Aren't there 13 Non-Negotiables, not just 5?

[Bartolome_Casas]

In case you haven’t noticed there are hundreds of millions of non-Catholics living the in the U.S. and a Catholic politician is not required to ensure that Catholicism is enacted into legislation.

Pro-choice people say that Catholics (and other Christians) are attempting to enact their religions into law when they promote anti-abortion laws and constitutional amendments.

The Catholic Church teaches that the teaching against artificial birth control is not just a “religious” teaching, it is not just some odd Catholic thing. Rather, it is part of Natural Law. It is a moral law, that applies to all persons in all places and all time, just like the moral law against murder. This is not just my opinion. This is what the Catholic Church says.

Condoms don’t kill anyone. But birth control pills DO kill human beings, since it is known that they sometimes cause abortions (of embryos). Thus, it is safe to say, I think, that the birth control pills kills thousands of human beings every year in the USA. The opponents of the HHS Mandate have pointed this out, saying that with the HHS Mandate the Federal Government is grievously violating the conscience of Catholic institutions by forcing them to pay for the abortions caused by birth control pills.

As I understand it, the Catholic Church teachers that we Catholics should not seek to enact into civil law the religious doctrines of the Catholic Faith (such as requiring non-Catholics to say Catholic prayers), but does teach that Catholic should seek to enact into law the moral law that applies to all persons, and that birth control, being an “intrinsic evil,” falls into the category of things that the State should prohibit (as it did in the State of Connecticut prior to the 1965 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court).

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

While we are at it, can you show anywhere a politician in an election in the last couple of decades has come out opposed to the legalization of contraception?

Good point.

But, sadly, the “reverse” question seems relevant too:

“Can anyone find one politician that states that he/she supports the Church’s call to make abortion illegal who also states that he/she supports the Church’s call to make illegal artificial contraception (which, in the case of birth control pills, cause abortions)?”

To me, the good question of pnewton, and parallel question I have posed, shows the core of the problem, which is that all or virtually the Catholics in government are “cafeteria Catholics,” picking and choosing which moral laws to uphold.

To me, that’s why we need a new political party that is dedicated and committed in writing to upholding and promoting the ENTIRELY OF THE MORAL LAW.

 

[Linux]

Pro-choice people say that Catholics (and other Christians) are attempting to enact their religions into law when they promote anti-abortion laws and constitutional amendments.

The Catholic Church teaches that the teaching against artificial birth control is not just a “religious” teaching, it is not just some odd Catholic thing. Rather, it is part of Natural Law. It is a moral law, that applies to all persons in all places and all time, just like the moral law against murder. This is not just my opinion. This is what the Catholic Church says.

Moral beliefs, whether they be religious, philosophical, or a part of divine revelation in origin, are not self-evident. Therefore they cannot by themselves form a rational basis for legally criminalising someone. The legal injunction against murder is not based on natural law as understood by Catholics.

 

[Linux]

To me, the good question of pnewton, and parallel question I have posed, shows the core of the problem, which is that all or virtually the Catholics in government are “cafeteria Catholics,” picking and choosing which moral laws to uphold.

Wrong. They are picking and choosing what legitimately counts as a crime in a legal context: not a moral context.

 

[Linux]

To me, that’s why we need a new political party that is dedicated and committed in writing to upholding and promoting the ENTIRELY OF THE MORAL LAW.

You want to overthrow democracy and install a Catholic State; a theocracy.

 

[Linux]

…does teach that Catholic should seek to enact into law the moral law that applies to all persons, and that birth control, being an “intrinsic evil,” falls into the category of things that the State should prohibit (as it did in the State of Connecticut prior to the 1965 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court).

The state cannot enact those moral beliefs into law because they are not a Catholic institution, which is precisely why those laws changed in the first place.

 

[Linux]

“No one is good—except God alone." (Mark 10:18)

To me, we need to stop divinizing worldly political parties and worldly political parties that have no commitment to upholding the Holy Catholic Faith.

We need to stop looking at the state as a launch pad for enacting Catholic morality into law. We do not live in a theocracy.

 

[pnewton]

Wrong. They are picking and choosing what legitimately counts as a crime in a legal context: not a moral context.

Every legal context has a moral component. It is said we can not legislate morality. In fact, morality is the very thing that is legislated.

 

[Linux]

Every legal context has a moral component.

If you are saying that laws are defined and enacted according Catholic morality, that something is illegal because it contradicts the catholic concept of right and wrong, then that is clearly false. It is not a catholic legal system.

It is said we can not legislate morality. In fact, morality is the very thing that is legislated.

False. Pragmatic goals that are reasoned to be determinant to the creation of order and material security is what underlies the evolution of civil law.

 

[pnewton]

If you are saying that laws are defined and enacted according Catholic morality

I am sure you can read better than that. I said “morality”, not “Catholic morality.”

False. Pragmatic goals that are reasoned to be determinant to the creation of order and material security is what underlies the evolution of civil law.

I want to laugh every time I see someone post like this. Instead of discussing issues, they come up with such witicism as “False”, as if that is actual a sentence. I also note the irony of those who reject absolute standards such as the Catholic Church teaches like to present their own opinions as absolute standards.

I will agree that laws should be pragmatic, but it is more important that they be moral.

 

[Linux]

I am sure you can read better than that. I said “morality”, not “Catholic morality.”

If you are not talking about catholic morality then you are not really talking about moral truth as understood by the church. You are talking about pragmatic reasoning based on physical situations and the desire for order and material security. This is the bases upon which civil laws are made. Some people might have a private moral bases for supporting the enactment of civil law, but the law itself is not enacted according to divine moral standards; and when people find that some civil law assumes the authority of religious moral principles, it is these laws that are overturned precisely because the state cannot legislate for any religion.

I will agree that laws should be pragmatic, but it is more important that they be moral.

This is a meaningless statement in a pluralistic society where there is a split between Religion and the State.

 

[fix]

That would seem to be one of two very important points. The first is the question, it is reasonable for lay Catholics to take it upon themselves to shrink, alter, and simplify a set of concerns addressed to all Catholics from the Holy See.

That is mischaracterizing the situation. The lay group is simply applying Catholic principles to a particular election cycle. They did not alter Catholic teaching or marginalize anything.

On this issue we have Rome’s list itself. In addition to spelling out 11 fundamental concerns, it appears to specifically warn that focusing narrowly on specific issues is a potential moral hazard:

“The Christian…the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.” #4

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

That must be taken in context with the rest of the document. Several bishops have explained it quite well.

Of course, my interpretation of this paragraph could be incorrect, but then we can look to the USCCB, whose document does explain, in more detail, how one licitly balances the 11 issues raised by Rome and the specific tension raised above (single issue versus common good). The Bishops even identify the two most common mistakes made by their flock:

"27. Two temptations in public life can distort the Church’s defense of human life and dignity:

1. The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.3

1. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture,4 war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed…

1. The Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made a similar point…"

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-one.cfm (truncated for size)

Again, several bishops have clarified that document very nicely. They agree with the CA position.

30 is followed by an expanded version of precisely the same quote from Rome I just provided above, so it would seem that the USCCB’s interpretation of Rome’s meaning is indistinguishable from mine.

But you raise another very important point, we have an extensive doctrine on precisely how we are to develop our moral conscience (development itself is something that we are dogmatically required to do). We also have specific instruction from the Mother Church on an appropriate way to apply proportionate reasoning. This is covered in considerable detail in the Bishop’s document, but it did not originate with them.

It appears to have originated with the CDF. Then Cardinal Ratzinger corresponded with the bishops and explained suitable proportionate reasons in political context to them. The principles appear to be reasonably and accurately conveyed, but it is difficult to form an opinion since only a portion of the Cardinal’s instructions were, incorrectly, released and the Cardinal has expressly instructed lay Catholics not to try to interpret his letter for themselves.

The Cardinal was writing to bishops. He used language that would be understood, or should be understood, by those with education in moral theology. That letter has been explained by bishops and that explanation endorses the CA position.

The Doctrinal Note from Rome does not introduce the concept of proportionate reasons. It only references the concept of minimizing harm from Evangelium Vitae and specifically warns Catholics not to use it broadly. Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter does, but we are instructed not to try to use it ourselves. This leaves only the document from the USCCB. Which Catholic Answers voting guide does not reference at all…

I’m sorry, I don’t have time today to respond to all your points, but at the risk of over simplifying, it seems that some arguments are being made that Catholic Answers is doing a service by shrinking Rome’s list and analyzing current politics.

No, they are not shrinking anything. They are correctly applying the teaching. The muddling is done by those who want to convince others that pro abortion voting is licit when it is not.

In response, I can’t help but think of the last sentence I quoted from Rome above:

“Nor … put into action.”

In that light, wouldn’t a “serious” Catholic weigh ALL the issues given special emphasis by the Holy See and give the local prince’s explanation on how to avoid a moral hazard identified by Rome serious and dutiful consideration (Lumen Gentium #25) instead of relying on a lay group’s judgement of doctrine, dogma, and political feasibility?

I don’t mean to be flippant, but it reminds me of my students. The ‘serious’ one’s read the entire assignment and give it real thought. It’s the lazy ones who rely exclusively on a simple cheat sheet.

Exclusive Interview: Leading Vatican Prelate Says Document of US Bishops Partly to Blame for Election of “Most Pro-Abortion President”

 

[fix]

I believe the facts tell a different story. The effects of widespread no-fault divorce on civilization have been devastating. What effect will gay marriage have it becomes more widespread? There are so few gays, and so few of them will ever get married? So how could this harm all the heterosexuals, who will always hugely be in the majority? Gays make up 1 or 2 percent, and that will never change? Is there some idea out there that gay-ness is catchy?

It is a new ideology of evil. It will infect every aspect of our culture in particular our children. How the next generation perceives marriage and parenthood will be changed dramatically. This does not even take into account the legal ramifications for speaking the truth about it.

No-fault divorce and remarriage already IS a redefining of marriage.

It is bad, but not as bad as what is coming. Besides what presidential candidate was talking about civil divorce as an issue?

Now gays and liberals want to redefine further the already radically redefined marriage. The opponents of gay marriage don’t want to return to true marriage. They just want to return to the earlier radically redefined marriage. Thus, things like the Defend Marriage Act are a joke, unless the whole point is just to hate gays. Gay marriage is impossible and a perversion. But so is no-fault divorce and remarriage. Our so-called conservative movement is not conservative at all, but just an anti-gay liberal movement, or perhaps, “libertarian” would be the better term. There’s no significant movement to restore true marriage in the USA.

The pro homosexual lobby uses this tactic. Instead of debating the issue of so-called gay marriage that turn the issue to some other heterosexual faults. Yes, marriage is in trouble. The answer is to stop “gay” marriage now and work backwards.

The relevance to all this to this THREAD is that it shows how false and misleading the “5 Non-Negotiables” are as a supposed Catholic way to evaluable candidates for public office. It show that the lay Catholics who invented and promoted the “5 Non-Negotiables” are very selective about which sins they want to call out as sins and fights against in the culture and public arena.

Sorry, what is false is to redirect the argument. No fault divotce was not at play in this election cycle, but “gay” marriage was.

 

[fix]

The fight over HHS Mandate is ALL about the morality of the use of birth control devices! Just go and get copies of the lawsuits filed by Catholic hospitals and Catholic universities, and read what their lawsuit filings say. They say that these Catholic institution aren’t suing because federal law requires them to cover diabetes medications, or blood transfusions. The whole basis of these lawsuits is that the use of birth control pills is an “intrinsic evil” which should be illegal as it was in the State of Connecticut prior to the Supreme Court decision of 1965.

Yes, they do not want to pay for contraceptive uses. They do not call for a ban on medication.

Religious liberty is NOT liberty to sin. It is the freedom to obey the moral law. We Catholics are not pro-choice on morality. We don’t say “Give me liberty or give me death.” That’s the credo of the Founding Fathers of 1776. We Catholics instead have a Father in Heaven, to whom we say, “Heavenly father, not my will be done, but your will.”

The root problem is not the HHS Mandate, but that birth control devices and pills are legal at all in the U.S. The Church teaches that the use and sale of them should be illegal.

Pills have several uses. I am all for banning contraception, homosexual acts, adultery, and more. But, I am not for banning drugs including morphine that can be used for illicit purposes.

 

[Mulligan2]

Pills have several uses. I am all for banning contraception, homosexual acts, adultery, and more. But, I am not for banning drugs including morphine that can be used for illicit purposes.

When you use the word “banning” are you saying that you want to make these things illegal and punishable by law?

If that is in fact your position, I would suggest that you are in a very small minority.

 

[fix]

When you use the word “banning” are you saying that you want to make these things illegal and punishable by law?

If that is in fact your position, I would suggest that you are in a very small minority.

It is as it is.

 

[Mulligan2]

It is as it is.

And just how would you go about enforcing the laws you propose?

 

[fpt]

Do you want to ban by penal laws of State, the act of adultery? What would be the constitutive elements? What would be the punishment?

Do you want to ban by penal laws of State, the act of prostitution (sex for money)? What would be the constitutive elements? What would be the punishment?

Do you want to ban by penal laws of State, the pre-marital sex (sex between two unmarried persons, one male and one female)? What would be the constitutive elements? What would be the punishment?

Do you want to ban by penal laws of State, the homosexual acts between two same sex persons? What would be the constitutive elements? What would be the punishment?

Do you want to ban by penal laws of State, the sexual foreplay on all the bodies of the other? What would be the constitutive elements? What would be the punishment?

Do you want to criminalize all those acts by the penal laws of State? Are you serious?

You need to know that there are the sphere of the morality and the sphere of the laws of the State (civil laws, penal laws, tax laws and administrative laws); and that the sphere of the morality is not the same than the sphere of laws of State.

All immoral acts do not have to be banned and punished always by the laws of State, otherwise this State can take some forms of political structures that are very dangerous for the true and real rights of human nature.

 

[Mulligan2]

Do you want to ban by penal laws of State, the act of adultery? What would be the constitutive elements? What would be the punishment?

Do you want to ban by penal laws of State, the act of prostitution (sex for money)? What would be the constitutive elements? What would be the punishment?

Do you want to ban by penal laws of State, the pre-marital sex (sex between two unmarried persons, one male and one female)? What would be the constitutive elements? What would be the punishment?

Do you want to ban by penal laws of State, the homosexual acts between two same sex persons? What would be the constitutive elements? What would be the punishment?

Do you want to ban by penal laws of State, the sexual foreplay on all the bodies of the other? What would be the constitutive elements? What would be the punishment?

Do you want to criminalize all those acts by the penal laws of State? Are you serious?

You need to know that there are the sphere of the morality and the sphere of the laws of the State (civil laws, penal laws, tax laws and administrative laws); and that the sphere of the morality is not the same than the sphere of laws of State.

All immoral acts do not have to be banned and punished always by the laws of State, otherwise this State can take some forms of political structures that are very dangerous for the true and real rights of human nature.

Excellent post.

Laws against these actions would be absurd, and could only be enforced through draconian constraints on individual liberty. Quite frankly, why anyone would think they would be a good idea is beyond me.

 

[fpt]

An example very debated:

The act of prostitution is morally wrong for the client (the giver of money) and for the prostitute (the receiver of money). But, it is not morally fair to punish the client and the prostitute by a penal law of State, for the act of sex in reason of money. Per se, this type of legislation is wrong; it is not in link with the catholic doctrine, it is a protestant doctrine coming from the puritanism and from his friends. Per se, the act of prostitution between two adult person (se for money) in a private place does not have to be punished by the penal laws of State.

After, the proxenetism should be banned; the violence on the prostitute during the sexual acts should be banned; the prostitution under the legal age of the majority should be banned. Here, in those cases, the purposes are different. **Do you understand that? **
**
The catholicism is not in favor of the criminalization of all immoral acts and of all sins? **