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

[pnewton]

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

A citizen of the United States is not obligated to accept this “wall of division”. One can just accept the Constitution as it was written and vote accordingly. Since we do have a pluralistic society, you vote your secular way, and I will vote my Catholic way and maintain my Catholic beliefs.

It is not unusual that we should disagree as to the purpose of law. An error in the begining is an error indeed. There is a reason why I always at some point have to part in disagreement with those who have, as I see it, a basic philosophical and theological error at the most basic level.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

If blasphemy became illegal in the USA, I think it’d be about time to evacuate the planet.

 

[Linux]

A citizen of the United States is not obligated to accept this “wall of division”. One can just accept the Constitution as it was written and vote accordingly. Since we do have a pluralistic society, you vote your secular way, and I will vote my Catholic way and maintain my Catholic beliefs.

It is not unusual that we should disagree as to the purpose of law. An error in the begining is an error indeed. There is a reason why I always at some point have to part in disagreement with those who have, as I see it, a basic philosophical and theological error at the most basic level.

You are simply ignoring the fact that the fundemental bases of that which determines civil law in America is not the Catholic understanding of morality. You lack the most basic understanding of what it means for there to be a civil law in America. Ignoring what i have said, and asserting that i am in error about something that has nothing to do with civil law in America only serves to strengthen my postion.

 

[Bradski]

It is as it is.

Maybe it’s time to nail your colours to the mast. Should they or should they not be made illegal?

It is not unusual that we should disagree as to the purpose of law.

Could you give your idea of what the purpose of law should be? It might help clear any confusion.

 

[Megan7]

The current 5 Non-Negotiables is a list of acts that are intrinsic evils according to the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church.

(1) Abortion
(2) Euthanasia
(3) Embryonic Stem Cell Research
(4) Human Cloning
(5) Homosexual “marriage”

Some Catholics recommend using this list as a guide for voting for political candidates and political parties.

The current 5 Non-Negotiables are viewed as a valid “test” of the morality of a candidate or party because all of the acts on the list are intrinsic evils, which means that they are serious moral evils and can never be moral in any degree or in any situation.

I think they are called “Non-Negotiable” because a moral person in a legislature cannot/should not engage in “horse trading” over intrinsic evils with other issues that are not intrinsic evils.

For example, a legislator who submits to objective morality would never or should never agree to vote for a bill that legalizes Euthanasia as a tactic to get another legislator to vote for a bill to fund the construction of a bridge in the district he represents. Rather, a legislator who submits to objective morality would never under any circumstances vote for a bill that legalizes Euthanasia, and would never vote against a bill that re-criminalizes Euthanasia (in a situation in which it had already be legalized).

I just see one little problem with all of this, and, as far as I can see, the problem is not little, it is HUGE.

The problem is that current federal and state law in the U.S. already makes legal the following 8 intrinsic evils.

The Other 8 Non-Negotiables are:

(1) No-fault divorce and remarriage.
(2) Sale and use of birth control devices (in addition to the intrinsic evil of intentional contraception, birth control pills cause the intrinsic evil of abortion a certain percentage of the time, even if the users don’t know it).
(3) Pornography production, distribution, viewing and possession.
(4) Adultery.
(5) Any and all sex acts between two or more consenting heterosexual adults outside of legal marriage.
(6) Any and all sex acts between two or more consenting homosexual adults outside of legal marriage.
(7) Prostitution (Prostitution is legal in State of Nevada. Thus, clearly, the U.S. Constitution does NOT forbid prostitution, and at any time in the future any state could legalize it. President Lincoln argued for the 13th Amendment to the Constitution by saying that as long as slavery was legal in any state and legal under the U.S. Constitution, it would eventually spread to all the states.)
(8) Blasphemy.

All 8 of those intrinsic evils above were formerly illegal in the laws of the U.S. states and/or the U.S. federal government.

These 8 intrinsic evils were made legal (and made widespread) in the U.S.A. by bills passed by legislators that repealed the former legal prohibitions. All this happened mainly since the 1960s. For most of U.S. history, these things were illegal.

Therefore, legislators could—and should–pass new bills that restore the traditional legal code that makes these 8 intrinsic evils illegal once again.

Given the grave harm done to souls, families and societies, a valid “test” for the morality of a legislator or candidate for the legislature, or for an organized party of legislators and candidates, would be whether they pledge to never vote the for those 8 Non-Negotiables in addition to the 5 Non-Negotiables currently being used for this purpose.

Yet, we never heard anything about these Other 8 Non-Negotiables. No one recommends that the morality of candidates or legislators or parties by judged by these Other 8 Non-Negotiables.

Why?

It can’t be because the 5 Non-Negotiables are all about the direct killing of innocent human life, since the 5 Non-Negotiables contains Homosexual “Marriage,” which doesn’t kill anyone.

Surely the legalization of birth control devices, and the legalization of no-fault divorce and remarriage have done at least as much harm to souls, families, and souls as the legalization of gay marriage. Yet, those intrinsic evils don’t make the list of the 5 Non-Negotiables that some people circulate at election time.

Why?

Who came up with this list of “the 5 Non-Negotiables”? For what reason? Why did thy omit all these other intrinsic evils that are the proper subject of government regulation?

I know that for several years I WAS MISLED. Like many others, I used the 5 Non-Negotiables list to evaluate candidates. I thought these were the only intrinsic evils at stake. But, thanks to the Catechism, and the Vatican web site, I’ve learned more.

At the very least, should not Catholics be informed that there are MORE than 5 intrinsic evils that are the proper subject of government legislation? Doesn’t BASIC HONESTY call for that?

But, even better, should we not start using the 13 NON-NEGOTIABLES to evaluate candidates at election time?

I don’t see this as a matter of politics. I see this as a matter of Catholics really knowing and seeing what is moral and what is immoral, what is an intrinsic evil and what is not an intrinsic evil. I think we Catholics are in danger of being misled by cynical, amoral people greedy for political power. As a Catholic Answers Forum moderator for this sub-forum has written:

“Rather, we ought to sentire cum ecclesia, to “think with the Church.” This means that we must not only believe the Creeds and declarations of the ecumenical councils and the infallible pronouncements of the Holy Father, but that we must also hold to the common sentence of the approved theologians.”

 

[fpt]

About prostitution, as catholic lay person, we need to use the catholic doctrine on all topics in the details and with all subtleties and the praxis from catholic thinkers or kings (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Louis The French King, The War Of 100 years with whore in the armies…etc) in order to conclude that:

By nature, the act of prostitition is morally wrong, it is an immoral act, but this act has to stay in the sphere of morality. Thus, no penal law should not ban, punish the sex act for money. That is in link with the catholic doctrine, the catholic praxis. The fact of thinking contrary is not very catholic: it is a protestant moral view to wish punish by the penal the act of prostitution, per se. Honestly, each catholic should not be okay with this protestant view.

Nevertheless, the proxenetism, the real physical violence on the prostitute, the slave traffic for the prostitution, the prostitution on the public place should be punished by the penal law of State.

But, the sexual acts for money in the private place do not have to be punished by the penal la&w of State: in catholicism, it is legally unfair, it is the start of the dictature, it is the puritanism of penal law of the State. Do you want to live in the puritan State?

From Europe, the USA are already too much puritan, very protestant, very weird with a lot of stranges speeches coming from fundamentalist evangelicals.
Your country is full of false prudishness.

Yes, Catholicism is not in favor of the criminalization of the act of prostitution, per se, whatever the level of the punishment. The reason is the free will, the liberty to sin, the respect of the private life, privacy of the intimity and to avoid a dictature of State. Do you want to live in a State where the penal law will ban all sins?

Are you serious? Are you catholic? Are you a protestant and a fundamentalist thinker? Are you puritanist and puritan? Do you know the role of the penal law os State?

I know, I am, may be, provocative in my message, but the catholicism is full of subtleties. It is the mirror of the human intelligence.

May be, I should use the word of tolerance. the fact of tolerating the act of prostitution; it is better. The theory of the tolerance of penal law of some sins under special conditions would be the rule.

 

[fpt]

There’s no dogma of the Catholic Faith saying that prostitution must be illegal. It may be immoral, yes, and it’s certainly wrong to promote it, but both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that it’s permissible for the civil authority to* tolerate* it, in order to prevent still-worse debaucheries.

I am on the same line than you. **That is a good point. Well said.
**
The prohibition of sexual acts for money, per se, is dangerous for the liberties and it is not the role of the State law.

 

[fix]

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

The same way they were enforced when they were illegal before.

 

[fix]

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?

A women was charged with adultery within the past two years in New York State. How was that done?

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?

It is now in most places.

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?

It was in the past. How was it done then.

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?

Up until very recently it was illegal. Turn back the clock only a few years.

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 do realize they have all been illegal and some still are?

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.

I never said all immoral acts must be illegal. I simply responded to the poster’s question about particular acts.

 

[fix]

The catholicism is not in favor of the criminalization of all immoral acts and of all sins?

Right, that does not mean the Church is against laws that would ban things like prostitution.

 

[fix]

Maybe it’s time to nail your colours to the mast. Should they or should they not be made illegal?

I would be happy to support such laws depending on how they are written. You act like this is some new thing?

 

[fix]

About prostitution, as catholic lay person, we need to use the catholic doctrine on all topics in the details and with all subtleties and the praxis from catholic thinkers or kings (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Louis The French King, The War Of 100 years with whore in the armies…etc) in order to conclude that:

By nature, the act of prostitition is morally wrong, it is an immoral act, but this act has to stay in the sphere of morality. Thus, no penal law should not ban, punish the sex act for money. That is in link with the catholic doctrine, the catholic praxis. The fact of thinking contrary is not very catholic: it is a protestant moral view to wish punish by the penal the act of prostitution, per se. Honestly, each catholic should not be okay with this protestant view.

Nevertheless, the proxenetism, the real physical violence on the prostitute, the slave traffic for the prostitution, the prostitution on the public place should be punished by the penal law of State.

But, the sexual acts for money in the private place do not have to be punished by the penal la&w of State: in catholicism, it is legally unfair, it is the start of the dictature, it is the puritanism of penal law of the State. Do you want to live in the puritan State?

From Europe, the USA are already too much puritan, very protestant, very weird with a lot of stranges speeches coming from fundamentalist evangelicals.
Your country is full of false prudishness.

Yes, Catholicism is not in favor of the criminalization of the act of prostitution, per se, whatever the level of the punishment. The reason is the free will, the liberty to sin, the respect of the private life, privacy of the intimity and to avoid a dictature of State. Do you want to live in a State where the penal law will ban all sins?

Are you serious? Are you catholic? Are you a protestant and a fundamentalist thinker? Are you puritanist and puritan? Do you know the role of the penal law os State?

I know, I am, may be, provocative in my message, but the catholicism is full of subtleties. It is the mirror of the human intelligence.

May be, I should use the word of tolerance. the fact of tolerating the act of prostitution; it is better. The theory of the tolerance of penal law of some sins under special conditions would be the rule.

Are you really claiming the Church is against laws that criminalize prostitution?

 

[Mulligan2]

I would be happy to support such laws depending on how they are written. You act like this is some new thing?

The majority opinion of today is to look back on these prior laws with bewilderment.

How would the law need to be written to garner your support today? And why would you support such laws?

It seems to me that you are essentially saying “I disprove of their behavior so I want to use the strong arm of government to punish them for offending my sensibilities.”

And why do you want to give bureaucrats in Washington more power to control behavior?

 

[fpt]

A women was charged with adultery within the past two years in New York State. How was that done?

It is now in most places.

It was in the past. How was it done then.

Up until very recently it was illegal. Turn back the clock only a few years.

You do realize they have all been illegal and some still are?

I never said all immoral acts must be illegal. I simply responded to the poster’s question about particular acts.

In general, as catholic lay person, we have the moral obligation of discerning if the act has to stay in the sphere of the morality or if it has to be punished by the penal law, by the entrance in the sphere of the law of State.

A women was charged with adultery within the past two years in New York State. How was that done?

As catholic, per se, I can state that **the adultery does not have to enter in the law of the State via the penal law. It is not fair, it has to stay only in the sphere of the morality. **Okay for the civil law, the civil responsablity, only, in the case of torts. Why, in the past it is different? **Because, it is, probably, very old law, coming from the past time: the puritanism, the wrong view of the function of the law. Are you a nostalgic person of the very old law from protestant system? **

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?

It is now in most places. **In the USA, Yes, because of puritanism and his friends, In Europe it is different. Your system is more and more crazy. All has to finish by a trial, it is very worrying.
**

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?

**Yes, I know, but by principle, the past is not better than now. Those rules were wrong coming from puritanism and from the wrong understandings of the human nature. **

 

[fpt]

A women was charged with adultery within the past two years in New York State. How was that done?

It is now in most places.

It was in the past. How was it done then.

Up until very recently it was illegal. Turn back the clock only a few years.

You do realize they have all been illegal and some still are?

**The bad culturalism has to be avoided and has to be fought by each catholic lay person.

The foreplay, the sexual foreplay in the human fashion are morally permissible. If in the past in the USA, there were penal laws against the sexual kisses, and against the sexual touchings, those laws were unfair, not in link with the natural moral order. They were dangerous laws. In the USA, the issues are the protestantism, the puritanism, the rigorism, the moralism, the wrong view of the function and of the role of the penal law.**

I never said all immoral acts must be illegal. I simply responded to the poster’s question about particular acts.

 

[fpt]

Are you really claiming the Church is against laws that criminalize prostitution?

Yes, Almost, per se. For many reasons, the real and true catholic logic is not in favor of this criminalization of the sexual acts for money.

Do you want to criminalize the prostitution, per se, the sexual foreplay, the bikini on the beach, the minisq

Honestly, as catholic lay person, I do not wish, and I do not want to live in a country where:
The sexual acts for money between two adults in the private place (bedroom) per se, the homosexual acts in the private place between two adults (bedroom), the adultery, the sexual foreplay (fellatio and cunnilingus), the french kiss between lovers (between female and male) in public, the bikini on the beach, in the swimming pool, the miniskirt, the pre marital sex

are punished, banned, prohibited by the penal law of the State.
And
Honestly, as catholic lay person, I will never vote in favor of this type of political program. If a political group claims that, I will never vote for them.

Because, these types of law, these mentalities, these philosophies of law, these theologies of law, these intellectual approaches are not catholic, are against the natural moral order of the human nature, and are against the natural rights of each human being. This group would be full of wrong intellectual approaches.

In this situation, I would organise political debates, philosophical debates, theological debates, moral debates, ethical debates, juridical debates, judicial debates before the elections, during the debates within the congress, and after the publishing of the law.

And after, I would launch some judicial actions for stopping those laws. The judicial fight could begin, until the Supreme Court of the USA or the Equivalent.

Do you want to criminalize the prostitution, per se, the sexual foreplay, the bikini on the beach, the mini skirt, the French Kiss in public, ther homosexual acts in the bedroom…etc? Are you serious? Are you a reasonnable person in the catholic way? Are you in favor of totalitarism? Are you a catholic puritanist person? Are you teasing me, I hope so? Otherwise, it is a crazy mentality, in my humble opinion.

 

[pnewton]

Yes, Almost, per se. For many reasons, the real and true catholic logic is not in favor of this criminalization of the sexual acts for money.

You are mistkaen, I am afraid. I submit that you can not find one place **anywhere **in the history of the Church where criminalization of prostitution is condemned.

 

[fpt]

You are mistkaen, I am afraid. I submit that you can not find one place **anywhere **in the history of the Church where criminalization of prostitution is condemned.

The theory of the tolerance of the prostitution by the penal law of State is coming from:

St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Louis The King of France;

The difference between the sphere of the morality and the sphere of the laws of State;

The role and the function of the penal laws of the State;

The fundamental rights of the human nature: the protection of the privacy, the individual rights of each person;

The refusal of the totalitarism of the penal law, the refusal of the puritanism of the penal law, the refusal of the moralism of the penal law, the refusal of the rigorism of the penal law.

And, the catholicism is not in favor of the criminalization of all immoral acts and of all sins.

The catholicism is not in favor of the criminalization of the prostitution, in my humble opinion. Where do you find a catholic document in favor of the criminalization of the prostitution by the penal laws of State? Where, when???

 

[shocktrooper]

The catholicism is not in favor of the criminalization of the prostitution, in my humble opinion. Where do you find a catholic document in favor of the criminalization of the prostitution by the penal laws of State? Where, when???

I think the answer to your question is the Bible, which is a Catholic “document”. Prostitution is a violation of the 10 Commandments and all violations in the Old Testament were capital offenses.

 

[pnewton]

The theory of the tolerance of the prostitution by the penal law of State is coming from:

St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Louis The King of France;

None of those people ever condemned criminalization of prostitution.