Illinois Supreme Court Allows Pharmacies’ Right Of Conscience Case To Go Forward

These are the kind of hypothetical arguments that we cannot engage in at this time and that the Church does not want to engage in either. I guess we have to deal with these if and when they arise.

I have not changed my mind. I simply calirified it for better understanding. These posts don’t allow much room for one to write a complete thesis on a point, if you know what I mean.

JR :slight_smile:

[quote="JReducation]These posts don’t allow much room for one to write a complete thesis on a point, if you know what I meanJR:)

I’ll grant that.

I’m a little baffled by this statement. I don’t know of any evidence that the Church doesn’t want to engage in particular hypothetical arguments. One of the things that I consider great about the Church is the intellectual richness that has in the past, and continues to engage in all manner of hypothetical arguments.

I also don’t understand why you claim we cannot engage in such arguments at this time. It seems to me crucial to establishing a coherent line of reasoning, and a consistent course of action on the issue of government restrictions of licensed professionals’ rights of conscience.

It’s not a very good argument for me to say this is how things should be, because that’s how I like it - I should be able to provide logic to back the argument. Just as importantly, I should be able to either accept the conclusion when the argument is carried to its extreme, or I should be prepared to amend that argument with a limitation, itself backed by logic.

It seems to me that if we accept that the government has no right to interfere with ethical choices by its citizens, except when those choices violate others’ human rights, we either must accept that citizens also have the right to discriminate against Catholics when compelled by their faith, or we must inflate the meaning of human rights to prevent any type of discrimination on the basis of religion. In which case, we can’t very well allow discrimination against those whose conscience dictates they need particular medications.

I think it’s far better to accept that the state can compel those it licenses to perform certain acts, even if they violate the conscience of the professional. The more logical battleground is what acts are reasonable for the state to compel, not whether the state can do so at all.

The Church has never made it its practice to engage in hypothetical arguments. She debates hypotheses, which is different. These she can approach using the scientific and socratic method. Such hypotheses must be on the table, before the Church engages.

As to the rights of the State, the Church clearly defines that that State has no rights over the conscience and religious freedom of its citizens, regardless of whether it is Catholics or others who are affected by that conscience. For the Church believes that the voice of conscience must always be obeyed. The individual has the obligatioin to do what he or she believes is the moral good. The State does not have the right to interfere in that judgment.

The individual must not engage in moral evil and claim that it is the voice of conscience, for conscience does not dictate evil, it only dictates what it perceives to be good, even though it may appear to be evil from an objective perspective and may even be so. Nonetheless, the conscience does not know so. It is the voice of the conscience that the Church is protecting.

Such protection is necessary for the Church’s own good. If the voice of cosncience were subject to the judgment of the State, where does the reach of the state end?

The issue here is not whether a pharmacist may discriminate against Catholics for religious reasons, but whether the State can discriminate againstr its citizen’s religious faith.

JR :slight_smile:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit