Frequently Asked Questions
- Why is the statement called the "Manhattan Declaration"?
The earliest draft of the statement was presented at a meeting of Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and Evangelical religious leaders in Manhattan in late September, 2009. The document became known as the Manhattan Declaration.
- How were Christian Leaders approached about signing this? What was the process?
Various Catholic, Evangelical, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican leaders who were specially admired by the organizers of the New York meeting for their public witness on behalf of justice, human rights, and the common good were invited to join in shaping the Manhattan Declaration. Additional religious leaders who share their deep commitments have been and are being invited to join them as signatories.
- By signing the Manhattan Declaration am I somehow endorsing the theology of other faith traditions or compromising my understanding of the Gospel?
There are serious differences between the Catholic, Protestant evangelical and Orthodox traditions on many theological issues and devotional practices. However, none of those differences are alluded to in any way in the Manhattan Declaration, nor do any of the original signers believe they were compromising their respective positions by signing it. The drafting committee was careful to achieve complete harmony of all three traditions—Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant evangelical—on the critical issues addressed in the declaration, and on those issues only. This was accomplished by making sure every assertion in the declaration is rooted in the Holy Scriptures they share in common. In the final analysis, the Manhattan Declaration is simply a declaration of the signers’ common stand on life, marriage, and liberty. To read anything more into it would be contrary to the intention of the drafters and the nearly 150 leaders who signed it originally.
- How do you respond to those Christian individuals and groups criticizing others for not signing the Manhattan Declaration, and those criticizing others for signing it?
The purpose of the declaration is simply to speak with one voice on the most pressing moral issues of our day. Those who released the Manhattan Declaration view it simply as a statement of solidarity about only the social issues it addresses. It is extremely unfortunate that anyone who claims to follow Christ might attack another for either signing or not signing it. The focus of Christian criticism should be on the secular world rather than on each other.
- Isn’t this just a Republican initiative? How many of the signers would identify themselves as Democrats?
There is nothing in the least partisan about this Declaration. The signatories include Republicans, Democrats, and people affiliated with no political party. In most cases, we do not know the signatories’ political affiliations, if any. What unites those involved is a commitment to the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of human beings in all stages and in all conditions; a belief in the sanctity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife; and respect for religious liberty and the claims of that "stern monitor," as Newman described it, known as conscience. There are people in both major parties who affirm these great principles, and, alas, people in both parties who deny them.
- The document mentions growing support for assisted suicide and "voluntary" euthanasia of the elderly and disabled. Are there examples or evidence of that?
Voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide have been on the ballots in several states. Assisted suicide is legal today in the states of Oregon and Washington, as well as in several European nations. Many prominent political philosophers and public intellectuals have argued for assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia in the name of compassion and respecting individual liberty. In 1997, six of our nation’s most influential secular philosophers filed a brief in the United States Supreme Court actually asking the justices to declare assisted suicide to be a constitutionally protected right. Fortunately, the justices unanimously declined that invitation, thus leaving the issue to be resolved in the forums of democracy in the individual states. We believe that Christians should join hands with their fellow citizens to stop assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia from spreading, and to roll them back where they have prevailed.
- Isn’t this declaration really an attack on gays and on women’s rights?
No, it is an affirmation of biblical truths, truths also accessible to natural reason, which exclude sexual immorality and the taking of human life, but which at the same time require us to love—truly, fully, and ungrudgingly—those who violate them. We affirm the full human dignity even of those who falter, fail, and fall short of all the love of God and neighbor require. How could we do otherwise? As the Declaration expressly notes, we, no less than they, are sinners who are in need of God’s forgiveness and mercy. We do not view the demands of justice and the common good as being in conflict with the duty to love and respect those who disagree with us, and even those who do what we believe is incompatible with justice and their own human dignity.
- What are some examples of the acts of "civil disobedience"?
Over the years, the phrase has been used in somewhat different ways by different people, leading to some confusion. At the core of the concept as we understand and defend it, is the principled refusal to comply with laws that require one to do things which, in conscience, one believes to be unjust or otherwise immoral, and to be prepared patiently and non-violently to suffer the penalties or legal disabilities that result from one’s non-compliance. So, for example, if a law imposes on pharmacists a duty to dispense abortifacient drugs, and if a pro-life pharmacist believes that his or her compliance with the legal duty would itself constitute a grave injustice towards victim—the developing human being whose death the drugs would be used to cause—then he or she must not comply, even if this means suffering the penalty of being legally disabled from continuing his or her career as a pharmacist. The signatories to the Manhattan Declaration side with Socrates in saying that it is better to suffer a wrong than to do it. Like Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, we affirm that where one refuses to comply with an unjust law, one must do it "openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty." One must not resort to violence. As Dr. King said, "an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."
- Do you fully support the right of others to engage in acts of civil disobedience, say proponents of gay marriage, opponents of war, etc?
Yes, and on the same terms—where non-compliance with laws that offend conscience must be done, as Dr. King said, "openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty." Moreover, we believe that law should not impose on conscience except where it is necessary for the sake of justice and the common good. Laws that are themselves unjust and contrary to the common good almost always raise a threat to conscience. That is part of the reason we believe in working tirelessly to ensure that law protects the lives of the unborn, handicapped, and elderly, and honors marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife. Finally, we would remind all who invoke conscience of the importance of understanding the concept of conscience correctly. Conscience is not in the business of providing permission slips. It is not a trump card to be used to immunize one’s preferred ways of acting from moral criticism and legal limitation. That is a counterfeit of conscience. In truth, conscience is, as Newman said, a "stern monitor." It is the faculty of judging, informed by faith and reason, what one is bound by a law higher than oneself to do or not do, even if one would prefer for whatever reasons—the satisfaction of desires, the desire to advance one’s career or social standing, the wish to avoid the disapproval of others or even to escape punishment, the desire to conform to social norms—to do otherwise.
- There are plenty of people of other religious faiths that would agree with your stands. Why is the Manhattan Declaration a statement by Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and Evangelical Christians?
There are indeed people of many faiths who agree with our stands, and we applaud and honor them, and pledge to labor together with them in a true spirit of brotherhood for justice and the common good. Robert George has said: "For too long, the historic traditions of Catholicism, Evangelical Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy have failed to speak formally with a united voice, despite their deep agreement on fundamental questions of morality, justice, and the common good. The Manhattan Declaration provided leaders of these traditions with an opportunity to rectify that. It is gratifying that they were willing--indeed eager--to seize that opportunity. Of course, as Cardinal Justin Rigali observed at the press conference at which the Declaration was released, the foundational principles it defends ‘are not the unique preserve of any particular Christian community or of the Christian tradition as a whole....They are principles that can be known and honored by men and women of goodwill even apart from divine revelation. They are principles of right reason and natural law.’ So the signatories are happy to stand alongside our LDS brothers and sisters who have worked so heroically in the cause of defending marriage, our Jewish brothers and sisters, members of other faiths, and people of no particular faith (even pro-life atheists such as the great Nat Hentoff), who affirm our principles and wish to join us in proclaiming and defending them.
- What is the next step?
The next step is to circulate the Manhattan Declaration as widely as possible. Our goal is to obtain as many signatures as possible, and we encourage people to sign the Declaration at this site. We are very eager to see this document spread through America’s churches.
- What can I do?
You can first of all show your support for the Manhattan Declaration by signing on at this web site. You can also encourage those you know to sign by telling them about the Declaration.
- Abortion has been legal in America for nearly four decades; why has it taken so long for pro-life religious leaders to step forward with something this bold?
There has been bold and even heroic opposition to abortion ever since the movement to legalize abortion emerged in the late 1960s—some coming from religious leaders. Abortion continues to be a tragic injustice in the United States, and this is another step toward what we hope and pray will be the full legal protection of the basic right to life of every member of the human family.
- Is the statement in the Declaration that follows "eliminating laws…" referring to government funding of abortions or government funding of something else?
During the presidential campaign, President Obama stated his opposition to the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions, and announced his support for the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would, among other things, override pro-life laws (e.g., parental consent; informed consent; waiting periods) in states that choose to have them, and force states to pay for abortions with taxpayer money whenever state health care or insurance plans pay for child birth. A powerful pro-life critique of President Obama’s positions and proposed policies on abortion can be found here http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2008/10/133
- How is this project being funded?
This effort has been funded by private donors who support collaborative efforts such as this one among Christian groups.
- Why did you see a need now to organize on these issues when people of faith have been expressing concern about them for decades?
In some respects these issues have reached a critical tipping point. Many of us believe that it is time for the church to take a united stand, to speak with one voice. With respect to all three of the issues addressed in the Declaration, important decisions are being made now or will be made soon. For the sake of fundamental justice and the common good, it is important that the right decisions be made.
- Why were Chuck Colson, Robert George and Timothy George chosen to draft the statement?
Chuck Colson, Robert George and Timothy George agreed in the earliest days of discussion to draft a document, which they did. It was considered at the meeting in Manhattan in late September. After that, input was requested and received from a great many participants. The Manhattan Declaration is truly the work of many hands.
- The document refers to "…the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS." Are the signers then advocating for the distribution and use of condoms? If so, how does this square with traditional Catholic and much evangelical teaching?
The Manhattan Declaration is not advocating condom distribution. In fact, no one should assume that the way to prevent AIDS in Africa is by distributing condoms. When Pope Benedict XVI was attacked for saying that that condom distribution in Africa is not the solution, he was supported not only by conservative Christians, but by Edward C. Green, Director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at Harvard University’s Center for Population and Development Studies, and someone who does not have moral or religious objections to condom distribution, and even supports it in some places. Writing in the Washington Post, Dr. Green suggested that it was the Pope’s critics, not the Pope, who were guilty of ignoring the evidence of what does and doesn’t work to prevent AIDS in Africa: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html
- Is there any concern that you will be offending your fellow Christians who have had abortions or are gay? Or do you not believe that a practicing gay or lesbian can be a Christian?
The Manhattan Declaration is very clear about this. Here is what it says: "We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity; and we pay tribute to the men and women who strive, often with little assistance, to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no less than we, regard as wayward. We stand with them, even when they falter. We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives. We, no less than they, are in constant need of God’s patience, love and forgiveness. We call on the entire Christian community to resist sexual immorality, and at the same time refrain from disdainful condemnation of those who yield to it. Our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners. For every sinner, regardless of the sin, is loved by God, who seeks not our destruction but rather the conversion of our hearts. Jesus calls all who wander from the path of virtue to "a more excellent way." What the Manhattan Declaration says about sexual immorality applies in the same way to abortion. Like Mother Teresa of Calcutta, whose dedication to the full legal protection of unborn children was profound and constant, we believe that our responsibility is not to condemn women who have had abortions or even the abortionists who have taken the lives of their unborn children, but to love mother and child alike, and to bring compassion and very practical support to pregnant women in need and to women who have had abortions. It is simply false to say that we must choose between legal reform to protect the unborn and providing compassionate care to women in need. We must do both. And when it comes to those who perform abortions and work in the abortion industry, our goal must be not their destruction, but the softening of their hearts toward the child in the womb. We must be examples to them of love in action.
- Can you provide examples of violations of religious liberty and the rights of conscience?
There is a long list of cases that the Alliance Defense Fund, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the American Center for Law and Justice, and other public interest law firms specializing in the protection of religious freedom have taken up.
Information is available at the following websites:
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/main/default.aspx
http://www.becketfund.org/
http://aclj.org/
http://www.clsnet.org/