O Adonai
December 19, 2006, 11:31 pm
Posted by J. Peter Nixon
“One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.” Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”
–Martin Luther King, Letter from a Birmingham Jail
Peter, maybe I’m missing something: but did any particular form of legalized injustice prompt your plea to the Lord?
And if you believe that eternal law posits that one race is superior to another, then you might conclude that laws requiring equality in things such as education are quite unjust and react as my state did and outlaw school boards to head off those that expressed an intent to comply with the Brown decision.
Which is not to say that self-help can never be justified, but it is almost always philosophically problematic.
It is true that one has a moral responsibility to obey just laws and that an unjust law is no law at all, and that one there fore may violate such a “law”; but it does not follow that one has a positive oblidation to disobey an unjust law. Suppose there is a law in a certain country–say the papal states up to 1870–restricting the behavior and activities of Jews. Did the Jews in question have an obligation to disobey those unjust laws, or did they merely have a right to do so with due consideration for prudential considerations?
Cathy,
Aren’t their legalized injustices? For example, when it took 100 years after the Civil War for Afro Americans to begin to be treated equal. And as Barbara pointed out how states get around the law.
Augustine used the law to torture and kill other Christians. And Thomas elevated the papacy to unseemly power. And good old MLK did not believe that adultery was anything to get bothered about.
The law did not seem to help the Supreme Court choose the right winner in 2000. Bush flouted all kinds of laws in invading Iraq.
Corporations have always used the courts to bully others. Their pockets usually outlasted the most righteous of cases. The mafia felt justified by this to develop their own laws.
And Jesus was put to death according to law.
So laws can be problematic and occasion confusion in acting. Yet people like Ghandi and MLK used the existing laws effectively. Was it just their timing that was right?
Cathy:
I think I’m guilty of being a bit too subtle, so please accept my apology for that.
I was reflecting on the antiphon for yesterday evening–O Adonai–and thinking about what it meant to confess Jesus as Lord (Adonai) and giver of law.
I think part of the answer is that we take the same attitude that Dr. King encourages us to take in this passage, that is to bring our human laws before the bar of natural and divine law. Following Christ demands of us a certain skepticism about the claims of princes and kings.
So that is what was was on my mind. Unfortunately, it didn’t make it onto the page!
Oh, and one more problem: I even got turned around on the dates. This reflection should have gone up the evening of the 18th not the 19th. Truth be told, in the nuttiness that is the last few days before Christmas, I haven’t even been sure what day of the week it is…:-)
I just wanted to know what Peter had in mind, because the question what to do about an unjust law is a complicated one, for several reasons.
First, Aquinas (whom King also cites) does a better job than Augustine about qualifying the claim that an unjust law is not binding–it is not, properly speaking, law at all, but there may be good reasons to go along with it –having to do with respect for your community and the importance of the rule of law. So, for example, you might think that the law prohibiting the use of medical marijuana is unjust–but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t do a lot of thinking before buying yourself a joint.
Second, and JF raised this point, it depends what kind of law you’re talking about. King was writing about unjust laws that could be disobeyed e– e.g., sit ins at segregated lunch counters. But some unjust laws can’t be “disobeyed” properly speaking –laws giving permission, for example. (E.g., you can’t really disobey a law giving permission for abortion or euthanasia or infanticide).
Furthermore, the type of disobedience that King was talking about was nonviolent civil disobedience- it was very important to him to preserve the non-violent character of his movement. Things get a lot trickier if the disobedience (broadly construed) involves destruction of property (Berrigans) or even attacks on people (killers of abortion doctors).
Finally, I would say that while it is important to recognize the limits to the rule of kings, it is also important to to glamorize our perception of the natural law, or the perception of Christians over the centuries about what accords with the mind of Christ the lawgiver. Burning heretics, for example.
We need all our sources of wisdom. History tells us that sometimes the movement for moral improvement –insight into the natural law if you will == has come from the Catholic Church – at other times, not. The movement to end slavery, as Noonan points out- was not led by Catholics, even in this country.
OOPS –second paragraph from the bottom; I meant to say “NOT to glamorize”
sorry.
Just a small addition. Both King and Gandhi thought that the Rule of Law was always to be respected, even if individual laws were not to be followed. Thus, they thought it entirely proper to be arrested for violating a law. In fact, they often counted on this aspect of the rule of law, using their imprisonment as a means of drawing attention to the unjust law. Their resistance was not just principled and nonviolent, it was also very strategic.
Perhaps the most symbolic moment in King’s career in this regard is when he turned the second Selma to Montgomery march around on the Edmund Pettus bridge. This act infuriated and confused many of his followers and fellow marchers, many of whom had flown in from around the country after King’s appeal following the first “Bloody Sunday” march. What they did not appreciate was that King had never gone against a Federal Court ruling, and the Federal Courts at the time had issued an injunction against any further marches. To have kept marching would have been both principled and nonviolent, but it would not have been very strategic, if being strategic meant not unnecessarily burning very important bridges. The courts had often accomplished great things for King, and he was very loathe to directly disobey the courts, something he had never done. As it turns out, the Federal Courts did a 180 a few days later and required the state of Alabama to protect the marchers as they went from Selma to Montgomery.
I find that many of my fellow liberals do not fully appreciate this very strategic and pragmatic side of King. They are happy to march, but they never seem to care much if anything actually gets done.
“I find that many of my fellow liberals do not fully appreciate this very strategic and pragmatic side of King. They are happy to march, but they never seem to care much if anything actually gets done.”
We are at an historic crossroad, I believe, in the battle for reforming the church. Votf is keeping the pressure on the bishops while virtually ignored by them. Recent studies indicate that members of Votf are at the core of the church.
Yet the problem in liberal circles is that too many prefer to coyly knock Votf down, not realizing what a great opportunity is here.
Cardinal Egan, with a straight face, declared to a tv camera today that there was no dissension among priests of the archdiocese. That the letter of dissent written to him was not written by a priest.
Are liberals like democrats better at destroying themselves than any opposition?
“Votf is keeping the pressure on the bishops while virtually ignored by them.”
Bill, with all due respect, are you not perhaps contradicting yourself here? While I support VOTF’s goals of ecclesiastical transparency and accountability, etc., I do not see it accomplishing much if anything when all is said and done. We have a local chapter, but I’m not aware of it drawing much interest. Maybe it’s different elsewhere, but I’m not convinced that much happens outside of periodic pep rallies and speeches.
If, as you’ve noted, VOTF members are at the core of the church but are ignored by their bishops, then I see little if any prospect for significant change. If I recall, I saw a recent poll indicating that most Catholics are satisfied with their bishops’ performance (sorry, I don’t have a cite or a percentage, but I must admit I was initially shocked at the figures in light of the widespread uproar over clerical sexual abuse of children.)
I am of the impression that the very approach espoused by VOTF, namely, one of respectful dialogue with the bishops, is being used by our religious leaders to maintain the status quo. I see a respectful arms-length relationship that will likely remain arms-length and respectful but, in the end, frustrating and unproductive for VOTF. I liken this relationship to that of an employer-sponsored grievance committee: looks good, but nothing of substance gets accomplished.
I do not think there will be any true reforms unless and until enough Catholics get “mad as hell,” give their bishops the ultimatum, and follow through with effective “strike action” if necessary.
Given the polling data I saw, the general shift in news coverage by diocesan newspapers to “safer” subjects, and the human tendency to minimize conflict and not rock the boat, I am not at all convinced that we shall see any meaningful reforms. In the meantime, of course, we have Vatican officials and their reactionary episcopal allies who are determined to “reform the reform.”
I realize our respective comments may not be seen as pertaining to Peter Nixon’s post and earlier responses. However, I think they do because, just as the civil rights movement had to resort to nonviolent civil disobedience, I see no real chance for reform unless Catholics are prepared to engage in widespread ecclesial disobedience.
I wish I could be optimistic here, but I’m not.
Joe,
First, you cannot judge Votf by a local chapter. Can you revitalize it?
Votf has called for the resignation of Cardinal George and continues to apply pressure accross the board with specific recommendations.
The problem, let me repeat, is when people like you get discouraged.
Check out this report and check out the rest of the Votf.org site. http://votf.org/Focus/index.html
In the group I am involved with there are people who support W who are fervently committed to reform of the bishops and the church.
This is why Votf is effective, it draws from the whole spectrum of political thought.
I do not believe there is any evidence that Augustine used the law to torture and kill other Christians. There is evidence that he advised secular rulers against torture.
In the FWIMBW Dept., I offer info alluded to in my December 21 post:
Source: National Catholic Reporter, December 15, 2006, page 4, “Bishops Approval Rating Up.”
“Approval ratings for U.S. Catholic bishops continue to rebound…according to a LeMoyne College/Zogby International poll.
“About 71 percent of American Catholics polled agreed the bishops are doing a good job. That’s up from the lowest level — 57 percent — in the fall of 2004 and below the pre-scandal level of 83 percent.
Matthew Loveland, a sociologist of religion who works with the…poll, attributes the increased support for bishops to decreased interest in the clergy sex-abuse scandal…..
“The survey also found:
+ 83 percent of American Catholics think the pope is doing a good job leading the church.”
I have a basic question here: What “kind” of Catholics comprised the population queried? Regular churchgoers? People who self-identified as Catholic but who may or may not attend church? Catholics who have “dropped out” of the church? Catholics who have affiliated with (for lack of a better word) “schismatic” Catholic congregations?
Anyway…