Toleration of sexual sin for the common good

This is an interesting soundbite from Michael Lofton “Reason and Theology”. It is a response to a ‘cancelled Priest’s’ charge against the ‘heresy’ of Pope Francis.

I don’t care if Francis’ views are heresy or not. In the foreseeable future the Church won’t be able to impose its social conservatism in developed countries. Societies tolerate a wide array of sexual sins and if we complain about this we will be branded fascists. The Church should now concentrate on convincing people to accept its teachings on a personal level.

That ship has already sailed. People have already made up their minds that they are going to do anything in the sexual realm that they want to, under the rubric that “the Church can’t tell me what to do”.

Oddly enough, in the United States (except for a few counties in Nevada), the “right” to exchange sex for money is not recognized. As George Carlin said, selling is legal, sex (he used another word) is legal, so why isn’t selling sex legal?

Not condoning, just sharing the observation.

Many countries have chosen to penalize sex buyers:

It’s hard to argue against this from the Catholic perspective.

Some modern day Catholics dream of the return of the Papal state and the power to impose Catholic values on all citizens, but history doesn’t show that model in a favourable light. So often the persecuted become the persecutors when the shoe is on the other foot.

The Church should now concentrate on convincing people to accept its teachings on a personal level.

The Vatican Councils vision of ecumenism is the best model we have at this time. Some charge that with ‘universalism’ but really what it evokes is the model of the early Church when it seems to me that the role of the Holy Spirit in uniting Christians into a visible Church without a top heavy bureaucracy, proved to be a sound model.

I’ve heard of this, and it is indeed a good approach. However, it still makes prostitution illegal (something I do not challenge), it just waives punishment for the prostitutes, who may or may not be victims. For those who are victims, my heart goes out to them. However, I hate to say it, but there are some women who are not forced into this in any way, they are just amoral, and reason that they have something to offer that is negotiable and lucrative. Under this scenario, they would get off scot-free, while their “johns” would be punished.

Best solution, save sex for marriage.

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.