Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
Moral Medicine

Moral Medicine

Last updated on: August 4, 2020 at 11:34 am by John Mark N. Reynolds

Moral Medicine 2020-08-04T11:34:45-04:00 John Mark N. Reynolds

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Morality uses medicine, but so does immorality.

When I was a little boy, I knew a man who had been given “medical treatment” by the State of New York in the name of science. The brain surgery he received had more to do with his race and secular attitudes toward humanity at the time than any illness. It left him permanently unable to live in society. At the same time, I know medical doctors and nurses who take their time to sacrificially travel to nations like Rwanda to give medical care.

Science may say that a certain treatment will “cure” a particular disease, but humanity must decide what should be done. Doctors are powerful and have a great deal of knowledge, but even if they knew everything about the human body, it would tell them nothing about what humanity should want for itself.

Catholic hospitals do not base their moral attitudes on magical moral thinking. They do not pretend that medicine miraculously can pull “ought” from “is.” Catholic scholars know that what we should do is not the same as what we can do.

I am not a Roman Catholic and do not agree with all the conclusions that Church has reached in morality. However, I do not pretend that my disagreement with the Church is over medicine, but over morality. When the state decides to impose its moral vision on a charitable group that heals millions around the world, free men and women must oppose it.

If science cannot be the basis of morality, then what will be?

Majority rule is a bad basis for moral decisions. The majority of our ruling class agrees as is evidenced by their refusal to accept voters opinions on issues they think matters of conscience. The tyranny of an immoral mob can be as bad as a solitary tyrant and do more cultural damage.

Education is helpful, but educational institutions can produce group think just as much as any other group of humans. Most educational institutions in the United States are dominated by one philosophical point of view: secularism. Catholic and other Christian schools represent another perspective from thoughtful and well educated people. Teaching hospitals in those schools give an alternative moral perspective to the medical community. Forcing them to conform, based on political power, is dangerous to liberty.

One reason many Christian conservatives oppose state control of medicine or the growing state subsidy of medicine is this very fear: politicians will be making deeply personal moral decisions. Christians prefer to leave most of those decisions to individual institutions.

With the Founders of America, we think small government safeguards our moral options. We do draw the line when it comes to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

With the Founders, small government Christians understand human happiness as the liberty to do good and to flourish as a human being physically, intellectually, and spiritually.

George Washington was right when he wrote about morality in his Farewell Address to our nation, words read in our Senate every year since the Civil War:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”

If Mitt Romney or Joe Biden said this, certain members of our ruling class would call him a “dominionist” and worry about a coming theocracy!

Instead, from the founding of our nation, Americans chose to assume a broad Judeo-Christian morality with as much liberty under that system for others such as skeptics to live as they pleased. Of course, there were inconsistencies in the application of this standard from the start. Slavery was the original sin of the Republic that broke the basic rights to life and liberty and removing it cost the nation dearly.

Yet remove slavery the Republic did with overt appeals by political leaders such as Lincoln to the American religious consensus. On most issues, Lincoln and his party were willing to allow humans liberty and choice, but not on this issue.

His successors kept that bargain. Utah could not become a state until it met the moral norms of the rest of the nation. Franklin Roosevelt had no hesitation in appealing to religiously based morals in the Second World War. Prohibition was a jarring modern inconsistency when the religious majority, with strong support from progressives, went too far and imposed its morality on minority groups such as Roman Catholics.

Medical facts were used to support that imposition on liberty, that alcohol consumption is a health risk is a medical fact, but that such risks should be illegal is a moral and not a medical choice.
As Prohibition demonstrated, as long as government remains small, compromise is possible, but the swollen progressive state threatens all moral minorities. Progressive secularists are playing with fire now by threatening Catholic hospitals. An unwise and ungenerous coalition of religious groups might be tempted to use the same punitive tools if they come to power.

Practicing Catholics are a moral minority in the United States, but most other religious groups, including smaller groups like the Amish, the United States under Washington’s vision always found a way to come to terms with them. Now an odd notion that morality can easily be divorced from religion has become trendy and threatens this happy and peaceful accommodation.

The story of the United States has been making Washington’s vision more consistent and real for more people. Imposing an alien morality on Catholic hospitals, truer to the Founders than the innovators, risks our heritage for no real gain. True sons and daughters of liberty stand in solidarity with their Catholic brothers and sisters on this issue.

Apologetics

Culture

Spiritual Reflections

Previous Post

July 31, 2020

Whit Had Great Value to God (Thoughts from Dad)

Next Post

August 2, 2020 Question Everything

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Apologetics Art Culture Education On Books On Education Philosophy Politics Pop Culture Spiritual Reflections Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 July 2025 June 2025 September 2024 July 2024 June 2024 December 2023 June 2023 September 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How many days was Jesus tempted in the wilderness?

Select your answer to see how you score.

40 days 60 days 30 days 50 days

Books by This Author John Mark Reynolds

See All Titles »