Michael J. Perry is University Distinguished Chair in Law, Wake Forest University. Q 2001. This essay is the basis of a lecture I was privileged to deliver at the University of Dayton School of Law on February 8, 2001. An earlier version of this essay was published elsewhere: Michael J. Perry, American Catholics and American Politics, 55 CTSA PROCEEDINGS 55 (2000).
This essay is one of a series of five essays. So as to clarify the intellectual agenda of this essay, I want to say a few words about the intellectual agenda of each of the five essays in the series. In Essay I, I address the question whether political reliance on religiously grounded morality ii, for one or another reason, illegitimate in a liberal democracy like the United States. See Michael J. Perry, Why Political Reliance on Religiously Grounded Morality Is Not Illegitimate in a Liberal Democracy, 000 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 000 (forthcoming May 2001). (Essay I is part of a symposium on Religiously Grounded Morality: Its Proper Role in American Law and Public Policy?) In particular, does the morality of liberal democracy forbid, or at least limit, such reliance? This inquiry is germane not just to the United States, but to other liberal democracies as well. The inquiry I pursue in Essay 2, however, is germane only in the United States, whose Constitution forbids government to "establish" religion: Is
political reliance on religiously grounded morality unconstitutional in the United States? See Michael J. Perry, Why Political Reliance on Religiously Grounded Morality Does Not Violate the Establishment Clause, 42 WM. & MARY L. REv. 663 (2001). (Essay 2 is part of a symposium on Religion in the Public Square.) Even if political reliance on religiously grounded morality is not illegitimate in a liberal democracy that, unlike the United States, does not have a constitutional norm forbidding government to establish religion, such reliance would nonetheless be unconstitutional in the United States if it violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. My conclusions in Essays I and 2, however, is that political reliance on religiously grounded morality is neither illegitimate in a liberal democracy nor unconstitutional in the United States. My arguments in Essays I and 2 are addressed mainly to those who hold that political reliance on religiously grounded morality is illegitimate in a liberal democracy or unconstitutional in the United States-or both. In Essays 3, 4, and 5, by contrast, my arguments are addressed mainly to religious believers who hold that political reliance on religiously grounded morality is neither illegitimate in a liberal democracy nor unconstitutional in the United States. In Essay 3, 1 argue that some religious believers-Christians-have good reason to be wary about relying on one kind of religiously grounded
morality-biblically grounded morality-in deciding whether to oppose laws or other public policies that grant official recognition to same-sex unions. See Michael J. Perry, Christians, the Bible, and SameSex Unions: An Argument for Political Self-Restraint, 000 WAKE FOREST L. REv. 000 (forthcoming May 2001). (Like Essay I, Essay 3 is part of a symposium on Religiously Grounded Morality: Its Proper Role in American Law and Public Policy?) In the present essay-Essay 4-i speak not to Christians generally, but to Roman Catholics. Roman Catholicism, which is the religious tradition that has been formative for me, is a formidable presence in American politics. I argue that Catholic citizens and legislators have good reason to make an independent judgment about some moral controversies-including the controversy over the morality of same-sex unions-rather than simply yield to whatever happens to be the official position of the Catholic Church on the contested matter. For many religious believers and others, the contemporary American debate about religion in politics is partly animated and shaped by two large controversies that are at once both moral and political in character: the controversies over same-sex unions and abortion. Addressing the issue of religion in politics without addressing those two controversies would be a little like staging a production of Hamlet without the prince. In Essay 3, 1 discuss same-sex unions as a political issue for
Christians, and in this essay (Essay 4), I use the controversy over the morality of same-sex unions to frame my argument about the responsibility of Catholic citizens and legislators. In Essay 5-which is the basis of the McElroy Lecture I was privileged to deliver at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law on April 5, 2001-1 continue to speak mainly to religious believers who hold that political reliance on religiously grounded morality is neither illegitimate in a liberal democracy nor unconstitutional in the United States; I turn to the controversy that, in the last generation, has been the most difficult and divisive of all: abortion. See Michael J. Perry, Religion, Politics, and Abortion, 000 U. DETROIT MERCY L. REV. 000 (forthcoming 2001). Moreover, the abortion controversy looms large in the background, it looms large as a subtext, of the debate about the proper role of religion in the politics of the United States. More than any other American political controversy in the second half of the twentieth century, the abortion controversy has been a principle, if sometimes unspoken, occasion of the debate about religion in politics. See generally ELIZABETH MENSCH & ALAN FREEMAN, THE POLITICS OF VIRTUE: IS ABORTION DEBATABLE? (1993).
Recommended Citation
Perry, Michael J.
(2001)
"Catholics, the Magisterium, and Moral Controversy: An Argument for Independent Judgment (with Particular Reference to Catholic Law Schools),"
University of Dayton Law Review: Vol. 26:
No.
2, Article 7.
Available at:
https://ecommons.udayton.edu/udlr/vol26/iss2/7
Comments
Michael J. Perry is University Distinguished Chair in Law, Wake Forest University. Q 2001. This essay is the basis of a lecture I was privileged to deliver at the University of Dayton School of Law on February 8, 2001. An earlier version of this essay was published elsewhere: Michael J. Perry, American Catholics and American Politics, 55 CTSA PROCEEDINGS 55 (2000). This essay is one of a series of five essays. So as to clarify the intellectual agenda of this essay, I want to say a few words about the intellectual agenda of each of the five essays in the series. In Essay I, I address the question whether political reliance on religiously grounded morality ii, for one or another reason, illegitimate in a liberal democracy like the United States. See Michael J. Perry, Why Political Reliance on Religiously Grounded Morality Is Not Illegitimate in a Liberal Democracy, 000 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 000 (forthcoming May 2001). (Essay I is part of a symposium on Religiously Grounded Morality: Its Proper Role in American Law and Public Policy?) In particular, does the morality of liberal democracy forbid, or at least limit, such reliance? This inquiry is germane not just to the United States, but to other liberal democracies as well. The inquiry I pursue in Essay 2, however, is germane only in the United States, whose Constitution forbids government to "establish" religion: Is political reliance on religiously grounded morality unconstitutional in the United States? See Michael J. Perry, Why Political Reliance on Religiously Grounded Morality Does Not Violate the Establishment Clause, 42 WM. & MARY L. REv. 663 (2001). (Essay 2 is part of a symposium on Religion in the Public Square.) Even if political reliance on religiously grounded morality is not illegitimate in a liberal democracy that, unlike the United States, does not have a constitutional norm forbidding government to establish religion, such reliance would nonetheless be unconstitutional in the United States if it violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. My conclusions in Essays I and 2, however, is that political reliance on religiously grounded morality is neither illegitimate in a liberal democracy nor unconstitutional in the United States. My arguments in Essays I and 2 are addressed mainly to those who hold that political reliance on religiously grounded morality is illegitimate in a liberal democracy or unconstitutional in the United States-or both. In Essays 3, 4, and 5, by contrast, my arguments are addressed mainly to religious believers who hold that political reliance on religiously grounded morality is neither illegitimate in a liberal democracy nor unconstitutional in the United States. In Essay 3, 1 argue that some religious believers-Christians-have good reason to be wary about relying on one kind of religiously grounded morality-biblically grounded morality-in deciding whether to oppose laws or other public policies that grant official recognition to same-sex unions. See Michael J. Perry, Christians, the Bible, and SameSex Unions: An Argument for Political Self-Restraint, 000 WAKE FOREST L. REv. 000 (forthcoming May 2001). (Like Essay I, Essay 3 is part of a symposium on Religiously Grounded Morality: Its Proper Role in American Law and Public Policy?) In the present essay-Essay 4-i speak not to Christians generally, but to Roman Catholics. Roman Catholicism, which is the religious tradition that has been formative for me, is a formidable presence in American politics. I argue that Catholic citizens and legislators have good reason to make an independent judgment about some moral controversies-including the controversy over the morality of same-sex unions-rather than simply yield to whatever happens to be the official position of the Catholic Church on the contested matter. For many religious believers and others, the contemporary American debate about religion in politics is partly animated and shaped by two large controversies that are at once both moral and political in character: the controversies over same-sex unions and abortion. Addressing the issue of religion in politics without addressing those two controversies would be a little like staging a production of Hamlet without the prince. In Essay 3, 1 discuss same-sex unions as a political issue for Christians, and in this essay (Essay 4), I use the controversy over the morality of same-sex unions to frame my argument about the responsibility of Catholic citizens and legislators. In Essay 5-which is the basis of the McElroy Lecture I was privileged to deliver at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law on April 5, 2001-1 continue to speak mainly to religious believers who hold that political reliance on religiously grounded morality is neither illegitimate in a liberal democracy nor unconstitutional in the United States; I turn to the controversy that, in the last generation, has been the most difficult and divisive of all: abortion. See Michael J. Perry, Religion, Politics, and Abortion, 000 U. DETROIT MERCY L. REV. 000 (forthcoming 2001). Moreover, the abortion controversy looms large in the background, it looms large as a subtext, of the debate about the proper role of religion in the politics of the United States. More than any other American political controversy in the second half of the twentieth century, the abortion controversy has been a principle, if sometimes unspoken, occasion of the debate about religion in politics. See generally ELIZABETH MENSCH & ALAN FREEMAN, THE POLITICS OF VIRTUE: IS ABORTION DEBATABLE? (1993).