-
Earth Day 2013: The Papal Edition
April 22, 2013 | 22 comments
-
Is God a Methodist?
April 15, 2013 | 57 comments
-
A Status Quo Budget at Best
April 11, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Marriage Issue Will Not Go Away
April 2, 2013 | 87 comments
-
Shakespeare’s Henry V Commands the Stage
March 11, 2013 | 10 comments
Another Perspective
We Hold These Truths Because They Are True
John Courtney Murray’s essays still resonate 50 years later.
The proper bafflers are the ambiguists. Their flashes of
insights are frequent enough; but in the end the fog closes down.
They are great ones for the facts, against the fundamentalists, and
great ones of “conscience,” against the cynics. They insist on the
values of pragmatism against the absolutists; but they resent the
suggestion that they push pragmatism to the point of relativism of
moral values.
— John
Courtney Murray, S.J. (September 12, 1904-August 16,
1967)
We should not let the year end without noting the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of an American classic of political philosophy, one that combines both an appreciation of the unique nature of the American project with a profound understanding of the eternal verities of natural law reasoning, a mode of thought and discourse embedded in the nation’s founding documents but otherwise banished from the halls of our great secular universities.
In 1960 the venerable publishing house of Sheed and Ward released We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition by John Courtney Murray, S.J. It was a series of essays exploring “the American Proposition” which Abraham Lincoln cited in the opening lines of his Gettysburg Address.
Father Murray understood that, even in the 1950s, “the serene, and often naïve, certainties of the eighteenth century have crumbled.” Thus, the “self-evident” truths of the Declaration of Independence “may be legitimately questioned.”
“What ought not to be questioned, however, is that the American Proposition rests on the forthright assertion of a realist epistemology,” asserts Murray. “The sense of the famous phrase is simply this: ‘There are truths, and we hold them, and we here lay them down as the basis and inspiration of the American project, this constitutional commonwealth.’” Over and against positivists, Marxists and pragmatists, the Founding Fathers thought that “the life of man in society under government is founded on truths, on a certain body of objective truth, universal in its import, accessible to the reason of man, definable, defensible.”
“If this assertion is denied, the American Proposition is, I think, eviscerated at one stroke,” argues Murray. “For the pragmatists there are, properly speaking, no truths; there are only results. But the American Proposition rests on the more traditional conviction that there are truths; that they can be known; that they must be held; for, if they are not held, assented to, consented to, worked into the texture of institutions, there can be no hope of founding a true City, in which men may dwell in dignity, peace, unity, justice, well-being, freedom.”
Murray says “we hold these truths because they are true. They have been found in the structure of reality by that dialectic of observation and reflection which is called philosophy.”
In the Catholic world prior to Vatican II, the issue of American religious pluralism was problematic. Indeed, Father Murray’s writings were restrained from time to time by Rome. Yet, as can be seen in the teachings of Benedict XVI and John Paul II, the American constitutional system is now viewed as a positive good, not out of any tolerance for moral relativism, but due to a greater appreciation of the handiwork of James Madison, the First Amendment, “a great act of political intelligence” according to Murray.
As a matter of historic fact, “pluralism was the native condition of American society.” Yet, the first truth to which the American Proposition makes appeal in the Declaration of Independence (“that landmark of Western political philosophy”) basically asserts “the sovereignty of God over nations as well as over individual men,” hardly a Jacobin or laicist position. Recall that language of inalienable rights coming from a Creator.
Murray takes a phrase from Boswell’s Dr. Johnson to characterize the first two articles of the First Amendment, forbidding the establishment of a state religion and protecting the free exercise of religious practice, as “articles of peace,” not articles of faith in our pluralist society. Although today, decades later, it may seem like a commonplace observation, he believed that the “goodness” of the amendment was “manifested not only by political but also religious experience. By and large (for no historical record is without blots) it has been good for religion, for Catholicism, to have had simply the right to freedom.”
Absolutists, calling for walls and moats and the elimination of religion from the public square, forget that the First Amendment was designed to protect religious freedom, not to undermine it.
“The American Catholic is on good ground when he refuses to make an ideological idol out of religious freedom and separation of church and state, when he refuses to ‘believe’ in them as articles of faith,” writes Father Murray. “He takes the highest ground available in this matter of the relations between religion and government when he asserts that his commitment to the religion clauses of the Constitution is a moral commitment to them as articles of peace in a pluralist society.”
We Hold These Truths is not merely a book about limited “Catholic” interests in the American political system but a sustained defense of reason and rationale discourse in a civil society. In it Murray argues for the necessity and universality of natural law reasoning which provides a cogent basis for governing the commonwealth.
“The doctrine of natural law has no Roman Catholic presuppositions,” says Murray. “Its only presupposition is threefold: that man is intelligent; that reality is intelligible; and that reality, as grasped by intelligence, imposes on the will the obligation that it be obeyed in its demands for action or abstention.”
Rejecting John Locke’s abstract, isolated individualism, Murray believes that natural law “regards the community as a ‘given’ equally with the person.” Moreover, “Man is regarded as a member of an order instituted by God, and subject to the laws that make the order an order-laws that derive from the nature of man, which is essentially social as it is individual.”
“Law is not simply the protection of rights but their source, because it is the foundation of duties,” says Murray.
Murray had a keen intellect, steeped in the classical and Western traditions once common among Jesuits of his stature. He was comfortable arguing politics, theology, national defense policy and history. He challenged assumptions of both the Left and Right. He offered precise and subtle arguments that have been used and, sometimes, misused by both sides in debates over different issues over the years. But his faith in the inherent reasonableness of God and man is a welcome tonic to the corrosive anti-intellectualism, power politics and relativism of the present age.
About the Author
G. Tracy Mehan, III served at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the administrations of both Presidents Bush. He is a consultant in Arlington, Virginia, and an adjunct professor at George Mason University School of Law.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.29.10 @ 7:15AM
G. Tracy,
Would you consent to going back to the EPA under a Palin presidency?
Shawn| 12.29.10 @ 9:36PM
Profound article / argument in regards to separation and church and state....just purchased Father Murrays essays! Why isnt this philosophy taught in our American educational sys...HA!
Vern Crisler| 12.29.10 @ 8:53AM
"Father Murray understood that, even in the 1950s, "the serene, and often naïve, certainties of the eighteenth century have crumbled." Thus, the "self-evident" truths of the Declaration of Independence "may be legitimately questioned."
"Rejecting John Locke's abstract, isolated individualism, Murray believes that natural law "regards the community as a 'given' equally with the person." Moreover, "Man is regarded as a member of an order instituted by God, and subject to the laws that make the order an order-laws that derive from the nature of man, which is essentially social as it is individual."
----
I submit that this is why Murray did not understand America or its founding. A rejection of Lockean political philosophy and its corollary the American Declaration of Independence is in essence to reject the founding.
In that sense, Murray is no better than a run-of-the-mill neo-confederate.
David T| 12.29.10 @ 11:33AM
Au contraire. Mr. Mehan makes clear that Fr. Murray understood the basis for the American founding in a much deeper sense than mere Lockean social contract theory. As Mehan says, "...Murray argues for the necessity and universality of natural law reasoning which provides a cogent basis for governing the commonwealth." Murray did not somehow reject the founding--he put it on a much firmer philosophical basis, as Mehan explains.
Vern Crisler| 12.29.10 @ 9:26PM
I’m amazed at the ignorance so many have regarding Locke.
In fact, Locke adhered to the concept of natural law, as did the American founders. Locke said:
"To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions, and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man." (Second Treastise, II:4)
WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW OF NATURE.
By claiming that man is a social animal (or Aristotle's political animal), Murray is essentially denying the social contract theory that was the background presupposition of Locke and the founders.
In the view of Locke and the founders, man only becomes a political animal by way of agreement (the social contract), not because it was imposed upon him from outside.
In addition, Locke said, "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." (ST, II:6.)
THE STATE OF NATURE HAS A LAW OF NATURE TO GOVERN IT
Just before this, Locke favorably quoted "the judicious Hooker" who spoke of the principles of charity and justice as being derived from the principle of equality in nature. Locke commented that natural equality is the:
"foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men, on which he [Hooker] builds the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the great maxims of justice and charity." (ST, II:5.)
A man does not have an obligation to love, or to render justice to, hogs or cattle, because they are not his natural equals. But man is equal to man in nature, and from this the duties of justice and charity among men have their essential foundation.
By rejecting Locke, Murray rejected the American founding as thoroughly as Jefferson Davis did, or as any others of a similar mindset, continue to do.
MBD| 12.29.10 @ 1:48PM
While the Declaration utilized the rhetoric and framework of Locke, Locke's political theories find no home in the Constitution. You might profitably review the writings of W. Kendall - both a leading scholar on Locke's political philosophy and a scholar of the American founding political philosophy - on this subject. Those who attempt to find Lockean influence in the the constiutional structure generally misinterpret Locke.
Vern Crisler| 12.29.10 @ 9:50PM
Again, I’m appalled at the ignorance displayed here at AmSpec regarding Locke.
I’m not sure what the Roman Catholic Kendall has to offer other than to misinterpret Locke in the way that Murray did. Perhaps his trashing of the principle of equality -- the foundation of American governance -- is what you like about him, no?
The main sources for the founding fathers were Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Locke. Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws (1748) argued for a separation of powers, and that’s why he’s the most cited by the Constitutional framers, who wanted to set up checks and balances in the U.S. Constitution.
Locke was obviously cited more during the Revolutionary period, even quoted verbatim. Nevertheless, as the Whig philosopher par excellence, the framers gave great weight to his political views.
Even Wikipedia knows that Locke influenced both the Declaration and Constitution:
“Locke also advocated governmental separation of powers and believed that revolution is not only a right but an obligation in some circumstances. These ideas would come to have profound influence on the Constitution of the United States and its Declaration of Independence.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke
John Flaherty| 12.30.10 @ 1:39PM
Mr. Crisler,
I am not a philosopher, nor do I have any particular training in the field, so I can't confirm or reject your view.
I CAN say this though: Whatever the philosophical fine points may be, Father Murray appears to me to have understood the American intention quite well. I would suggest, in fact, that whether Father Murray understood Locke correctly or not, or whether he wholly accepted the Declaration or not, he doesn't appear to me to have demolished the founding of the nation.
If the Declaration wasn't perfect--political documents seldom (rarely?) are--it still possessed enough truth for a nation to begin to seek a virtuous path.
If I might ask, what on earth do you mean with regard to a run-of-the-mill neo-confederate?
John2| 12.31.10 @ 4:31PM
@ John Flaherty:
Ha, ha, "a run-of-the-mill neo-confederate" -- you beat me to that very good closing question.
But seriously, folks, Mr. Crisler is playing with you. Look at his style through a few posts. Mr. Crisler reveals that Fr. Murray doesn't understand America. FT posters/reader/commenters are ignorant.
It is a game. You can see the objective.
David L. Hagen| 12.29.10 @ 9:43AM
By acts enabling new States since the civil war, all States mutually required/agreed that new constitutions
‘shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.’
Those foundational principles of organic law must guide interpretation of all constitutions and law.
See acts enabling AL, AZ, CO, HI, MT, NE, NV, NM, ND, OK, SD, UT, & WA
Federalist| 12.29.10 @ 10:55AM
The strongest voices for liberty have been "Natural Law" believer Clarence Thomas,Anton Scalia etc. It is interesting that they are criticised for being Roman Catholics.
Considering "Maria Monk" and Paul Blanshard, this is one hell of an Irony!
PattyMor| 12.29.10 @ 2:26PM
How "catholic" can Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin and all the others in the Demon Party who advocate for abortion and gay marriage really be?? I think they must go to church, but what type of religion to they actually practice or do they just wear on the outside it like another new suit?
SF_Exile| 12.29.10 @ 2:46PM
They all fall back on an incorrect interpretation of the "follow your conscience" blather coupled with that now over used catch phrase "social justice". Catholic social justice doctrine, at least as I understand it, does not contradict or undermine the basics of Catholic belief.
David T| 12.29.10 @ 3:35PM
You are so right. Catholic social justice theory is based in charity, i.e., love of neighbor. We are not equally gifted, therefore we must share what we have with others. It starts with the individual and works upward through family, business, church, and other charitable organizations. Government-forced redistribution, pace our "liberal" friends, was never an element of social justice theory.
Mike Rogers| 12.29.10 @ 5:44PM
Ken,
Damn, he's good, but the right response is "I'd rather close down the EPA"!
Nearly all the big federal agencies have either outlived their usefulness, or they were not useful to begin with.
I would like to see most agencies either closed, or reduced to an advisory capacity where Congress gets to make the laws - if they can sell the voters on them.
Dale Cord| 12.30.10 @ 10:00AM
2011 a year that will live in Infamy. Future school history books will read: The year the Muslims conquered the United States of America. With not so much as a whimper from its cowardly military leaders, and name calling armchair patriots. Disgraceful,Shameful there are no words to adequately describe her defeat. As the 300 Spartans strength and ingenuity conquered all of those who challenged them, so a small band of renegades conquered the greatest country the world has known. When Davids rock slued Goliath. It also foretold a warning. "The bigger they are,the harder they Fall." Our country lost its battle of survival when it became intoxicated with its deceptive mentality, that it did not need its Creator anymore, and wisdom no longer was apart of its citizens physiology to survive.
John Flahrty| 12.30.10 @ 1:27PM
I think that might be a bit overly pessimistic, Dale.
While there's legitimate cause for concern RE the Muslim influence, I think you underestimate the virtue of most people in this nation.
I suspect that, for the Muslims to assume political control that quickly, they'd need to either persuade the President to declare martial law and impose Sharia, or the Muslim population would need to take over the courts, et al and toss the Constitution that way.
Either direction, I suspect much of America would rebel, thereby causing us to descend into a bloody civil war. Deadly and ugly perhaps, but you wouldn't see the Islamic faith take over quite as easily as you suggest.
Dale Cord| 12.30.10 @ 2:30PM
John.... I hate to break the news but your president is a Muslim, and check the background of his administration or czar as he calls them. Hello!
J0hn Flaherty| 12.30.10 @ 3:51PM
Mr. Cord,
That's President, with a capital "P".
I and many others are well aware of the President's religious difficulties and his appointees.
I think you miss my point.
We aren't living under Sharia law now and I suspect there'd be armed rebellion against it if the President attempted it.
Don't forget, there're legal moves afoot to address the abuses of the Constitution that've purported to enable Muslim rule.
Publius| 12.31.10 @ 11:31AM
Actually, John, capitalized or not; both are correct given the author's intent.
Vern Crisler| 1.2.11 @ 12:22PM
No, I don't think President Obama is a Muslim. I think he's a basketball player.
Dale Cord| 12.30.10 @ 8:04PM
John, the very idea of a Muslim trying to dictate to our Justice system their violent radical Islamic crap, even in one of our 50 States, is the epitome of arrogance and disrespect for our country and its constitution. In Oklahoma a Muslim has gone against the majority of the states vote, to keep Sharia law out of their state, and now these enemies of America and our way of life are appealing that victory. It should make every Americans blood boil to the point of running these Insolent Bastards out of our country. The illegal Mexicans have challenged our English language to the point that our elected official, think they have a valid reason to put to a vote what should be the spoken language in America. Our culture,Laws,way of life is under attack and all you and others can do is to look for spelling mistakes or letters that should be Capitalized. I would laugh out loud if it were not so tragic. Your not the Americans of my generation. Your a bunch of Liberal hypocrites trying to pass yourselves off as American patriots.(aware of the President's religious difficulties and his appointees.) "Religious Difficulties" is that what you think it is John? Doesn't sound so bad or threatening when you say it like that, does it? Your probably one of those "POLITICALLY CORRECT CRAP SCHOLARS ALSO. with a BA in BS if you know what I mean. Now go and get your dictionary out, to see if anything in this post has been misspelled.
John Flaherty| 12.31.10 @ 5:34AM
Good Morning, Mr. Cord,
Regarding Muslims and Sharia law, would you prefer to see Nancy Pelosi attempt to inflict her version of Catholic faith? I sure don't, mostly because she's about as Catholic as a rock, but in general, I don't support requiring all Americans to follow Catholic Canon Law. Theocracy doesn't work very well.
I'm also as enraged as you regarding the misappropriation of language and culture that the Hispanic community has inflicted for some time. I found it quite mind-boggling during the late 80's and early 90's (when I was in high school) to see Hispanics insisting on their cultural identity, at the direct expense of all others, and Catholic clergy not only didn't confront them, but even insinuated intolerance on our part if we didn't jump on board. I'm not on the best of terms with Hispanic activists, to say the least!
..And, for what it's worth, I'm saddened that you didn't understand what I meant with regard to the President's religious affiliations. Honestly, I'm not sure he HAS religious affiliations, outside of what he can manipulate for image purposes. I merely wished to express his negligence in somewhat less rancorous terms. My apologies.
I think Mr. Obama's "religious" ideas demonstrate more anti-virtue than virtue.
Even so..what would you have me do? Or what should this nation do?
Should we play Gestapo for several years, round up all those nasty Muslims and Hispanics, ride them out of town, dump them just across the Rio Grande? Should we really inflict a humanitarian crisis on top of all the other problems we've got?
As I mentioned before, we have some problems to address. But let's thoroughly exhaust ALL civilized options first. I remember when I was in college, a few of us were pondering whether a second civil war might be brewing within our lifetimes. Most of the trends we saw were indicating a good chance. As of '97, we figured we had maybe 25 years before armed conflict broke out. That was 13 years ago. I'm not sure we were wrong. In fact we might've been optimistic. If the state of the Union doesn't improve within 5 years, we may have violence begin early.
I do hope though, that we ultimately will find other solutions. In fact, I pray for it, or I should be. For all that wars will resolve political issues one way or another, they tend to be very destructive, especially if the rage on both sides has grown deep and hot. I dread what a civil war could inflict on our People today. It wouldn't be pretty.
Precisely how thirsty for blood are you, really?
BTW, for the record, I'm not very liberal at all. Much to the chagrin of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, I think. I suffered through three years of that nonsense while earning my undergrad (a BS in weather).
Regrettably, the experience caused me to lose 90% of the respect I've ever had for academia and teachers. I can only tolerate so much bull for so long before I summarily dismiss it entirely.
Dale Cord| 12.31.10 @ 1:56PM
Mr.Flaherty, Your opening statement to me as to what I would prefer religiously is puzzling.( Regarding Muslims and Sharia law, would you prefer to see Nancy Pelosi attempt to inflict her version of Catholic faith? ) Nancy Pelosi is a product of a government that has been out of control since the Sixties. The bought and paid for Presidency of John Kennedy by the immense financial wealth acquired by his racketeering father Joseph, bought him the Oval office. Wealth no matter in whose hands it may fall controls the outcome of a countries destiny. In the hands of the Atheistic and criminally insane, as we are witnessing here in the 21st century, billionaire George Soros along with wealthy Muslims have already gained a huge foot hold in some British communities, by establishing at least 15 if not more courts, operating under Sharia Law, through the bribery of those in control of their judicial system. This treason and lawlessness by our Presidents going back to Woodrow Wilson, has been a slow subtle and meticulous conspiracy to enslave our citizens as did (Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, Mao Zedong, Stalin, Paul Potts,) and the list is never ending. Always leaving the citizenry of their broken countries to bury multiple millions of their neighbors, friends and relatives by the heinous crimes committed against humanity in the aftermath of their insanity. Now here in the 21st century history is repeating its self again with Obama at the helm of another Titanic racing through uncharted waters with his band of Chicago gangsters. Hell bent on destroying America, its freedoms and all she stands for by their mental disorder, and the disillusionment of the same ideology the aforementioned communist leaders succumb to. As for religion, I do not endorse or am I an advocate of any organized Religion. However what made this country the recipients of wealth, prosperity, and the abundance of material riches, came into our procession by those who can truly call themselves Christians, through worship and heartfelt prayer to the Creator of all, and who inspired not only Mathew, Mark, Luke and John as witness to are blessings for our conduct and curses for our disobedience is well documented in the book of Life. Those who drew up our documents of Individual freedoms Our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights were also inspired by the one who inspired the 12 Apostles 2000 years ago, to add those check and balances to seal the fate of future generation to remain free to pursue a decent life, (without the threat of a corruptible parasitical government raping and pilfering their family and processions) under the umbrella of those laws. Now we have in our mist 9 men and women appointed by misguided Presidents of the past and present, who haven’t the least idea of the consequences of there thoughtless decisions in dissecting and dismantling our sacred documents preserving our freedoms. These Supreme Court Justices and their incompetence and recklessness have brought about the death of 75 million babies inside the womb and outside since Roe V Wade. The Supreme Court came into existence to interpret what our fore fathers meant in these documents all Americans should hold sacred for our survival. Instead we have allowed these criminals to add what they feel will give them unlawful authority over the masses in America to violate their very person, and that of their loved ones. Yes blood shed is required to remain free in any country were oppressive and ruthless murderers stand in the way of what has been given to us all, by our Creator in 1779 America until the end of civilization.
Felix| 1.1.11 @ 5:59PM
Those who believe in natural law and objective truth are in the minority. To most Americans, truth is whatever they can rationalize. This is how the Obamanation (which causes desolation), ocurred. There is never any point in even carrying on a conversation with these people as the truth keeps moving around in their head. Until they accept that truth can exist outside of their own head, they will never understand natural law, and therefore the founding ideals of out country.
Adult toys | 7.4.11 @ 4:04AM
Q:what is the strongest muscle?
A:the tongue—it can raise a woman’s hips.
Q:what is the lightest muscle?
A:the penis—it can be raised by a tongue.