Human Rights and Freedoms as Prior Rights?
"in truth it may be affirmed that each of [the forms of government] is good, provided it lead straight to the end--that is the common good, for which social authority is constituted,--and finally, it may be added that from the relative point of view, such and such a form of government may be preferable because of being better adapted to the character and customs of such or such a nation. In this order of speculative ideas, Catholics, like all other citizens, are free to prefer one form of government to another, precisely because no one of these social forms is, in itself, opposed to the principles of sound reason or to the maxims of Christian doctrine."
Pope Leo XIII ; encyclical Au Milieu des Sollicitudes addressed to the bishops in France in 1892 .
The church has recently however not hesitated to point out the benefits of a democratic form of government. Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Centesimusannus, fell short of a full endorsement;
"The Church values the democratic system inasmuch as it ensures the participation of citizens in making political choices, guarantees to the governed the possibility both of electing and holding accountable those who govern them, and of replacing them through peaceful means when appropriate."
"Authentic democracy," the Pope however warns,
"Is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. The most significant distinction between an authentic democracy and an inauthentic one relates to substance: does it promote the common good, the rule of law, the dignity of the human person properly and is it objectively informed by human rights and freedoms based upon the NATURAL MORAL LAW?"
What is the Natural Moral Law?
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the LAWS OF NATURE and of NATURE'S GOD entitles them..."
This denotes that even human rights and freedoms are subjective to something other, a law that supersedes. As the primary bearer of the democratic possibility America's Constitution and declaration of independence declare it as 'One nation under God' and 'of equal men endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights'.
Like all other forms of government democracy is a means and not an end in itself. Being but a means of government, democracy needs something extrinsic to it so that it may have an end. Though written constitutions and statements of rights attempt to impose such an extrinsic order, there has to be a law above these, what Constitutional Law Professor Thomas E. Cronin called the "Higher Law."
The democratic understanding is that human rights and freedoms are prior rights; they are not established by the state. The state is bound to acknowledge and respect those rights which have their source in the transcendent dignity of the human person created by God. To this extent, that there's a prior law, and that there are 'unalienable rights' of every individual I totally concur. But I take great exception on the assertions by America's patriarchs and the recent intimation by the Catholic Church that democracy is the necessary product and protector of freedoms.
In this moment of history, as evidenced in the earlier essay – The 20th Century: The Anxiety Age - democracy carries the day the world over; democracy's marks are obvious for everyone to see. Unfortunately precedents have presented to us the dynamism and fluidity of human ideologies, all human things inevitably degenerate, and according to Plato's The Republic:
"Democracy or any other system is just but the inevitable stage(s) of degeneration that the just city will pass through over time. Democracy springs from an aristocracy or an Oligarchy and its eventuality is a tyrannical constitution."
Well, Tyranny might be farfetched, but to assume that democracy will not eventually metamorphose into something else would be sheer naivety. Plato calls it the 'natural human degeneration'. Compared to all other systems, democracy is the most progressive and transformation is a definite eventuality.
It's this dynamic character of democracy that introduces a relativism that honestly puts the fear of God in me. Up until now, all essays I have written have been a challenge to conventional thought, now I find myself confronted by a situation that warrants my admission that sometimes conventional and conservative has its own merits and need not be buried. I believe our understanding of basic human freedoms should be absolute, and unalienable; the value of human rights and freedoms is not a matter of general consensus, a matter of agreement, or a result of political procedures; these freedoms should remain cast in stone. 
If we agree that these rights are 'prior and unalienable' then there cannot be legal debates about them neither should we subject them to popular scrutiny or to the processes of appeal, whether to the courts or to parliament or some other agency; what these freedoms ARE or ARE NOT is a matter that America's forefathers thought to be theologically imperative; it should remain so.
This view has astronomical implications; like on integrity for instance; let me provide an example:- the revised Kenyan constitution promulgated in 2010 set a very high bar on integrity for public office; this was intentionally done to end elitist impunity on matters corruption. Conviction on a corruption offense would have seen one barred from public office for life, among other stringent measures. After the 2012 general election, some of these clauses took effect; the Kenyan parliament however unanimously watered down these clauses out of sheer self interest. They also quickly weathered down the powers of the investigating and prosecuting body.
ETHICAL RELATIVISM
"'Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and skeptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political action, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.'" (Compendium, No. 407)
In his 'Just City' as outlined in 'The Republic' Socrates describes democracy as a city where the guiding priority is freedoms; everyone is free to say what they like and to arrange their life as they please. There is complete license. Thanks to these freedoms the democratic man is soon overcome by unnecessary desires. He starts to appreciate all the lavish pleasures. He gradually abandons reverence and moderation and eventually even regards total anarchy as an expression of his freedom, extravagance as magnificence, and shamelessness as courage. He abandons moderation and yields to indulgence; whatever strikes his fancy at the moment goes. There is no order or necessity to his life.
This is the ultimate end of ethical relativism; the first error is a shift from the universal natural moral law to morals as defined by the local culture, and then the ultimate error is then a move to the morals as determined by the individual, a situation referred to as subjectivism.
According to Plato homosexual intercourse serves no end but the fulfillment of physical pleasure; it is useless, it cannot be good or beautiful and is to be avoided. He was adamant that the desire for physical pleasure alone is not worth fulfilling. Now we have gay rights processions? There are legal cases and statutory bills on same sex marriages? Ordaining of gay priests and gay parenthood? Walk into a public toilet in Nairobi and you are likely to throw up on reading the vulgarities written on the walls by male prostitutes advertising themselves. In a show aired on BBC last April, Pope Francis was quoted as the first pope ever to use the word 'gays' in a formal statement confirming long drawn rumors that the church has ongoing discussions on the possibility of budging to contemporary views even from within the church; gay propensities are now a public knowledge among its clergy, seminaries and monasteries.
You suddenly begin to understand what Plato meant by 'He starts to appreciate all the lavish pleasures' in his criticism of democracy. We have obliterated the line between our freedoms and our unnecessary desires; we have begun to regard total anarchy as our 'unalienable' rights and freedoms. We have gotten now to gay prostitution; I think homosexual gang rapes aren't so unimaginable. There's is already an explosion of school boys getting sodomised in rural Kenyan villages.
A 'free world'needs to rise beyond rhetoric and expediency; 'unalienable' should be construed in its full implication; the implication that the same hand that giveth also asks of our restraint. Our freedoms are from an authority other than ourselves, gifted on us, but responsibility is also asked of us, not so that we may earn these freedoms, they are not to be earned, these gifts are not earned but given freely and equally to all. Common logic would imply that free but valuable would require some form of protection if only to sustain it. If we acknowledge that we are indeed 'One Nation Under God' and were created 'with equal unalienable freedoms' then we must also accept what God says about our responsibilities for each of these freedoms. So what does God say?
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. Lev: 20:13
We have already based all human rights and freedoms on the natural moral law, would it shock you to know that there is a lot more demanded by 'Natural Law': The apostle Paul speaks about specific consequences of our failures of recognition of certain facts about existence plainly evident from nature (Natural Law)
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made so that men are without excuse. 21….., but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools….. 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the creator – who is forever praised. Amen. 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their pervasion. Romans 1: 18-32
Paul declares that sexual pervasion emanates from our failure to recognize God's Natural Law without any excuse, because the truth about God is plain for everyone to see. And do you know what is certainly going to happen as a result of this pervasion?
Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Jude 1:7
So what really happened in Sodom and Gomorrah?
The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth and said, "My lords, please turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night and wash your feet. Then you may rise up early and go on your way." They said, "No; we will spend the night in the town square." But he pressed them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house. And he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we can have sex with them. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Do not do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men…".Gen 19: 1-38
Judges 19, 20 & 21
19:20 "You are welcome at my house," the old man said. "Let me supply whatever you need. Only don't spend the night in the square." 21So he took him into his house and fed his donkeys. After they had washed their feet, they had something to eat and drink. 22While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him." 23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine, I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing." 25 but the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go.
The man's concubine died after being gang raped the whole night, the man was so angered that he cut her into twelve pieces and sent a piece each to the tribes of Israel. If you read the rest of the chapters you will see how the whole of Israel was outraged by this vile act committed by the tribe of Benjamin. You will also note just how obstinate Benjaminites had become – a God unto themselves refusing to accept all accusations or hand over the perpetrators. They felt that they held all power unto their hands. Their initial victories against the Israelites bolstered this attitude and they began to brag about their might.
It's said that absolute power corrupts and great might gives cursory victories, but eventually even super powers will be held accountable for their complacency and excesses, every knee shall bow. I would say the 'free world' is courting fire and brimstone with this one; these liberal stances on homosexuality can only have a disastrous end.
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sigh -Isaiah 5:20-21
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the majority of the American Supreme Court refused to overturn Roe v. Wade. In that case, Justice Anthony Kennedy defined the "heart of liberty" to be this radical autonomy where EACH INDIVIDUAL DEFINES HIS OR HER GOOD, where each individual has "the right to define one's concept of existence, of the universe, and of the SWEET MYSTERY OF HUMAN LIFE." I do not think that Justice Kennedy even realized what he and his fellow judges had done; in one single judgment the United States Supreme Court endorsed a dangerous philosophy that hitherto had remained subtle and stealthy. The philosophy of existentialism had until then been a reserve of contemporary art – Abstract paintings, films without conclusive ends and music without rhythm or meaning. Where each individual defines what the painting means to them, or how the story should end, or what the ideal beat and meaning of the song should be. (in the essay 'To be Human is to be in Error' I mention just how much influence the entertainment world has on our way of life – existentialism is one such example). A philosophy in which there is not one single universal truth but millions and millions of individual truths, one for each individual. Paintings that are nothing short of random splashes of paint on canvas getting sold for millions of dollars because 'they have inconspicuous meanings?' or raucous collection of off key grunts and groans being passed as works of genius, surely Beethoven and Mozart must be stirring in their graves.
In this ruling, existentialism was essentially pulled off the gutters into mainstream political, legislative and judicial thought. A few years later after this judgment, this passage read by Justice Kennedy was referred to in the American Supreme Court case which overturned all laws that criminalized homosexual sodomy. In a scathing dissent, Justice Scalia referred to this "sweet-mystery-of-life" passage, as the "passage that ate the rule of law." Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 575 (2003). This single passage "The sweet-mystery-of-life" delivered in 1992 was the precedent in law that was used to legalise homosexuality. In his book Liberal Purposes, the liberal political philosopher William Galston insisted that:
"There has to be a minimum level of consensus regarding the good--a minimal perfectionism--for a liberal democracy to function. Such a consensus has to disavow secular nihilism, Nietzschean irrationalism, and barbarism. The "sweet-mystery-of-life" passage which has entered our Constitutional jurisprudence courtesy of Justice Kennedy comprehends all three of these demons"
"Let us not be fooled by the "sweet-mystery-of-life" passage. It is nothing other than a pleasant way of saying: "EVIL, BE THOU MY GOOD." And by these saccharine words we have justified as good--for the mere reason that they were chosen as good and for no other reason--and institutionalized such moral enormities as contraception, abortion, and sodomy, all of which are sins which cry to heaven for vengeance."
Will there be a remnant like Lot? Like the six hundred Benjaminites that were spared? We must speak without fear or shame, but with the love of Christ Jesus. Our voices (anti-gay) need to be louder than theirs (pro-gay), we must tell them of the saving grace by Christ Jesus given us not by our effort for we all are sinners too, we are no better. That way the Lord may save a remnant for Himself when His wrath descends.
By Choice or By Birth?
That has been the big question hasn't it? I do not dispute that some people are born with a physical or a hormonal condition; there will be occasionally a boy with girlish tendencies and girl who is a tom boy. One boy's voice will not break and one girl's physique will look like a boy's. Christ did indeed acknowledge that some people were born without the natural urge for a heterosexual relationship:
4"Havent you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female", 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate."…….. 11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have made themselves eunuchs (by renouncing marriage)because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." Mathew 19: 4-12
Jesus was giving reasons why some people should not get married and participate in sexual intercourse. Homosexual intercourse is only pleasure seeking, no other species mates solely for pleasure.
Ethical relativism presents a real danger to our democratic way of life and to the political patrimony our fathers bequeathed us. It therefore surprises me that despite John Paul II's comments on the Ethical relativism in the Compendium the Catholic Church is now said to be bowing to pressure and considering a liberal stand on homosexuality and ordination of gay priests? It should put the fear of the devil into our very souls, because it's nothing short of the devil at the very heart of the body of Christ (the church).
"Democracy is fundamentally a 'system' and as such is a means and not an end. Its 'moral' value is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other form of human behavior, must be subject: in other words, its morality depends on the morality of the ends which it pursues and of the means which it employs." (Compendium, No. 407)
"Above all else probably, democracy is advocated most for its distinctive understanding of human rights and freedoms…"
This was the opening statement to this essay; don't you now think that democracy's defence of human freedoms should be taken with a pitch of salt? And if this is democracy's strongest appeal wouldn't you agree that Plato's critique of democracy is insightful and thought-provoking. His description of democracy's single-minded pursuit of freedom at the expense of other goods, and of the sort of men who tend to gain power in such a system, should give us pause. We must take these criticisms seriously when considering just how we want to judge democracy. 
America's foundation on freedoms was cast in stone. Is the loss of personal freedom really beyond sacrifice? Or might we actually be better off giving up some of our perceived 'freedoms' to gain order and harmony in return?
Some people are likely to be struck by terror at giving up what to them are sacred liberties: I think that we cling desperately to our personal freedoms because our soul is disordered and unhealthy, our priorities skewed. We are driven by the wrong desires—by the desire for money, physical pleasure, and honor. If we were driven by the correct desires, the desire for truth, order, harmony, and the good of our society as a whole, would we be more open to adopting another system of government.
Which brings us now to plausible alternatives to the democratic ideal:
Other related Essays
"For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God" Gen 3:5
No comments:
Post a Comment