A Word on Conscience

Most everyone should be familiar with the current situation between the Obama Administration and the Catholic Church. The Church does not want to pay for insurance plans which offer contraceptive and sterilization services, as a matter of conscience. The President wants, well, somebody to pay for them, regardless of their conscience. It brings the whole question of conscience into the political field, and leads to some interesting questions.

The Church says that it cannot supply even indirectly such services, as a matter of conscience, and that no government can force it to do so. The President, seeing a very real constitutional issue (yes, that pesky Constitution, which makes it so hard for Barack Obama to save us) is dancing around the question, trying to change the emphasis in the hopes not to offend anyone else. The issue itself, though, is clear: Washington cannot make the Church or its members violate their consciences.

But can government ever make, or at least try to make, someone violate their conscience? Sheldon Richman of The Future of Freedom Foundation, says no, in an interesting article here: http://www.fff.org/comment/com1202j.asp . Of course, he says it with much libertarian bravado, offering beyond the current issue the 'forcing' of Americans to support the 'mass murder' in Iraq and Afghanistan. Says Mr. Richman: "Americans have been forced, without their consultation — much less permission — to finance mass murder."

This strikes us as hyperbole, but we'll set that point aside for now. What it puts before us, in comparing the Catholic situation with US foreign policy aims, is the idea that no one should ever be compelled to violate their conscience no matter what. And that is something we are not so certain about.

Theoretically, someone might form the Church of Fred and then claim no obedience to the laws of the United States or any other government as a basic tenet of their religion. Could the Fredites then be excused from participation in a nation's business, as a matter of conscience?

No, they could not. One idea which is readily ignored by liberals and libertarians alike is that the individual's say so isn't of necessity the final word on any given subject. Their word must be rational, and reason as such can be determined by means beyond the person. The Catholic Church, the Protestant sects; Islam, Buddhism, Shinto, and many others not named here, are clearly established creeds of long standing. They weren't formed in order to avoid any particular duty to any particular society but to nourish something else which is not itself necessarily the province of the body politic. The Fredites it would seem could be easily unmasked as a shallow rabble intended only to impede the larger nation in its duties.

Further, if the government cannot compel anyone to do things without necessarily having their personal consent, then we are faced with either anarchy or a democracy so complete as to be unable to move at all. No government, even the smallest of them, can or will ever get the support of 100% of the people anyway. Remember, there were those who objected to World War II. Yet that War had to be fought, for all the obvious reasons. Indeed, it is fair to ask whether the opponents of the Second World War had properly informed their consciences, as it is fair to ask anybody else at any other time whether they did theirs.

The bottom line is that the claim to conscience can only be invoked when that conscience is itself reasonable. The conscience of the Catholic Church is obviously reasonable with regard to the opinion of the current Administration. The idea that no government can do anything without the direct consent of every person is not. Such is not a matter of conscience. It is sometimes only a matter of self indulgent wordplay and must be seen as such.