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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bartolome_Casas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
For information

4 non-negotiables point

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PEOPLE’S PARTY
ON THE OCCASION OF THE STUDY DAYS ON EUROPE

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/march/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060330_eu-parliamentarians_en.html

**
  • protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;**
** recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defence from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;**

- the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19031937_divini-redemptoris_en.html

DIVINI REDEMPTORIS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI
ON ATHEISTIC COMMUNISM
TO THE PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES,
ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS, AND OTHER ORDINARIES
IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE.

- The communism
  • protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death; The culture of life means to be opposed to abortion, to Euthanasia, to Embryonic Stem Cell Research, to Human Cloning, to In vitro fecundation
  • recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defence from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role; That means to be against the Homosexual “marriage”
  • the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.
Behind the ideologies of death, there are the communism, his friends and his cousins: all ideologies or heresies against the human nature.
 
I nominate Spider42 as Best Thread Contributor for this thread.

His/her use of authoritative sources and quotations, and his/her use of balance and fair reason helped me understand that “the 5 non-negotiables” is not a teaching of the Catholic Church, but is just a political strategy developed by a group of lay Catholics, and furthermore that, the teaching that is contained in the “the 5 non-negotiables,” while drawn from Catholic sources, in effect ends up mis-informing Catholics about the authentic guidance for Catholic voters provided by the Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Pope.
I think you, Spider42 and fpt should do yourselves a favor and read VERITATIS SPLENDOR.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

I think he is appropriate for this conversation.

God bless.
 
This is not an intrinsic evil, thus can be allowed by penal law.

This is intrinsically evil, thus the penal code (Divine Law) must be adhered to by both individuals and states (nations).

This is intrinsically evil, thus the penal code (Divine Law) must be adhered to by both individuals and states (nations).

This is intrinsically evil, thus the penal code (Divine Law) must be adhered to by both individuals and states (nations).

This is not an intrinsic evil, thus can be allowed by penal law.

This is intrinsically evil, thus the penal code (Divine Law) must be adhered to by both individuals and states (nations).

No, but most. The Reign of Christ the King according to His divine and natural law is something every Catholic should strive for, in both the temporal and spiritual worlds.

We need to make sure that we separate intrinsic evils from other acts while having this conversation.

God bless.
So you believe that private behavior between consenting adults - that is of no concern to you or me - should be punishable by law?

This is a “busybody” and “big government” mentality run amok.
 
Perhaps you could elaborate as to why? Also, is there any reason to assume these three haven’t read this encyclical?
The encyclical gets into the false moral teachings called proportionalism and consequentialism and how intrinsic evils are always evil and we are never to partake or contribute to them no matter what. I think those that hold their views MAY fall into these. IMO, voting for someone that advocates for an intrinsic evil because the whole social order needs to be taken into consideration is just flat out wrong.

Questions for those that don’t want a penal system that legislates morality.

Would you support a candidate that advocates for a penal system that punishes theft?
Would you support a candidate that advocates for a penal system that punishes murder?
Would you support a candidate that advocates for a penal system that punishes rape?
Would you support a candidate that advocates for a penal system that punishes tax evasion?
Would you support a candidate that advocates for a penal system that punishes theft?

Why is it acceptable for a penal system to legislate morality with the above instances but not the other behaviors ask about in this thread?

Does the Catholic Church not support a penal system that punishes a murderer, rapist, or thief?

Would the Catholic Church support a bill that would make murder, theft or rape legal?

Thanks.
 
The encyclical gets into the false moral teachings called proportionalism and consequentialism and how intrinsic evils are always evil and we are never to partake or contribute to them no matter what.
I see. The reason I do not think this applies is because voting is not an intrinsically evil act. Proportionalism does not apply to the act of voting. In fact, we see that the political arena mandates the use of prudence. The teaching from our bishops on voting is here:

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

In it we find such statements as:
There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.
The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods
Were we to decide to vote black and white, disregarding any candidate that has any moral flaw, we would never vote. Ever. Yet we find also in the above document:
In the Catholic Tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in political life is a moral obligation.
🤷

So, no, I do not think Chapter 75 of VS applies to the issue of voting. Normally I would just admit that it is over my head, except in this case we do have the clarification of episcopal teaching on the subject.
 
There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.
But the time for this did not arise this election. There was a clear contrast on moral issues between the candidates. Though both support some form of abortion, only one supports sodomy. I remember reading somewhere that we must have “proportionate” reasons for voting for a candidate that supports an intrinsic evil. We have not had this “proportionate” reason arise.
 
So you believe that private behavior between consenting adults - that is of no concern to you or me - should be punishable by law?

This is a “busybody” and “big government” mentality run amok.
Yes I do, if the behavior runs contrary to the moral/natural law of God. No sin is private. We are the Body of Christ. We all suffer from the sins of others.
 
I see. The reason I do not think this applies is because voting is not an intrinsically evil act. Proportionalism does not apply to the act of voting. In fact, we see that the political arena mandates the use of prudence. The teaching from our bishops on voting is here:

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

In it we find such statements as:

Were we to decide to vote black and white, disregarding any candidate that has any moral flaw, we would never vote. Ever. Yet we find also in the above document:
🤷

So, no, I do not think Chapter 75 of VS applies to the issue of voting. Normally I would just admit that it is over my head, except in this case we do have the clarification of episcopal teaching on the subject.
I think it may apply since voting for someone knowing their goals makes one culpable if the end is evil. You can’t say, “yeah, he wants to kill babies and legalize homosexual marriage but he is going to help so many other people because of his social policies”. This is not a proportionate reason to vote for a candidate.

Partaking in the political arena does not solely consist in casting a vote. There are many ways this can be fulfilled without pulling a lever. Advocacy, lobbying and standing up for the truth are a few examples.
 
I see. The reason I do not think this applies is because voting is not an intrinsically evil act. Proportionalism does not apply to the act of voting. In fact, we see that the political arena mandates the use of prudence. The teaching from our bishops on voting is here:

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

In it we find such statements as:

Were we to decide to vote black and white, disregarding any candidate that has any moral flaw, we would never vote. Ever. Yet we find also in the above document:
🤷

So, no, I do not think Chapter 75 of VS applies to the issue of voting. Normally I would just admit that it is over my head, except in this case we do have the clarification of episcopal teaching on the subject.
From the article you posted…

13. In the Catholic Tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in political life is a moral obligation. This obligation is rooted in our baptismal commitment to follow Jesus Christ and to bear Christian witness in all we do. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us, “It is necessary that all participate, each according to his position and role, in promoting the common good. This obligation is inherent in the dignity of the human person. . . . As far as possible citizens should take an active part in public life” (nos. 1913-1915).

This says our obligation is rooted in our baptismal commitment to follow Jesus Christ and to bear Christian witness in all we do. Now how is voting for a person that advocates policy directly contrary to Christ, a witness to our baptismal commitment?

Also, this…

*30. The Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made a similar point:

** It must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals.** The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. (Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, no. 4)*

This says that no matter what we think about a single issue, we must always take into account all that the Church teaches, including Her stances on intrinsic evils and that…a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. It even singles out those that incorrectly place social issues that involve prudential judgement and not intrinsic evils over other things by saying…“A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good.” The common good is what is good for all, and that is the lack of evil. Thus, we cannot support a candidate that advocates intrinsic evil.
 
Yes I do, if the behavior runs contrary to the moral/natural law of God. No sin is private. We are the Body of Christ. We all suffer from the sins of others.
I disagree. We do not suffer from the sins of others in these instances. If you engage in any of the behaviors listed above, it has no bearing on me, and vice versa. I find the private lives of others profoundly disinteresting. With all due respect, it seems you have an unhealthy preoccupation with what others are doing. I would suggest that it is much healthier and productive to live your life as an example for others by being a good person and role model, as opposed to using the strong arm of government to force compliance. And what is the methodology for enforcing these types of laws? Probably a theocratic police state. Who wants that?!?
 
Generally speaking, as catholic lay person, in all conscience, it is immoral to vote for politicians or political parts who are in favor:

of the abortion, of the Euthanasia, of the Embryonic Stem Cell Research,of the in vitro fecundation, in general, of the Surrogate Mothers, of Human Cloning.

of the Homosexual “marriage” with the corollaries (the “marriage” for same sex person, the adpotion of children by the same sex duets, of the in vitro fecundation for the same sex duets), of the polygamy, of the polyandry, of “marriage” between three, four, five …etc persons, of the “marriage” between human beings and the animals, of “marriage” between a mother and her son, of “marriage” between a father and his daugther, of “marriage” between siblings (sister and brother), of “marriage” between a sister and her sister or a brother and his brother, of “marriage” between a grandfather and his grandson, of “marriage” between a grandfather and his granddaugther, of “marriage” between a grandmother and her grandson, of “marriage” between a grandmother and her granddaughter…etc.

of the unprotection of the right of parents to educate their children.

Actually, those three first non negotiable points are the hard core of the human nature. Thus, if these fundamental principles are denaturized by the governement, this governement is wrong and immoral. Those three non negotiable points are at the spring of the morality and of the society. In consequence, de faco, they are not non negotiable.

And

of communism, of socialism, of marxism, of nazism, of fascism, of totalitarism, of dictatorship, of freemasonry, of heresies and ideologies on the human nature who were officially banned by the catholic Church. Behind the ideologies of death and her friends, there are the communism, his friends and his cousins: all ideologies or heresies against the human nature.
 
So you believe that private behavior between consenting adults - that is of no concern to you or me - should be punishable by law?

This is a “busybody” and “big government” mentality run amok.
**
A big brother State (a busybody government and a “big government”) is morally wrong. It is not in link with the catholicism. The fact of saying the contrary is not catholic.**
 
**
A big brother State (a busybody government and a “big government”) is morally wrong. It is not in link with the catholicism. The fact of saying the contrary is not catholic.**
So you want the laws that you suggested earlier. And you say that the type of government that would be required to enforce such laws is immoral. There seems to be a disconnect here.

These laws are not required. And a government that would make and then try to enforce these laws would be truly scary.
 
**
A big brother State (a busybody government and a “big government”) is morally wrong. It is not in link with the catholicism. The fact of saying the contrary is not catholic.**
Please provide a document from the magisterium that supports this. I have read a good bit about how a government (regardless of its form) is bound to uphold the natural/divine law.

I want your answer to the below…and I want you to explain to me how the below is not considered “big gov’t”.

Would you support a candidate that advocates for a penal system that punishes theft?
Would you support a candidate that advocates for a penal system that punishes murder?
Would you support a candidate that advocates for a penal system that punishes rape?
Would you support a candidate that advocates for a penal system that punishes tax evasion?
Would you support a candidate that advocates for a penal system that punishes theft?

Why is it acceptable for a penal system to legislate morality with the above instances but not the other behaviors ask about in this thread?

Does the Catholic Church not support a penal system that punishes a murderer, rapist, or thief?

Would the Catholic Church support a bill that would make murder, theft or rape legal?
 
The encyclical gets into the false moral teachings called proportionalism and consequentialism and how intrinsic evils are always evil and we are never to partake or contribute to them no matter what. I think those that hold their views MAY fall into these. IMO, voting for someone that advocates for an intrinsic evil because the whole social order needs to be taken into consideration is just flat out wrong.

Questions for those that don’t want a penal system that legislates morality.

Would you support a candidate that advocates for a penal system that punishes theft?
**
By principle, yes, but only, if he has the good acception of the notion of theft. Otherwise no.**

Would you support a candidate that advocates for a penal system that punishes murder?

By principle, yes, but only, if he has the good acception of the notion of murder. Otherwise no.

Would you support a candidate that advocates for a penal system that punishes rape?

By principle, yes, but only, if he has the good acception of the notion of rape. Otherwise no.

Would you support a candidate that advocates for a penal system that punishes tax evasion?

By principle, yes, but only, if he has the good acception of the notion of tax evasion. Otherwise no. Here, the concept of tax evasion is very relative. It is case by case. It is in function of the fundamental principles of the philosophy of the tax law. I am in favor of tax Paradise in my State. Today, the states are too much touched the the socialism, the pseudo charity.
 
So you want the laws that you suggested earlier. And you say that the type of government that would be required to enforce such laws is immoral. There seems to be a disconnect here.

These laws are not required. And a government that would make and then try to enforce these laws would be truly scary.
**
It is a misunderstanding, I am against all these penal laws concerning the corporeity and the private sexuality.**

The adultery of woman or the adultery of man does not has to be punished by the penal law of state.

The forcination, the pre marital sex does not has to be punished by the penal law of state.

The prostitution, per se (the sexual acts for money between two adults in the private place (in a bedroom, at home, in a motel, in a hostel, in a flat, in a house), does not has to be punished by the penal law of state.

The homosexual acts in the private place between two adults (bedroom), and any and all sex acts between two or more consenting homosexual adults in the private place (in a bedroom, at home, in a motel, in a hostel, in a flat, in a house) do not has to be punished by the penal law of state.
 
So you want the laws that you suggested earlier. And you say that the type of government that would be required to enforce such laws is immoral. There seems to be a disconnect here.

These laws are not required. And a government that would make and then try to enforce these laws would be truly scary.
We are on the same line. I am okay with you. I agree with you.
 
The encyclical gets into the false moral teachings called proportionalism and consequentialism and how intrinsic evils are always evil and we are never to partake or contribute to them no matter what. I think those that hold their views MAY fall into these. IMO, voting for someone that advocates for an intrinsic evil because the whole social order needs to be taken into consideration is just flat out wrong.

Questions for those that don’t want a penal system that legislates morality.

Would you support a candidate that advocates for a penal system that punishes theft?
Would you support a candidate that advocates for a penal system that punishes murder?
Would you support a candidate that advocates for a penal system that punishes rape?
Would you support a candidate that advocates for a penal system that punishes tax evasion?
Would you support a candidate that advocates for a penal system that punishes theft?

Why is it acceptable for a penal system to legislate morality with the above instances but not the other behaviors ask about in this thread?

Does the Catholic Church not support a penal system that punishes a murderer, rapist, or thief?

Would the Catholic Church support a bill that would make murder, theft or rape legal?

Thanks.
The fundamental issue is, in philosophy of right and in metaphysic of law, the role and the function of the penal law of State. **If there is a wrong view at the spring, the law is not a law, it is only a formal law without legitimacy. **
**The role and the function of the penal law of State, That is the question??? **

The fundamentalist catholics or the christian fundamentalists, in the catholic acception and not in the secular acception, are dangerous and are not aware of the subtleties of catholic doctrine on the penal law of State. The penal law of State does not have to enter in the bed of each person: It is a rape of intimacy, it is wrong, it is awful. It is unfair.

The religious mentalities of catholic lay persons in the USA, in the two senses, the liberal catholic persons in favor of the gay marriage, in favor of direct and voluntary abortion, in favor of gender…etc, but also by the fundamentalist catholics who want to rape the intimacy of bedroom…etc are morally wrong, absurd and thus dangerous for each person and for the society.

Here, the two parts are morally wrong. Actually, they are the two faces of the same piece of money. They are cousins, they are against the nature of human beings.

Do you want to live in a theocratic police state about private sexuality in your own bedroom???
 
I disagree. We do not suffer from the sins of others in these instances. If you engage in any of the behaviors listed above, it has no bearing on me, and vice versa. I find the private lives of others profoundly disinteresting. With all due respect, it seems you have an unhealthy preoccupation with what others are doing. I would suggest that it is much healthier and productive to live your life as an example for others by being a good person and role model, as opposed to using the strong arm of government to force compliance. And what is the methodology for enforcing these types of laws? Probably a theocratic police state. Who wants that?!?
Mulligan2, my comments stem from my understanding of the Mystical Body of Christ. You need to try to escape the temporal order for a second when reading me.

A body is one and functions as a whole. When one member suffers, the body as a whole suffers. In the mystical body of Christ, when one sins, the others suffer, though not all will suffer directly. The view on the role of government and its laws and the laws in the Church change when you see the laws as guard rails preventing you from spiritual death and not impediments preventing you from some false joy, or some false sense of liberty. What father gives his son a snake when he asks for a fish? We all seek true joy (the presence of God) whether we know it or not. A good father provides the means for that desire to be fulfilled, not perverted. A good government, likewise, should provide what is best for its people, not give them license to sin and possibly suffer eternal damnation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top