thus, every single human
being has the rights by nature to life, liberty, and private property. How these rights are exercised or defined in
a particular situation may differ widely, but the essence of life, liberty, and
private property must always remain the same.
With the shift
away from actual human beings to some abstraction, however, how the exercise of
a right is defined becomes more important than the right itself. And it gets worse than that. As Msgr. Ronald Knox noted in his book, Enthusiasm (1950), to the enthusiast (as
he termed them), the “ungodly” (or whatever label is applied to those outside
your group with whom you disagree or of whom you disapprove) have no rights at
all.
Thus, refusing to
speak to others because of how those others think or behave is not a violation
of the rights of the others or an offense against their dignity as
persons. They do not think or believe
the way you think or believe they should think or believe. Those others are therefore not fully human or
not human at all, and thus have no rights or dignity that you need respect.
Is this
virtuous? Hardly. Nor is it a harmless way of showing contempt
for others. The idea that those whom you
consider unworthy of being treated like human beings can be ignored, dismissed,
or eliminated was the guiding principle of Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens
(1920), “Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life,” by Karl Binding
and Alfred Hoche, the book used as the basis for the Nazi T-4 Euthanasia
Program.
Thus,
to say that a mere shift in the basis of the natural law is unimportant or has
no consequences is more than naïve. It
is delusional. How this works out today
is what we will look at in the next posting on this subject.
#30#
