“Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.”
______________________________________________
Ensuring that we have the right to do what we ought is a sound basis for extending rights and for allowing the limitation of them. What do you find objectionable in the statement if it is not that there is a basis for limiting rights? As far as some detailed discussion of a bunch of academic terms, why not just briefly state your position, so I understand it. All I get is a fear of theocracy, which is so far from the vast majority of Christians intentions, and so far from being likely or possible, that it is irrelevant to modern American politics. Attacking Catholic pretensions and overreach is good fun but what does it have to do with John Paul’s statement?
Because people don't agree on what we "ought" to do. It's that simple. As Cromwell put it, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."