Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Is There Really Much Inconsistency Here?
[1]William Saletan, in Slate, has this set of quotes:
"According to the teaching of Jesus, it is God who has joined man
and woman together in the marital bond. Certainly this union takes
place with the free consent of both parties, but this human consent
concerns a plan that is divine. . . . To treat indissolubility not
as a natural juridical norm but as a mere ideal empties of meaning
the unequivocal declaration of Jesus Christ, who absolutely refused
divorce because "from the beginning it was not so" . . .
[P]rofessionals in the field of civil law should avoid being
personally involved in anything that might imply a cooperation with
divorce." [Emphasis in original.]
-- Address of John Paul II to the prelate auditors, officials and
advocates of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, Jan. 28, 2002
"The parents of Terri Schiavo asked a judge to allow the severely
brain-damaged woman to divorce her husband�even if she dies�in one
of a flurry of 11 new motions filed by the couple. In the divorce
motion filed Monday, Bob and Mary Schindler accused Michael Schiavo
of adultery and not acting in his wife's best interests."
-- Associated Press, March 1, 2005
"During the hearing in Tampa, the chief lawyer for Ms. Schiavo's
parents . . . David Gibbs, also said Ms. Schiavo's religious
beliefs as a Roman Catholic were being infringed because Pope John
Paul II has deemed it unacceptable for Catholics to refuse food and
water. 'We are now in a position where a court has ordered her to
disobey her church and even jeopardize her eternal soul,' Mr. Gibbs
said."
-- New York Times, March 22, 2005
Like many of these Slate quote-only items, this one gives no analysis
or explanation. Still, my sense is that this is somehow trying to
suggest that Ms. Schiavo's lawyer or parents are acting
inconsistently, or that good Catholics should oppose their actions.
Read it yourself and see whether that's your interpretation.
Yet if that's the claim, isn't there a pretty obvious response? I'm by
no stretch of the imagination an expert on Catholicism, but I would
think that Catholic teachings recognize that even really important
principles (such as "no divorce") may have to yield when they run up
against a more important principle (such as "preserve human life").
This doesn't mean that the first principle is wrong or insignificant,
only that even important moral rules that are usually stated
categorically might have some extraordinary exceptions.
My understanding, for instance, is that most Orthodox Jews believe
that the commandment of not working on the Sabbath should yield when
such work is needed to save a life. Likewise, I'd guess that most
Catholic scholars would conclude that if a divorce is really necessary
to save a life, it would be proper. Divorces are almost never
necessary to save a life, so the statements against divorce tend not
to include such provisos; but it doesn't follow that it's somehow
inconsistent or improper to recognize that such a proviso is implicit.
Please correct me if I'm mistaken as to the Catholic teachings, or if
I'm misinterpreting the Slate column. Perhaps the author is simply
making the point that I'm making, which is that even categorical rules
sometimes have extraordinary exceptions (which are understandably not
included when the rule is asserted, precisely because they are so
extraordinary), and that sound religious reasoning must thus sometimes
involve reconciling two contradictory rules. But if the author is
trying to suggest an inconsistency, I think he's mistaken.
(None of this speaks to what should be the right result in the Schiavo
case, of course; I'm making only the limited point I outline above.)
References
1. http://slate.com/id/2115214/
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
