I suspect that there may be something fundamentally wrong with the description of the decision in this case. I can't think of any principle that would permit a judge to intrude into the selection of the religious upbringing of a child - whatever the religion - unless physical injury was being inflicted on the child; in which case the child would be packed off to CPS. I believe that even prenuptial agreements about the religious upbringing of a child are generally unenforceable under the First Amendment.
And, certainly, every judge in the known world would shy away from something that would so clearly violate the First Amendment.
So, I'd like to see the actual decision.
On the other hand, "mistreatment of a child that is imposed in the guise of freedom of religious expression is not privileged", and there are a number of cases where the parents are of the view that "sparing the rod spoils the child" or which involve the Jehovah Witnesses or Christian Scientist's religious based refusal to allow the treatment of their children.
But I don't want to be too cavalier here about judicial overreaching. In that respect, even "religious Satanists" aren't the only ones to feel the brunt of that kind of tyranny. I stumbled across the Cal. App. case of "In Re Jasmine G." (do a control F "Jasmine" at the link) and was horrified as only a parent could be that a social worker was allowed to remove a child from a "religious, strict disciplinarian household" in part because that kind of attitude was out of touch with "Orange County" values. Take a look at the "Jasmine G" decision - which is a classic for the exasperation that comes through in the opinion - and tell me if you don't think all parents should be worried about every getting into the scopes of the social workers and the CPS.
I read the Jasmine G decision. Amazing. The disgust of the appeals court certainly comes through. They didn't even bother to use the "learned judge" salve they usually apply on reversals.
Even though I don't think you're saying this, just one clarification for visitors: Wicca is not the same as Satanism, not even close. The article gets it right in its descriptions, essentially (even if Mr. Jones has a Manichean understanding of Christianity).
Even though there are many variations within Wicca (it's not exactly possessed of a Magisterium), I'm not aware of any that go into that. Though, this being America, I suppose it's possible.
50 years? Try 50 days before a court imposed suspension of parents trying to teach their children the Catholic faith. However, I do have issues with faiths that deny life-sustaining medical attention. Does that make me a hypocrite? I think in that case, the right to life trumps religious beliefs. Am I correct?
This is a hard case. I understand the religious freedom argument in the context of American culture and jurisprudence, and I sympathize.
However, let's not forget where the truth lies: Wicca is evil, it has no rights, and if things were right in the world it would be suppressed by legitimate authority.
But things are not right in the world, and under the present circumstances we are possibly on the brink of a rather slippery slope.
Context, I beg for context.
Jeff,
The sticky question is -- if things were right in the world, what "legitimate authority" would dare to reach into the heart of the home (a natural and God-given institution) and interfere in this manner with the God-given duty of parents to instruct their children in the ways of God? The family does preceed the State in the natural order of things.
Yes, Wicca is an error -- but even if "error has no rights," I thought the teaching was also that "persons have rights" -- even if those persons are in error (wasn't this the teaching of His Holiness John Paul II of blessed memory?).
And on a more pragmatic note, it is certain that if this legal precedent is established today against Wiccans, it will end up being used in short order against Christians. Dale is an optimist in giving this process 50 years -- I think he's high by at least a factor of 10. I shudder to think what an agressive local judge could make of a "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals" and "psychological harm" argument here in the People's Republic of Ann Arbor (Babylon-on-the-Huron).
Wicca might just be more "mainstream" here than either evangelical Protestantism or non-revisionist Catholicism -- at least in the minds of Our Robed Masters™.
peace,
I'm with Zach--this is an assault on the family. That is no small evil.
What this reminded me of is those cases in Islamic nations where Christian widows lose their children because a Muslim convert relative has determined that he won't tolerate the children being raised Christian (the usual trick is to claim the father converted to Islam on his deathbed). Or the prelude to the Spanish Civil War, where the attack on the Church was presented in terms of "public health" or "hygeine."
With the erosion of Christianity and its imprint on the culture of this country, this is exactly the kind of precedent that Christians have to fight. For a foretaste of the future, I urge you to take a look at the link to the case Peter mentions above. That mindset is only going to grow.
And while I am, shall we say, unpersuaded by the claims of Wicca, never forget that, at the end of the day, it is the Wiccans as people we are talking about. People who visit this blog. People I am, in my own flawed way, trying to show the unwatered-down truth of Catholicism. People I count as friends.
In other words, I am a big fan of St. Paul at the Areopagus.
http://www.biblegateway.com/pass...6-28&
version=47
Can clearly hear the honk honk of this early warning signal of a case. Decisions tend to go 50-50 on religious rights- a big win for prisoners who practices devil worship, pseudo-Native American rituals, other Invent-Your-Faiths by the U.S. Supreme Court last week. But in the long run, the efforts remain by the Judicial Elite, set up by their secular humanist allies, to keep mangers from City Hall courtyards, Silent Night from Mrs. Crabtree's kindergarten holiday presentation, etc. Count me as one who believes that The Church- only one The Church- is in for some serious whuppin' in the next 20 years. We can't let the Wiccans take the lumps for us.
What's the big deal? The court order sends the kid to a Catholic school. Either way, he's going to learn Wicca.
I appreciate this post as providing a real case to reflect on the Catholic teaching on "freedom of conscience." Justice Noonan's has a recent book in which he describes the Church's reversal of the doctrine that "error has no rights" in favor of a position that puts the Church at the forefront of the right of religious conscience. Paragraph 2106 of the Catechism says:
"Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits."34 This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it."
With that teaching, I don't think that any Catholic may cavalierly deny Wiccans their right to raise their children as Wiccans. (Cf. Para. 2221- "The right and the duty of parents to educate their children are primordial and inalienable."
In short, like it or not, we Catholics are enlisted on the side of the Wiccans on this issue, and our moral duty is - absent any issue of abuse - is to condemn the decision.
If I may, I'd like to respectfully dispute Mr. Culbreath's earlier comment about Wicca having no rights: Wicca is a federally recognized and protected religion. The following page provides many links to legal examples of this: www.religioustolerance.org/wic_rel.htm
That said, I'm right along with Dale on being deeply troubled about this, both as a Wiccan and as an American. I have no children yet, but when we do, my husband and I both plan to teach them our chosen spiritual path. When that time comes, in light of this case, I sincerely hope it's still legal for us to do so, and I don't just hope that for Wicca--I hope that for any and all religions out there, "mainstream" and not. Sheesh, Canada is looking better and better...
Thanks to all here who have been even-handed with their opinions of Wicca and those who adhere to it, even if you disagree with it as a religion ("unpersuaded," as Dale tactfully put it). You give me hope for better relationships among the diverse spiritual viewpoints in this world. For those who may be... well... less even-handed, this I assure you: if our Gubbermint ever reached into YOUR home and tried to pull what this judge is trying to pull, I'd be the first at your house helping paint picket signs and organizing fundraisers for your defense fund.
Blessings,
Mr. Bradley,
Does Wicca fall within or without the area enclosed by "due limits"? This is the question each Catholic conscience must address.
Pagan,
Mr Culbreath was not referring to civil rights (those granted by the government) but rather to a different conception of rights completely independent of the civil sphere. As such, your linked article is rather worthless as a refutation.
And I am with Tom. He's going to a catholic school, he'll learn to practise neo-paganism anyway.
Pagan,
The assertion about "Wicca having no rights" is a gesture to an earlier teaching of Catholicism that "heresy has no rights". (I think that formulation comes from Pope Leo XIII.) You can't assume that the statement implies that Wiccans actually lack rights, such as the right to vote or under the First Amendment.
Mr. Jennings,
I think that the phrase about "within due limits" qualifies the idea about the permissibility of restraining "acts" of conscience, rather than the idea that people are at liberty to believe whatever they want. In other words, if Wiccans wanted to engage in human sacrifice, they would have crossed "due limits."
As I noted above, child abuse would be outside of "due limits." But failing such "acts" outside of "due limits", the Catholic Church - I believe - teaches that because "the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth", every person is entitled to freedom of conscience,and that such freedom "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it."
I have no reason to believe that this teaching excludes Jesuits, Protestants, Buddhists or Wiccans.
I think, though, that this is a very fruitful conversation because we can't understand what we don't think through.
Communicating one's thoughts requires action.
Does teaching a child an anti-human perspective qualify as a harmful act?
This isn't neccessarily about Wicca. I could just as easily pose this question about secular humanism. In fact, a Wiccan who isn't a secular humanist seems far less harmful to society than a secular humanist who happens to be pretty much anything, including Catholic.
Mr. Jennings,
I honestly don't know if you claim to be obedient to Catholic teachings.
I do. As a faithful Catholic, I can't ignore paragraphs 2106 and 2221 - which say (a) all humans are entitled to "freedom of conscience" and (b) parents have a primary right to raise their children. I conclude from this that prima facie parents can raise their chilren as Jesuits, Protestants, Buddhists or Wiccans.
That just makes sense to me on a prima facie basis. Of course, if you have a counter-argument, I will listen.
The deeper point is that if you are a faithful Catholic, your obligation ought to be be too understand the wisdom of religious freedom.
Some of those reasons have been pointed out in this thread.
Nah, why make a counterargument? You've apparently got your interpretation of the Catechism on your side and I am a dissenter.
Try making the offer in a different manner next time and we might have ground to continue discussion.
As it is, I am taking my ball of whacked-out dissent and going home.
For the record, I see no reason to assume that your position is accurate, on its face. It is entirely possible to place limits on what parents may teach their children without interfering with their right to raise said children, or their right to freedom of conscience. Just as it is possible to place limits on the disposal of property without interfering with the right to own property.
Further, while the Catechism can be said to be binding, as of course it is, that is not the same as infallible, or even wise. To argue otherwise, you would have to reconcile obvious contradictions between the 1983 ver. and the Catechism of Trent. Or demonstrate why Trent's positions are unwise. So the wisdom of religious freedom must stand or fall apart from the Catechism.
*Hint* Look to VII docs, they are conciliar and therefore free of error, when interpreted in light of Tradition coming before.
I think the most amazing thing about Mr. Bradley's response is that I make an obvious and uncontroversial statement (teaching requires action) followed by a question. A question which is then clarified as being of a general nature and not related to the immediate issue, per se.
In response, I get "I'm a faithful catholic and if you were, you'd interpret X and Y as I do. But if you think you have some sort of argument against this, I'll humour you."
I'd suggest Mr Bradley think through a great deal before he assumes he possesses any understanding whatever.
Well, since you've personalized the discussion, I assume this is the point where I say, "I'm sorry, Mr. Franklin. I didn't know you could read minds via the internet. Your ability to diagnose my psyche over long-range mind-reading is truly astounding."
But I don't think I will do that.
Instead, I'll point out that my position comes from recently reading Ninth Circute Justice John T. Noonan's book "A Church that Can and Cannot Change." One of the Catholic doctrines whose evolution Noonan traces is "religious liberty." Noonan tracks through the various encyclicals on the subject and cites to the Vatican II documents, which eventually made their way into the magisterial Catechism. (Well, I think it's magisterial, or, at least, authoritative; the imprimateur for the Catechism was provided by Cardinal Ratzinger, who I understand received something of a promotion recently.)
Now, I understand that this is a "hot button" issue - LeFebvre was thrown into dissent - and SSPX was creaed - over this very issue. (This SSPX post notes that LeFebvre signed all of the VII documents except Gaudiem et Spes and the Declaration on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae.) Whether this development reflects "true" or historic Catholicism can be argued. What cannot be argued, however, is that the dissent of SSPX and LeFebvre on this very issue is strong indication that the position that I have staked out, pace Noonan, actually reflects what the Church is teaching post Vatican II. (The syllogism is that if the Church wasn't teaching religious liberty, why go into schism on that issue.)
Frankly, until I read Noonan's book last month and Dale's post this week, I'd never pondered the import of this history. In fact, I didn't even know that SSPX's dissent from orthodox Catholicism was over Dignitatis Humanae.
But I'm willing to learn.
So, I hope that the virtue of charity might be exercised with respect to my poor and tentative struggles to learn. I will, in fact, allow that for you it might be qualify as a "heroic exercise" of charity, and that's got to be good for a few years off of the time we will both be spending in Purgatory. All I ask is that I not be tarred as an ignorant schmuck whose secret evil agenda is to undermine The True Faith. In truth, I'm trying to understand the true faith, which means coming to grips with the actual history and explicit texts of that faith.
I'm into this for truth and not to be right. Because, as much as we wish, we can't take a magic wand and turn those who disagree with us into fairy dusts.
Also, parenthetically, I've been in several discussions with advocates of the gay agenda. They, too, are quick to psycho-diagnose and thye invariably attempt to win the argumen
by engaging in similar ad hominem strategies. I have to say that this tactic is no prettier - and no more effective - coming from the right than it is coming from the left.
Having therefore reaffirmed my position that Catholicism - post Vatican II, as expressed by council documents like Dignitatis Humanae and by the magisterial Catechism - supports religious liberty, the question then becomes: does the Catholic church teach that parents have a religious liberty to raise their children in the religous faith of the parents' choosing or in no faith whatsoever?
I think the answer is clearly "yes."
First, the textual support for this conclusion has already been supplied. The Church teaches that parents have a primary right and duty to educate their children, and the Church teaches that "no one can be restrained" from acting on their convictions (apart from "due limits"). I'm hard to put to understand how preventing a parent from raising a child in the parent's faith doesn't restrain the parent's action or violate the parent's primary and inalienable right to educate his or her child.
From a natural law standpoint, if you concede that these texts reflect natural law - which they do - then preventing a parent from raising a child in a particular faith or no faith whatsoever would violate the natural rights inherent in the family as the primary right of social organization.
Another way of looking at this is to say that no one would deny that a parent could elect to raise a child without a faith tradition. The parent would be negligent in that case, the parent would be sinning, but I doubt that anyone would argue that a parent could be forced to take their children to some - any - church every week.
How is raising a child as a Wiccan worse than raising the child as a religiously empty vessel? The child's ultimate destination in either case is the same from a Catholic standpoint - and I'm not even saying "Hell", in light of the doctrine of invincible ignorance.
Finally, don't you feel even the slightest chill at the idea of the State choosing the proper religion for its adherents? I do; Dale Price does; others have as well. Doesn't that response suggest that something has gone awry in the decision that kicks offed this thread, and what has gone awry is probably that the judge is intruding on the natural rights of parents, because even pagans know what natural law requires.
I hope that helps explain something of the intellectual underpinnings for my radical suggestion that the edges of religious liberty that the Catholic church teaches might extend beyond Protestants, atheists and agnostics to Wiccans.
Sure, Mr. Bradley, it was I who personalized this discussion.
Explain how the question...
"Does teaching a child an anti-human perspective qualify as a harmful act?"...
merits the response...
"I honestly don't know if you claim to be obedient to Catholic teachings.
I do. As a faithful Catholic, I can't ignore paragraphs 2106 and 2221 - which say (a) all humans are entitled to "freedom of conscience" and (b) parents have a primary right to raise their children. I conclude from this that prima facie parents can raise their chilren as Jesuits, Protestants, Buddhists or Wiccans."
It does nothing whatsoever to actually address my question, and instead sets up a conflict between "faithful catholics" and "those who arrive at a different interpretation of the Catechism than Mr. Bradley's"
And if you don't understand what "ad hominem" means (since I haven't used any aspect of your self to dismiss your argument), perhaps the ugliness you're seeing doesn't come from right or left, but rather from within?
You have apparently confused me with others here, possibly others elsewhere as well.
For the record, I'm with Dale that this is a very disturbing decision, and a poorly thought-out one as well. I merely ask some questions so that we can come to a better understanding among us of the CCC, and I get a response about my Catholicity, and yours as well. You really need to work on something. Maybe it is spiritual, maybe it is intellectual, maybe it is just your literacy. I don't know you and can't make that judgement. But I bet those close to you might be able to help.
Mr. Jennings,
Apparently, you read my statement that I was "obedient to Catholic teachings" and that I didn't know if you were as some kind of indictment of your adherence to Catholic principles.
You should not have.
Here's something you may not know; I don't know who you are.
I know zip, zero, nada about you. For all I knew or know you are an SSPXer or a Buddhist.
So, my statement was a statement of fact, not an insult.
On the other hand, when you make declarations about my adherence to some kind of traditionalism which is immune to logic or reason, then, yes, I view that as a kind of ad hominem, because you've moved from attacking the argument to attacking the proponent of the argument. (e.g., "Don't listen to Lucius Quintillius, he has an axe to grind.") In fact, that's precisely what is meant by the term "ad hominem".
Now, to go to your question about how the question "how Does teaching a child an anti-human perspective qualify as a harmful act?"...merits the response..."I honestly don't know if you claim to be obedient to Catholic teachings."...", let me explain.
I was identifying the textual presuppositions for my position. It may surprise you to find out that that is what people to do when they are trying to have a calm discussion about basic principles. I was saying in essence, "here's the position I stake out." You could then have answered me rationally by pointing out some other text in the Catechism that supported a contrary position. Incidentally, that's why the next sentence in my response actually talks about the texts of the Catechism.
Rational discussions have to begin from some common principles - otherwise we just swap assertions. For example, if you were an SSPXer, then my attempt to persuade you with a reference to any post-VII documents would be absolutely meaningless. On the other hand, if you're a faithful Catholic, then you do have the problem of coming up with some coherent understanding of para. 2221 and 2106. Simply snorting and stomping off in high dudgeon won't do.
So, your uncharitable assumption that I was insulting you was entirely off base.
By the way, nice job of changing the discussion from principle to personality. That's always an effective way to advance a rational discussion.
Ok, you still obviously don't get it.
We can't have a rational discussion of anything if you leap off into tangents, addressing points I haven't even raised, without actually addressing the points or questions I did raise.
"Does teaching a child an anti-human perspective constitute harm?"
It is a simple and straightforward question that can be answered in one word or many. And yet your voluminous responses failed completely to answer the question. You addressed what you apparently think or assume I meant, but the question still goes unanswered.
And so, I think I am well within my rights to assume that since you won't engage in a rational discussion, instead choosing to answer whatever you have imagined I have said, there must be a reason. I stand by my diagnosis; its either spiritual, intellectual, or merely results from a failure to comprehend written english.
Regarding your "diagnosis", let me thank you for candidly admitting that you were engaging in an ad hominem strategy.
By the way, are you aware that you have changed the gist of your question in your various comments? Your previous iterations sought to draw a distinction between "act" and "belief", which I think I have adequately discussed as being spurious where freedom of conscience is concerned.
Nonetheless, the direct answer to your present question - "Does teaching a child an anti-human perspective constitute harm?" - is "yes."
Yes absolutely.
But, the further point is that notwithstanding such harm, the logic of the post-Vatican II Church's teachings apparently means that faithful Catholics are not permitted to restrain freedom of conscience, outside of "due limits", simply because a "choice" causes some "harm."
The Catechism - and I am still unclear whether you accept it as any kind of authority - makes the point that it is man's freedom of conscience which enables humans to accept responsibility for their individual acts. (See RCC para. 1781.) I think the clear cognate of this principle is that since people are free to make decision, and to be responsible for those decisions, this means that sometimes they get to make bad decisions and be responsible for those bad decisions.
Now, obviously, the education of children presents a special case since presumably a third person - the child - is being injured. But the church teaches that the family is primary to society, and that the right and duty of parents to educate their children are "inalienable." I think a principle that says one has freedom of conscience and the right to educate one's children in accordance with that conscience would be meaningless if it didn't encompass raising one's children as protestants, Buddhists or pagans.
But, hey, I'm not an absolutist here, and I don't think the Church is either. If you showed me a family that was teaching their children to ritually engage in human sacrifice, I'd warrant that we've crossed the "due limit" threshhold. I say that because I think that raising a child to be a loaded gun aimed at society is probably not conducive to social order.
On the other hand, raising children with defects in their virtues and with poor prospects for salvation seems to be a pretty common situation today.
Does this mean that faithful Catholics have to remain passive about children being raised to Wiccanism? Absolutely not. We are all called to evangalization. The greatest saints have come from worse backgrounds, after all.
But the faith that a child is raised in - while harmful - is not permanently and obviously harmful in the same sense that physically beating, molesting, starving or killing a child is.
Now, I've obviously offended you; for no reason that I can discern. I said at the outset that I viewed Dale's post as a tes
Continued..
(Sorry for not throwing in the end of the link - - but, hey, it all goes to the Catechism, which everyone should read. Hey, look, there's a preview function. Ahem, to continue...)
...post as a test case for exploring the limits of a Catholic understanding of the freedom of conscience. I've outlined my analysis based upon clearly stated texts with interpretations that are really quite conventional. I think my view is right, but I don't have any particular emotional investment in this case one way or the other.
I don't think you do either, and therefore let this be the last word, unless you have some text to offer or coherent position that you want to defend; some position, that is, other than that I'm obnoxious and ignorant, because that point has been argued far too often for it to be interesting.
I doubt anyone is reading this thread anymore, but I thought I'd throw in the two-cents of a couple of pretty smart guys (popes) who didn't think religious liberty was all that hot:
(from Quanta Cura, Pope Pius IX)
From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"* [2] viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way."
2. Gregory XVI, encyclical epistle "Mirari vos," 15 August 1832
I'd further like to posit that I know converts who've dabbled in these lesser forms of witchcraft - wicca is a nice way of saying it, but it's still a form of witchcraft - and the demonic danger here is real.
The kid's better off not being raised wiccan, in my opinion, but the decision has far-reaching and potentially frightening consequences. That being said, I still refer back to those popes of blessed memory who reminded us that "freedom of conscience" and "religious liberty" were sort of absurd concepts in light of the rock-solid and unequivocal truth of Catholicism.
Pluralism really isn't a good thing when there's only one solid path to heaven. But I'm so freaking tired I can't puzzle out another reasonable sounding sentence so I'm going to bed now.
Commenting by HaloScan
