|
(cont.)
II. The Shaping of Action Strategies
I would like to address three
topics in this section: (a) the distinction between
morality and law, (b) the importance of striking a
balance between freedom and restraint in society,
and (c) the necessity of being faithful to our vision
and values in whatever response we make to obscenity,
pornography, and indecency in our society.
A. Distinction between Moral Principles and
Law
Morality and law are
clearly related but also need to be differentiated.
Although the premises of law are found in moral principles,
the scope of law is more limited and its purpose is
not the moralization of society. Moral principles
govern personal and social human conduct and cover
as well interior acts and motivation. Civil statutes
govern public order and concern only external acts
and values that are formally social.
Hence it is not the
function of law to enjoin or prohibit everything that
moral principles enjoin or prohibit. History has shown
over and over again that people can be coerced only
into a minimum of moral actions. It would seem, therefore,
that, when we pursue a legal course of action with
regard to such matters as sexual morality, our expectations
may have to be somewhat more limited than in other
areas of human morality.
A further corollary
of this is also demonstrable from our own American
history. People obey good laws because they are good.
When a law is held in contempt, it can defeat its
own purpose and erode respect for law itself.
I am pointing this out
not as an argument against a legal response to the
problems we are addressing in this Consultation, but
simply to put such a response in perspective, to make
sure that it is sound and supportable.
B. Striking a Balance between Freedom and
Restraint
Because human freedom is such an inalienable right,
any constraint in society must be for the sake of
freedom; that is, the constraint must create a freedom
in another respect. This means that we must search
for ways to strike a balance between freedom and restraint
in society.
This is especially important when the restraint in
question involves the area of communication within
society. When we encounter sexual propaganda that
is corruptive of human freedom, we need to ask ourselves
whether the corruption is such that it requires attention
by organized society. A second set of questions concerns
whether public or private agencies in the society
should attend to the corruptive influences. And, assuming
that public order is the norm whose requirements are
to be enforced in this action, we have to ask what
requirements of public order can be applied validly
against the claims of freedom.
The reason for ensuring that restraints against the
claims of freedom are valid is that the limitation
of freedom has many consequences—some of them identifiable
only after the restraints have been imposed. One of
the main consequences possible is that we may be taking
the risk of damaging freedom in a third domain with
consequences more dangerous to the community. At best
the effect toward which we aim can only be foreseen
with probability, not certainty. We are familiar with
the biblical example of "the last state of the
man becoming worse than the first."
Let me expand on this a bit to avoid misunderstanding.
As the recipients of the Judaeo-Christian heritage,
we do not condemn every portrayal of vice. Not infrequently,
the Bible itself portrays vice and violence. The biblical
text not only records the history of salvation; it
also wrestles with the problems associated with that
history. The biblical authors did not avoid portraying
the most vicious and violent components of human behavior.
They confront this dimension of human life rather
than escape from it.
Similarly, as Richard Griffiths has pointed out,
"a refusal to experience art that often deals
with eroticism and violence may be a refusal to face
the world as it really is. But experience must lead
to confrontation, not compromise." Overprotection
can do almost as much harm as bad example in hindering
young persons who are preparing to assume their rightful
role in a human society which involves the experiences
of eroticism and violence. Their proper role, of course,
is one of confrontation rather than compromise when
human life and dignity are threatened or diminished.
I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting
that some pornography is legitimate. What I am saying
is that we need a well-reasoned approach to the problems
we are addressing with the express purpose of striking
a balance between freedom and restraint.
Only then will we find the broad base of support
needed for effective action in the legal sphere. We
may not find a simple formula that is applicable to
all cases and similar for all segments of our society.
The late Rev. John Courtney Murray, SJ., a respected
authority on church-state matters, said that "in
the United States we have constitutionally decided
that the presumption is in favor of freedom, and that
the advocate of constraint must make a convincing
argument for its necessity or utility in the particular
case." That is why the credibility of the argument
is so essential to success in these matters.
Proceeding with great care and deliberation will
help ensure an effective solution to the corruptive
influences of obscenity, pornography, and indecency
in our society. An uncritical approach runs the risk
of grossly oversimplifying the problem and is inappropriate,
given the importance of our primary concern: the worth
and dignity of the human person. Public opinion can
be changed regarding an issue like pornography to
the extent that it encounters well-reasoned articles
and oral communications as well as Christian witness
on a personal level.
Having made these comments about the care with which
we must proceed in addressing the problem of obscenity,
pornography and indecency in our society, I wish to
reaffirm the urgency of the challenge confronting
us and the need to face up to it creatively and decisively.
We need to take legal action against these corruptive
influences in our society. I accepted your invitation
to address this Consultation because I want publicly
to support your efforts.
I mentioned earlier my conviction that we must approach
the various life issues with a certain ethical consistency.
It is precisely that consistency which brings me here
this evening.
As I said in a lecture
I gave at the University of St. Louis this past March,
A consistent ethic of life does not equate the problem
of taking life with the problem of promoting human
dignity. But a consistent ethic identifies both the
protection of life and its promotion as moral questions.
It argues for a continuum of life which must be sustained
in the face of diverse and distinct threats. . . Consistency
rules out contradictory moral positions about the
unique value (and dignity) of human life.
The comprehensive moral vision, which the consistent
ethic of life promotes, demands that we work together
to eliminate the evils of obscenity, pornography,
and indecency even as we address the other evils which
threaten and diminish life in today's society.
Page 1 - 2 -
3 - 4
| 
