Religious Liberty and the American Protestant Consensus

By Thomas Storck | April 27, 2015

Everyone is surely aware of the controversy over laws recently passed in Indiana and Arkansas designed to protect the consciences of Christian believers and others in certain lines of work, such as caterers or bakers, who might object to being closely involved in the preparations for a same-sex wedding celebration by having to decorate a cake, say, with Bill and Steve Forever on it, or something of the sort. I am certainly in sympathy with the intent of such laws and would not myself want to appear to sanction or give approval to such a gross violation of the natural law as same-sex unions are.

But while I agree with those who object to their having to facilitate such ceremonies, I think that there is more to consider here than simply the question of an individual right to religious liberty. For the entire controversy highlights what happens when a society connected by political bonds begins to come apart with regard to its moral and cultural bonds.

The United States of course has no officially established religion, but until fairly recently a broad Protestant consensus provided the moral and cultural framework that any society requires. Catholics and other non-Protestants pretty much had to fit into that framework as best they could. Whether it was the prohibition of alcohol or the approval of divorce, the nation adhered to a Protestant moral framework. In the case of divorce, Catholic moral theology texts had to give guidelines to Catholic judges and lawyers as to how far they could or could not participate in it. Catholic caterers and florists doubtless served wedding ceremonies for the divorced, or for Catholics marrying outside the Church, even though the first is a violation of the natural law and the second of the Church’s ecclesiastical law. Generally the concept of remote material cooperation was held to excuse such actions, and judges were specifically permitted by moral theologians to grant divorces or even preside over a wedding ceremony between two divorced persons if “a refusal would involve him in very grave difficulties or complications,” as a 1946 book by a moral theologian written for Catholic professionals puts it. But the point to be noted is that it was the Protestant consensus that ruled and Catholics had to make the best of it. At least in the southern states the Protestant consensus supported segregation and the prohibition of interracial marriages until the 1960s, and Catholics, whatever their own views, had to more or less go along with that consensus, by not establishing interracial parochial schools, for example, or by counseling an interracial Catholic couple to go to another state to get married.

Now certainly a pretended same-sex marriage is a more fundamental violation of the natural law than the marriage of divorced persons, but still both do violate the natural law. Protestant morality historically accepted the one but not the other; Catholic morality condemns both.

In recent years I have seen little concern on the part of Catholics for the fact that American marriage legislation is thoroughly Protestant in its origins and inspiration. But now all this is changing as the Protestant consensus evaporates. Even though Catholics have been content to live within a Protestant marriage culture that for centuries has allowed institutionalized adultery in the form of the marriage of divorced persons, it is only when these Protestant norms are challenged, in the form of legal same-sex unions, that we become exercised and demand the right to opt out of the new prevailing consensus.

There were those who held that interracial marriages were prohibited either by Sacred Scripture or by their distorted understanding of the natural law, and who refused to go along when the Protestant social norm changed. Such people were mostly marginalized, their schools lost their tax exemptions, no one took seriously their arguments, and they essentially were banished from public view, except when someone brought up a school such as Bob Jones University for a good laugh.

Now I hope it is obvious that I would very much regret it if the same thing were to happen to Catholics. But my purpose in writing is first to remind ourselves that for a long time we did accommodate our conduct to an essentially alien, because Protestant, moral doctrine on marriage and on many other matters, and second, to say that it is hard to see how a society can function without broad shared moral norms. In many instances those who object to such moral norms can be allowed a sort of shadowy existence on the cultural margins, as is mostly permitted to the Amish or those who still object to interracial marriage. But if that option is allowed for Catholics and we willingly accept it, this must be only as a holding pattern, a strategy for regrouping. For we cannot allow the Catholic Church to be permanently pushed to the margins of society. Our task, given to us by our Lord, is to evangelize, not simply to lead a quiet Amish-like existence, disturbing no one and in turn not being disturbed.

A last thought. Paradoxically, our very acceptance of American society has, in my opinion, contributed to our threatened marginalization. For we pretty much always accepted American culture on its terms, not ours. We failed to challenge American society, to challenge its materialism, its aggressive wars, its injustices of all kinds, its intellectual pragmatism. We have failed not only to offer the whole Gospel, a Gospel preserved only by the Catholic Church, but we have kept hidden, often even to ourselves, the Catholic cultural heritage which differs so drastically from American Enlightenment Protestant culture. We made material cooperation with alien morals and an alien culture the norm, and now perhaps we will be punished for our continual compromises.

But whatever happens, whatever legislatures may enact or courts decide, the Catholic Church in the United States must not seek simply to reestablish the culture of compromise, to attempt to fit into an alien culture rather than to transform it. We asked for little and in the end it seems we will get nothing. Next time we had better ask for everything and leave it to God as to how much we get.

Aaron Taylor

This is excellent.
LawProf61

Those who fled to the American colonies did so in many instances to escape the oppression of Catholicism run amok in its entanglement with government - particularly royalty - in Europe. Speaking as a Catholic, I have always been grateful to be living in a country founded upon Protestant principles, and have zero desire to return to an age when (for example) Catholicism’s “condemnation” of divorce translated to government imposition of laws forbidding it. The problem, as I see it, is our country’s contemporary refusal to acknowledge that ANY cultural practices are “better” or “worse” than others. This precludes national conversations about which practices those might be, which ones we should aspire to, and why. At its roots, of course, this is a rejection of Truth, and thus of God. And that rejection transcends any one religious faith or practice. It is the embrace of cultural anarchy.
Ladyprof

LawProf61 raises the difficult problem of entanglement with religion but fails to distinguish his (or her) diagnosis of cultural anarchy from the author’s larger point that we have rejected natural law (which differs from but grounds ecclesiastical law) as a guide for cultural debate on moral issues.
eagleseyes

I’m not sure what you are talking about when you say that “Those who fled to the American colonies did so in many instances to escape the oppression of Catholicism run amok in its entanglement with government.” Who were the first Catholics to arrive to the colonies, and were they came from? Your point lacks from historical foundations madam.
Stacy

Wisdom and Prudence are critical in navigating a Godless culture. Discerning what is “material cooperation” versus “remote cooperation”, for example is left to conscience in the light of Church teach. Some will throw up their hands and float along any polluted river. Others, isolate themselves into Catholic ghettos. Neither way evangelizes the culture. I think we should love the sinner, and then resist violating our conscience. Thomas More Society has supported this position gallantly (Belmont Abbey College VS the Contraception mandate, for example). This clash of culture will result in carrying a cross, which requires fortitude.God’s grace will suffice, but we must persevere to the end.

Good article: “We made material cooperation with alien morals and an alien culture the norm, and now perhaps we will be punished for our continual compromises.” May God have mercy on us all. Pray! Pray!
Tom Flinn

Exactly. “Catholicism run amok” was not generally a motive for those who came to the colonies. Additionally, it seems to me that the moral anarchy which seems to be rampant IS protestant principle playing out in the real world.
Andrew M. Haines

This is a thoroughly confused idea, I think.

To say that rejection of truth is a rejection of God, and to go on that such “rejection transcends any one religious faith” is simply to say that no faith is actually entirely true (unless you’re just talking about natural knowledge of God and you don’t count that as a constituent of “religious faith”; but I suspect that’s not what you meant). This is wrong, but not problematic except that you want to preserve judgments not only about “better” and “worse” cultural practices but also concerning the quality of the religious principles of a state. The latter, by this logic, means weighing sets of principles that each contain some untrue things about God to figure out which best affords the basis for making further judgments about other more or less true things.

If so, this is bleak. What exactly are you grateful for? And why should you be?
zebbart

Having lived and worked closely with the Amish for the last 6 years, I have come to see their society in effect not as quietistic and retreating, but as revolutionary with a long view. They continue to go to jail for their beliefs and have won major concessions from the state, meanwhile doubling their population every twenty years and rejuvenating increasing swaths of the rural landscape as they go. I don’t think it is such a bad model for spreading the Gospel. Is that not the way Rome was won? What other model do we have to look at?

I think it is true that American Catholicism’s conformity with and in fact eager embrace of the dominant culture has lead us to the embarrassing and shameful position of seeming to say, “Segregation, war crimes, torture, divorce, exploitation - that we could bear, but two men playing house together is too much.” It does seem to show that Catholics are defending a Protestant understanding of marriage and Protestant hegemony generally. But perhaps this can be a wake up call that in America we have always been living under an fundamentally unjust cultural regime and that we should have always been living in a revolutionary/prophetic way, even if quietly and even at great cost to ourselves, as the Amish have.
JGradGus

Amen!
http://www.ethikapolitika.org Mattias A Caro

“We failed to challenge American society, to challenge its materialism, its aggressive wars, its injustices of all kinds, its intellectual pragmatism.”

Of course, part of this goes to how exactly can the church relate to a culture that is so alien and foreign? In other words, what could the common points of reference be to actually proclaim the Gospel message? The Church, unfortunately, in its own current internal messaging has largely adopted the language of evangelical culture when engaging Americans and trying to open the doors to the church. Look, for example, at the “Forming Intentional Disciples movement” or the whole “Evangelical Catholicism.” What tools does the Church have to even bridge this gap?
Thomas Storck

Yeah, Mattias, I’m afraid you’re right about the contemporary Church in the U.S. Conservative Catholics (and I don’t mean orthodox Catholics) have pretty much embraced important aspects of conservative Evangelical culture. I was thinking of the past, when (despite significant compromises going back to the 19th century) there was still some Catholic sensibility left.
Thomas Storck

We can’t be content with a polity that rests upon natural law (or that claims to do so), since the Catholic faith is true, and we have to hope and work and pray that it will permeate our entire culture, including our political arrangements.

With reference to LawProf61 above, I agree that his (her?) “point lacks from historical foundations.”

And though he (she?) claims to be a Catholic, it’s a curious kind of Catholicism that thinks that Protestants do a better job of forming the social order than does the true Faith. E.g., if divorce is a violation of the natural law, then why should it be legal? On the grounds that some people want to get divorced?
Thomas Storck

Thank you.
NDaniels

A fundamental tenet of both the Jewish and Christian Faith is that God Is The Author of Life and Marriage. In the end, if we can no longer claim that God Is The Author of Life and Marriage, the Judicial System will have denied our inherent Right to Religious Liberty.
Thomas Storck

Your post, zebbart, is very interesting. I’ve nothing against the old so-called Catholic ghetto, which I think helped to preserve the faith of many Catholics. But that need not mean disengagement either. I don’t see much impact of Amish thinking on the larger culture or, as far as I know, much attempt on their part to do so. They are doubling their numbers. Is that from a high birth rate or from conversions? The former, I suspect.
Kyle

Mr Storck, thank you for your article. I am always excited to read one of your pieces.
I do have one question though: Your argument that Catholics in America accepted the rules and language of an alien culture and our loss of religious liberty and inability to confront the secularization of the culture our a result of this adoption. However, how does this scheme work in Europe, where the culture was dominated by Catholicism, yet we still observe a radical secularism?
I look forward to hearing your response.
zebbart

Their growth is certainly from high birth rate and retention. But when the general population is not procreating at replacement rate that will have a bigger impact. The Amish are still a very small minority in the whole country but they have a big impact where they live. As they turn fallow land back into productive farms, they raise property values, they provide jobs for ‘English’ service providers, they can play a big role in regional food systems and sustainable agriculture, and they just become a cultural influence by proximity and contact. Even if their neighbors and contacts don’t convert, their lives and communities may be leavened by the Amish. And while we can’t really expect the last hundred years’ growth to continue for another 200, if it did the Amish would number 300 million in 2220. At any rate it seems certain they will replace the ‘English’ who have abandoned the countryside due to loss of ecomimic opportunity and lack of offspring. And while it seems to me they do fail to meet the Christian call to evangelize, they do seem to exmplify the call to be leaven expanding and diffusing through the world and lightening it by their presence. [Not that they are without major problems and scandals, but on balance I find their culture to be a much better alternative to the degraded rural poor culture I grew up amongst here in Western Pennsylvania.]
Thomas Storck

Thanks for continuing this discussion. But I think it’s necessary for us Catholics to do more by way of engagement than what you describe for the Amish, especially to interact on an intellectual level with the culture, both Protestant and secular. The Catholic ghetto was fine as a base from which to sally forth, so to speak, but not as an end in itself. Not to say that we couldn’t do some of the things you mention, but with, I think, a different spirit.
Thomas Storck

It’s true that both here and in Europe we have a situation where the Church is not in a healthy state. But based on my limited knowledge of the situation in Europe, I think that actually our situations are not all that similar, even if both are bad, for the trajectory and causes of those situations are very dissimilar. Liberalism in the U.S. privatized religion but usually did not attack it head on, liberalism in Europe very often did.

I wish I knew more about the actual lived experience of the Faith in Europe, e.g., how does a typical university student regard his Catholic heritage (if he has much of one). In Europe itself I’ve seen extreme contrasts, e.g., a church in Madrid full of people visiting our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, but on the other hand, in Avila, a holy hour at the cathedral at which my wife and I were pretty much the only lay people present.

And I understand it’s not uncommon in Europe for Catholic theologians or other intellectuals to be given a forum in the general media, something pretty much unheard of here. So while yes, the Faith is in very bad shape in both places, both the historical causes and the present situations differ more, I think, than simply to say that both are secular. There are different kinds of secularization.

I don’t know whether it’s easier to conduct an apostolate here or in Europe. In the U.S. we have not only secularism but considerable residual anti-Catholicism, and a deeply-ingrained feeling that religion is a matter of personal opinion, of private judgment. It’s my impression that in Europe alienation from the Church is often the result of political causes, e.g., in Spain of the identification of the Church with the Franco regime. In part this is why I think the common identification of the Church with conservative politics in the U.S. is a disaster. Catholics who explicitly or implicitly equate orthodox Catholicism with political conservatism are hurting the Church more than they can imagine.
Truth Unites… and Divides

“Speaking as a Catholic, I have always been grateful to be living in a country founded upon Protestant principles, and have zero desire to return to an age when (for example) Catholicism’s “condemnation” of divorce translated to government imposition of laws forbidding it. The problem, as I see it, is our country’s contemporary refusal to acknowledge that ANY cultural practices are “better” or “worse” than others.”

Amen, LawProf61. Amen. May your tribe increase.