Catholic Conference Opposes American Laws for American Courts

[Jennifer Groves]

 

 

"(Lansing)—Michigan Catholic Conference President and C.E.O. Paul A. Long is speaking in opposition today to House Bill 4769, legislation intended to prohibit the application of foreign law in Michigan. Michigan Catholic Conference is strongly opposed to this bill because of its likely impact on the application of Catholic canon law in the state. Long’s comments are being released following an event that was held today at the Anderson House Office Building in Lansing where supporters of the bill are aiming to prohibit Muslim Sharia in Michigan."

 

http://www.micatholicconference.org/public-policy/news-releases/cit...

 

What part of Catholic canon law operates in opposition to U.S. and state laws? What part of canon law that runs counter to our current legal system is the Catholic church planning on implementing?

 

It is not possible to have multiple, opposing legal systems operating in a republic. One will win to the exclusion of others. And we already have one in place.

[Gordie WH]

I totally agree that “the spiritual realm doesn’t operate on the level of human logic”. This seems to be the great lesson of all the major ancient teachers. Logic is a useful tool but it’s no panacea for the human experience, IMO. I would also agree that faith is essentially a spiritual experience.

It’s my current understanding that the Qur’an holds Abraham in high regard because of his revelation of a single unitary god, a strict monotheism, and considers the Christian Trinity polytheistic. Islam seems to be the direct opposite of Christianity even though both seem to be historically based on the God of Abraham. The adherents of the Qur’an and the Bible each claim them to be the literal word of God. Maybe you can clarify this. Is it a matter of interpretation? Or is the Muslim God fundamentally different from the God of Abraham?

I’m familiar with Dr. Barton’s work. His research incontrovertibly shows the Biblical and Christian influence on the formation of this nation. In this sense, there’s no question that the USA is a fundamentally Christian nation.

The Establishment Clause in the Constitution simply disallows government interference with a person’s religious belief. Of course civil law may limit how religious belief is expressed, i.e. human sacrifice. Civil law trumps ecclesiastical law. Sharia is ecclesiastical law.

[Jennifer Groves]

"Belief is not a prerequisite to understanding something"  I agree in part. But the spiritual realm doesn't operate on the level of human logic. Human reasoning only goes so far. Faith must be experienced, otherwise it isn't faith.  It's possible to understand the doctrines of a religion on the surface, but not how it operates, without faith.

 

That is one of the elements that makes Islam so diabolical. Ppl born into that religion are taught to follow the Qur'an. The Qur'an is the direct word of Allah to them, so when the book tells them to kill, it is Allah telling them to kill. And they do. Supreme faith--just in the wrong deity.

 

No ancient law codes were ever divorced from religion, of course. The uniqueness in America lies in allowing for religious freedom--as long as that religion does not violate the rights of others (which Islam always does).

 

I realize there are many ppl reluctant to admit the influence of Christianity and the Bible  in founding this country. Usually when I talk with ppl who take that stance I find that they do not like Christians or the Bible, hence their adamant insistence that neither had much influence in the creation of this country. That's not accurate history. I'd be very, very careful evaluating "revisionist" history--I'm quite familiar with its intended purpose in archaeology of the Near East.  I've been dealing with that for decades now and the scholars who use it are primary playing politics--and over the years, nearly all of their assertions have been proven false. In Near Eastern archaeology, revisionists push to legitimize the Islamic takeover of Israel. Half the time their "arguments" are based on absence of evidence--always a weak starting point, and typically proven wrong later.

 

 I recommend David Barton's videos in regard to the influence of both the Bible and Christianity in founding this country--he gives specific citations you can check.

 

[Gordie WH]

Religious freedom is the law of the land…American law. It’s based on the arguments for separation of church and state as presented in the
Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. This statute was the basis for the establishment of a secular state, first in Virginia and subsequently the US federal government.

The establishment of a secular state by the Constitution negates establishment of a theocracy; Christian, Muslim, or any other, Biblically based or not. This separation disallows sharia since, as you have pointed out, sharia cannot be separated from the whole of Islam.

I agree that English Common Law was not the only source available to the Founders. They were probably aware of the Code of Justinian, a body of civil law that constitutes part of the basis of the western legal tradition. Alfred’s Doom Book is simply the first codification of English Common Law I’ve found which considered Judeo/Christian principles.

Belief is not a prerequisite to understanding something, nor does understanding necessarily lead to belief. Otherwise understanding Islam would require belief in it first. Any argument is based on assumptions. But on what, are assumptions based? A real can of worms!

[Jennifer Groves]

for the second time, I composed a response and the entire thing was lost. I'm beginning to think it's this website and not the keyboard that is causing the problem. So far it's only happened on swmipats.

 

I disagree that American law is based on one volume. Most of the founders had a strong background in classical studies and were very familiar with earlier law codes (Greek, Roman, and of course Judaic). All of those sources influenced the Constitution.

 

Defining what constitutes God's Law is not so difficult for Jews and Christians. Ask any practicing Jew--even a Reform Jew--and they will say it is the Torah, which of course means "law". Of course the Ten Commandments are part of that, but not the entirety.

 

Christians differ in that we accept Christ as the final sacrifice for humanity. So, as the New Testament teaches, all of the Hebrew laws pertaining to sacrifice, sacrificial law, and the temple (no longer necessary), were obviated at the Cross.

 

Arguments over God's Law in Christendom stem primarily from emotional factors. Some Christians claim there is a huge difference between the God of the Old Testament and Jesus Christ in the New. It's easier for them to relate to a Person rather than a God who, to them, appears judgmental and has no easily identifiable form described in the OT.

 

This is unfortunate and stems mainly from a lack of understanding (often a lack of study) on their part in terms of the OT and the NT. If they were familiar with all of the Bible, they would know that God's mercy is a constant theme in the OT, too. His Law is the revelation of His character--which does not change (Ps 119 is a great example of this). It also does not necessarily fit our 21st century sensibilities--but then, if humans weren't so arrogant, it might occur to us that we allow our concepts of right and wrong to be twisted by a multitude of factors--media, friends, current events, etc. They would also recognize that the NT is replete with references to a coming judgment which Christ Himself warned about.

 

For atheists, agnostics, and those who don't accept the Bible as divinely-inspired, the question of defining God's Law seems moot to me--if they don't really believe in God, or that the Bible has anything to do with Him, why bother to try and understand His Law? If they don't accept what the Bible says about His Law, then what's their basis for argument for or against?

 

 

[Gordie WH]

The Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of the Constitution are unquestionably based on English Common law.  To the degree that Alfred the Great’s Doom Book was based on Christian principles, is the degree to which English Common law and “American” law are based on Christian principles.  Alfred was a dedicated Christian, which at the time meant Catholic.   His Doom Book was an attempt to blend Mosaic Law, Christian principles, and old Anglo-Saxon customs.  The Doom Book predates the Magna Carta and Martin Luther and is the first codification of English Common law of which I am aware.  

Exactly what God’s law is, is argumentative.  Is it the 10 Commandments, Sermon on the Mount, both, or something else?  In any case it is a monolithic code based on a monotheistic male dominated theology.  This issue is addressed in Kevin Gutzman’s C-Span presentation as the dilemma that James Madison faced, himself a devote Christian.  (See my previous post in this thread for the link). 

Madison held the mainstream Christian view that human nature is corrupt and evil.  Arguments abound as to achieving salvation.  Martin Luther was excommunicated because he disagreed with Catholic Church doctrine on that issue.  King James further changed Christian doctrine to conform to his interpretation of Church of England doctrine.  Once the notion of revealed religion via direct communion with God was accepted (the Protestant Reformation), an individual person could interpret the Scriptures to suit themselves.  Christopher Hill’s book on the 16^th century English Revolution, The World Turned Upside Down, is instructive in this regard.

You are quite correct re Vatican law.  I should have said Catholic law.

If revisionist history dispels such myths as George Washington admitting to cutting down a cherry tree, or that Keynesian economics works, I’m all for it.  Credible historical scholars use only found substantiated documentation.  There are so many more letters, diaries, and available documents nowadays, is it any wonder that history can be upgraded?

[Jennifer Groves]

Wrote a response and then hit some key and lost the entire thing. Very frustrating new keyboard that seems to operate on its own.

 

In short, American law was originally based on biblical principles, which is why there has not been much overt conflict between God's Law and  American courts. That is changing. As American values change, and the laws eventually reflect that (e.g. we are moving toward laws that do not allow for self-defense in this country), secular law will stand more in opposition to God's Law rather than being based upon it.

 

The problem with secular law codes is that they change depending on the whims of the leadership and with the changing values of a worldly society.

 

Much revisionist (i.e. false) history has been composed regarding the colonial period. Recall that more than half the population of Plimoth Plantation died in the first year. The Pilgrims were only too aware that survival was not a given and they lived in faith that God had led them to the shore where He wanted them to be. They came to worship, not to conquer. Others came with that same purpose, and some wanted a better life--which they thought was only possible in the New World. Then there were those who came, mostly later, primarily to gain wealth--not necessarily a bad endeavor either, but if greed and power are permitted to become the motivating factors,  conquest doctrines are sure to follow.

 

When human institutions become too organized, too hierarchical, and begin to involve wealth and property, there are always some who crave power and influence and will do anything to achieve it.

When we take our endeavors out of the hands of God, human nature takes over.

 

There is a vast difference between Vatican law and Christians who do not recognize Vatican authority. I am not familiar with Catholic canon law, as it is not based entirely on the Bible (the most obvious example being the pseudepigraphical books). It's important to recognize the distinction between the Vatican, which is essentially a geo-political entity with geo-political aims, and the true Church--followers of Christ.

 

One of the primary differences between the Qur'an, the basis of shari'a, and the Bible is that submission to Islam is compulsory. Submission to Christ is not. Both books teach of a coming judgment of humanity--in the Qur'an, much of that judgment comes at the hands of men. In the Bible, the final judgment rests entirely in God's hands and is not enforced by human agents.

 

Islam is a conquest ideology all the way, in the name of Allah (who, btw, is not the same God explained in the Bible).

[Gordie WH]

Your statement that it’s not possible to have multiple legal systems operating in a republic is spot on IMO. We tried multiple systems under the Articles of Confederation. Most of the States were dominated by the canon law of their respective Christian sect churches.
As Kevin Gutzman points out in
this C-Span video on James Madison, during our own colonial times, religious intolerance was the norm except for the States of New Jersey and Bradford’s Pennsylvania. Madison was adamant regarding the principle of secular government, i.e. the separation of church and civil law. Some of the colonies were in effect mini-theocracies.
Canon law is church law. Not just the Catholic Church. When the Vatican was running things a few hundred years ago, it was law that Earth was flat, the sun circled Earth, and Earth was the center of the universe. Columbus was nearly accused of heresy because of his notion that he could reach the East Indies by sailing west.
As an archaeologist I’m sure you are aware that the Gospels discovered in the Dead Sea scrolls were not canonized. They were never incorporated into church law, Catholic nor Protestant; not at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 nor after they were discovered. This is not to say that there were no disagreements within Christendom throughout its history. At the 325 Council of Nicaea Bishop Origen among others were out-voted.