Justice & Law Quote by Rocco Buttiglione

Buttiglione’s line is doing a classic politician’s two-step: acknowledging ethics without letting ethics run the state. The blunt “No” sets a boundary, then the phrase “one thing…another” turns a messy moral argument into a tidy administrative distinction. It’s reassuring in tone but defensive in function: he’s not elevating conscience so much as quarantining it.

The intent is to legitimize a separation between private belief and public obligation. Read charitably, it’s a plea for liberal pluralism: in a diverse society, the law can’t be the megaphone for any single moral theology, even a well-intentioned one. Read less charitably, it’s a shield against accountability: if you can argue that your conscience is personal while your legal duties are procedural, you can evade the charge that your values harm others. The subtext is a tug-of-war over who gets to define “moral”—church, individual, or state.

The context matters because Buttiglione became a symbol in early-2000s European culture wars over sexuality, family policy, and religious influence in governance. When he faced scrutiny over statements about homosexuality and women’s roles during his bid for an EU commissioner post, the “conscience vs. law” distinction became a survival tool: a way to say, “My beliefs are traditional, but my governance will be neutral.” “We have to hold onto this difference” isn’t abstract philosophy; it’s a warning flare. Lose the distinction and you either get moral majoritarianism dressed as law, or technocratic law that pretends morality isn’t in the room.