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

[fpt]

Yes, I would like for my daughter to be held to the standards of Christ.

Do you see any value in any law? I mean, with your logic, why don’t we just throw the whole bunch of them out and have a “do what you want” system. I mean, do you really “want to search the polygamist, thief, murderer, rapist, drug runner, arms dealer into their home in order to punish them, because of their private sins?”

Why do you fear the law of God? Are you unsure of the fullness of Truth that lies in the Catholic Church and Her moral teachings?

Honestly, in my humble opinion, you need to have talks with your confessor, with your spiritual director and with a catholic ethicist. **I am without voice!!! **I am under the shock because of your mentality and of your moral views on the catholic doctrine.

No comment for the moment.

 

[Mulligan2]

Yes, if the alternative is that we condone it, make it licit, and put the souls of people in grave danger. Would you rather the damnation of souls, rather than a legal fee?

Did you find any Church document to support your idea?

Thanks

If the nebulous concept of “protecting someone’s soul” is your criteria, then there is almost no limit to the power you would cede to the government. And just how would you enforce these laws? I would suggest that the only way to do so is to prosecute someone on the basis of rumor, here-say, and innuendo. I envision a police state mentality not unlike the USSR in the height of the Cold War. I think you are making the same mistake many people make when thinking about government: they view government how they “wished” it would operate if only they were in charge. And as far as laws, unless someone has been a victim of violence or robbery, or has been the victim of fraud, or unless there is a victim filing an actual complaint - I would suggest that law enforcement has much better things to be preoccupied with.

 

[shocktrooper]

Honestly, in my humble opinion, you need to have talks with your confessor, with your spiritual director and with a catholic ethicist. **I am without voice!!! **I am under the shock because of your mentality and of your moral views on the catholic doctrine.

No comment for the moment.

fpt, please spare me all the drama. Are we not allowed to discuss this? Why are you attacking me personally just because I don’t share your opinion on this? I have not questioned your fidelity to the Catholic faith. Please afford me the same respect.

As far as discussing this with others, no problem. I have no problem seeking guidance or correction. Thanks for the advice.

Now, are you for the government seizing certain private property, via the power of law, for the well being of the social order, e.g. guns, ammo, money?

 

[shocktrooper]

Ccc 2266

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: As far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

 

[fpt]

fpt, please spare me all the drama. Are we not allowed to discuss this? Why are you attacking me personally just because I don’t share your opinion on this? I have not questioned your fidelity to the Catholic faith. Please afford me the same respect.

As far as discussing this with others, no problem. I have no problem seeking guidance or correction. Thanks for the advice.

Now, are you for the government seizing certain private property, via the power of law, for the well being of the social order, e.g. guns, ammo, money?

1. I am under the shock because you said yes my daugther should be paid the fees to the state or gone to jail for her premarital sex with her boy friend in the private place because the penal law is like that. It was for that, that I could not comment more, for the moment.
2. I do not attack you personally, I am talking only of your comments, of your message about the jail or money if premarital sex in the private place, and if homosexual acts in the private place. In my mother tongue, the subtleties are here. It was not a personal attack, It was may be a big reaction about your thought, not about your own person, it is different. I have never said that you were not of good faith.
   There are the sphere of your person and the sphre of your thought, it is not the same.

 

[fpt]

fpt, please spare me all the drama. Are we not allowed to discuss this? Why are you attacking me personally just because I don’t share your opinion on this? I have not questioned your fidelity to the Catholic faith. Please afford me the same respect.

As far as discussing this with others, no problem. I have no problem seeking guidance or correction. Thanks for the advice.

Now, are you for the government seizing certain private property, via the power of law, for the well being of the social order, e.g. guns, ammo, money?

The seizing certain private property by the government (an forced expropriation, an forced nationalization) has to be under strict conditions that are written in the law by advance for the juridical safety of members of the State: **I mean the citizen has to know by advance the general conditions of the law, in knowing that the governement does not have to change this law, too much often. The seising has to be the exception, not the principle. **The citizen has to have the legal possibility to contest the decision of the governement by a judicial procedure in front of the judges, Appeal Court, Supreme Court. The interpretation of the law has to be in favor the right of property of citizens. The equality and the equity of arms during the legal procedure. The forced excecution of the seizing does not have to take place during the judicial procedure with the judges, only after the last rule of Court. And a great indemnity in link with the market, with the benefits for the governement.

In more, if the governement is communist, or socialist, or full of ideologies, or full of heresies, **the ultimate solution, in the special conditions with very stict conditions, the self defense for the protection of the human nature and the true rights of each human being. **The self defence with the concept of proportionality means the using of the violence: The legitimate violence is coming from the natural moral order, under very strict conditions (see the history of the creation of the USA, Tax laws from the UK, the unfair law from the British King, The Vendée against the French Revolution). Yes the self defense can be moral against a wrong law, without moral value.

 

[pnewton]

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.

You are basing this on a correct theological understanding.

I am reminded of the case of Nagasaki which has been called holy ground by Catholics there for the suffering that they endured for the sins of their nation. The idea that we sin in a vacuum is false. There is no hidden sin. When we have rampant sin in our nation, like abortion and homosexuality, it affects us all. If God punishes us (or when), we will all have the opportunity to suffer for the sins that occur in private.

We also have the classic case of Adam whose primary sin caused all Man to suffer. I know that it is not popular to bring theology into politics, but theology is merely a reflection of eternal truth. The principles exist. They can not be voted away.

On a practical note, pre-marital sex has had a terrible effect on our nation. Marriage is deemed as optional. Kids are raised in homes more and more with one parent. Abortion is used as contraception. Especially among young people the cost of pre-marital sex can be measured in lives broken, as well as dollars. I would have no problem making it illegal, as a start for any underage sex. Pedophilia is illegal based on the sound principle that children do not have the legal right to consent to sex. Yet we turn a blind eye when it is two children and the harm is doubled. Because of our lax legal system, children are having abortion after abortion, or birth after birth even before they get out of high school. The actual monetary cost is staggering. This cost is shared by each and every American.

 

[fpt]

fpt, please spare me all the drama. Are we not allowed to discuss this? Why are you attacking me personally just because I don’t share your opinion on this? I have not questioned your fidelity to the Catholic faith. Please afford me the same respect.

As far as discussing this with others, no problem. I have no problem seeking guidance or correction. Thanks for the advice.

Now, are you for the government seizing certain private property, via the power of law, for the well being of the social order, e.g. guns, ammo, money?

Today, in the USA the federal government of Obama and the former congress has voted a awful law having as object to rape the liberty and more the conscience of each citizen by the legal obligation to finance and to refund of the direct and voluntary abortion by the Health care private companies. As catholic, the self defense by the legal judicial procedure, the refusal to pay for, the legal fight against the future penal sanctions if a companies do not want to pay and to refund the abortion…etc. This governement is immoral, it is the start of socialism. No moral value and no moral legitimacy in the natural moral order that are explained by the catholic church.

The project of the control of arms by the Obama project is wrong because:

The elaboration of law under the emotion is not a good thing and in addition he used the emotion by the fact of being with children around him when he decided to enter in this fight against the arms: It is a sign of weakness, emotion and not reason in politics it is very dangerous.

In facilitating the abortion he is a … no word.

Thus, his decision against the guns for avoiding the killing of children is hypocrite: The fact of financing abortion , you know what it means and the fact of avoiding guns in the society. In my humble opinion, he seems to want to rape the constitution of USA and the natural rights. This US president is almost socialist, is full of ideologies.

Yes , I am in favor of the National Rifle Association. Her last advertising was a good thing.

 

[fpt]

You are basing this on a correct theological understanding.

I am reminded of the case of Nagasaki which has been called holy ground by Catholics there for the suffering that they endured for the sins of their nation. The idea that we sin in a vacuum is false. There is no hidden sin. When we have rampant sin in our nation, like abortion and homosexuality, it affects us all. If God punishes us (or when), we will all have the opportunity to suffer for the sins that occur in private.

We also have the classic case of Adam whose primary sin caused all Man to suffer. I know that it is not popular to bring theology into politics, but theology is merely a reflection of eternal truth. The principles exist. They can not be voted away.

On a practical note, pre-marital sex has had a terrible effect on our nation. Marriage is deemed as optional. Kids are raised in homes more and more with one parent. Abortion is used as contraception. Especially among young people the cost of pre-marital sex can be measured in lives broken, as well as dollars. I would have no problem making it illegal, as a start for any underage sex. Pedophilia is illegal based on the sound principle that children do not have the legal right to consent to sex. Yet we turn a blind eye when it is two children and the harm is doubled. Because of our lax legal system, children are having abortion after abortion, or birth after birth even before they get out of high school. The actual monetary cost is staggering. This cost is shared by each and every American.

Your acception of the notion of the role and the function of government with all corollaries (penal law specifically) is not in link with the view of Saint Augustine, of Saint Thomas Aquinas, of the refusal by the catholic church of dictatorship, of totalitarism, of the theocratical legal system of the State…etc.

We have different ideas as to the proper role of government. He seems to me that your view is old fashion from the culturalim not the catholicism, with a refusal to see all the subtleties of the catholic thought.

Honestly, As catholic I do not wish to live in your “dream State” with all those penal laws. It is absurd, dangerous, … Thus, I would like to leave this “deam State” and to go to other place. But before leaving, I will try to abrogate those awful laws about the corporeity and the private sexuality in the bedroom. It is a chariarization of the State, in the christian way. I am under the shock, legally speaking, morally speaking.

 

[fpt]

In the holy bible, Jesus refused the capital punishment by lapidation for the adultery. His message is clear, no penal law for adultery, for private sexuality and for the immoral acts without direct and external effects on the society. It is not the business of the State, not his role and his function. There is a distinction between the temporal power and the spiritual power (Caesar and God). The Old testament is finished on some parts. **Now, it is the new law. And the view like the muslim religion who is not capable to see there are two spheres is wrong, unfair and not catholic. **The debate is very difficult and thus probably impossible , if you do not accept this principle of two spheres.

I am not a puritan person, I am not a puritanist person, I am not a protestant person, I am not a victorian person, I am not a victorianist person, I am not a mormonist person, I am not a catharist person, i am not jansenism person, I am not moralist person, I am not rigorist person, i am not a scrupulous person, I am not an externalist person, I ma not a judgmentalist person, I am not a pharisaist person, I am not a pharisian person, I am not an christian orthodox person, I am not a fundamentalist christian, I am not a fundamentalist catholic, I am not a orthodox jewish, I am not a muslim person;

I am not a prudish person, I am not a primary anti-personalist person, I am not a primary anti-phenomenologist person, I am not a clanist person, I am not a communist person, I am not a socialist person, i am not a totalitarian person, I am not a totalitarist person.
**
I am Catholic, not more not less: Faith and Reason, Reason and Faith: both of them.**

The chariarization of State in the christian way is wrong. I am not okay. It is very not catholic. The method is morally wrong. It is against the human nature, against the human intelligence, against the human rights wanted by the creation.

The government has no power to enter in my bedroom, only God, or sometimes, the penal law it rape, if sexual violence: without the consent. By principle, it is not the business of the country.

 

[fpt]

shocktrooper
Now, are you for the government seizing certain private property, via the power of law, for the well being of the social order, e.g. guns, ammo, money?

The well being of the social order has to be defined in the respect of the natural moral order of the human nature. The human beings are before the creation of the State. The State is here for helping the human persons, it is not the contrary. The human person is more important that the State, by principle. Human persons are not the servitors or the slaves of the State.

The well being of the social order does not have to defined, in the ideological way. It is the issue, in the past, it was the question.
Why? The wrong effects of the Original Sin: the wrong utilisation of liberty of human being by the politicians.

The tax has to be the exception, not the principle. Tax is morally permissible, but there are limits.

The violation of conscience in their using (abortion, euthanasia, unfair wars… …etc);

The confiscatory taxes, the unfair taxes, the taxes that destroy the liberty of moral businesses.

The taxes against the family;

The new taxes that can seem to be full of good intentions, but, in reality, that are changing the fundamental view of the society: The green taxes seems good, but in reality, the system is coming from the Green thinkers of 70s years who want put the planet in the center, then human being after. That means that the human should be at the service of the planet. It is wrong, it is immoral, the blue planet was created by God for the human beings, not the contrary.

The neo-malthusianism is arriving via the green taxes. Be careful, not be naive.

 

[shocktrooper]

LIBERTAS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON THE NATURE OF
HUMAN LIBERTY

Given at St. Peter’s in Rome, the twentieth day of June, 1888, the tenth year of Our Pontificate.
…
10. From this it is manifest that the eternal law of God is the sole standard and rule of human liberty, not only in each individual man, but also in the community and civil society which men constitute when united. Therefore, the true liberty of human society does not consist in every man doing what he pleases, for this would simply end in turmoil and confusion, and bring on the overthrow of the State; but rather in this, that through the injunctions of the civil law all may more easily conform to the prescriptions of the eternal law. Likewise, the liberty of those who are in authority does not consist in the power to lay unreasonable and capricious commands upon their subjects, which would equally be criminal and would lead to the ruin of the commonwealth; but the binding force of human laws is in this,** that they are to be regarded as applications of the eternal law, and incapable of sanctioning anything which is not contained in the eternal law, as in the principle of all law.** Thus, St. Augustine most wisely says: “I think that you can see, at the same time, that there is nothing just and lawful in that temporal law, unless what men have gathered from this eternal law.”(5) If, then, by anyone in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law, as being no rule of justice, but certain to lead men away from that good which is the very end of civil society.

1. Therefore, the nature of human liberty, however it be considered, whether in individuals or in society, whether in those who command or in those who obey, supposes the necessity of obedience to some supreme and eternal law, which is no other than the authority of God, commanding good and forbidding evil. And, so far from this most just authority of God over men diminishing, or even destroying their liberty, it protects and perfects it, for the real perfection of all creatures is found in the prosecution and attainment of their respective ends; but the supreme end to which human liberty must aspire is God.
2. These precepts of the truest and highest teaching, made known to us by the light of reason itself, the Church, instructed by the example and doctrine of her divine Author, has ever propagated and asserted; for she has ever made them the measure of her office and of her teaching to the Christian nations…

The whole of this encyclical can be read at the Vatican site…
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html

 

[shocktrooper]

IMMORTALE DEI

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON THE CHRISTIAN CONSTITUTION OF STATES

Given at St. Peter’s in Rome, the first day of November, 1885, the seventh year of Our pontificate.

3…But, as no society can hold together unless some one be over all, directing all to strive earnestly for the common good, every body politic must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its Author. Hence, it follows that all public power must proceed from God. For God alone is the true and supreme Lord of the world. Everything, without exception, must be subject to Him, and must serve him, so that whosoever holds the right to govern holds it from one sole and single source, namely, God, the sovereign Ruler of all. “There is no power but from God.”(1)

1. Amongst these principles the main one lays down that as all men are alike by race and nature, so in like manner all are equal in the control of their life; that each one is so far his own master as to be in no sense under the rule of any other individual; that each is free to think on every subject just as he may choose, and to do whatever he may like to do; that no man has any right to rule over other men. In a society grounded upon such maxims all government is nothing more nor less than the will of the people, and the people, being under the power of itself alone, is alone its own ruler. It does choose, nevertheless, some to whose charge it may commit itself, but in such wise that it makes over to them not the right so much as the business of governing, to be exercised, however, in its name.
2. The authority of God is passed over in silence, just as if there were no God; or as if He cared nothing for human society; or as if men, whether in their individual capacity or bound together in social relations, owed nothing to God; or as if there could be a government of which the whole origin and power and authority did not reside in God Himself. Thus, as is evident, a State becomes nothing but a multitude which is its own master and ruler. And since the people is declared to contain within itself the spring-head of all rights and of all power, it follows that the State does not consider itself bound by any kind of duty toward God. Moreover, it believes that it is not obliged to make public profession of any religion; or to inquire which of the very many religions is the only one true; or to prefer one religion to all the rest; or to show to any form of religion special favour; but, on the contrary, is bound to grant equal rights to every creed, so that public order may not be disturbed by any particular form of religious belief.

The encyclical in its whole can be read at the Vatican site…
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_01111885_immortale-dei_en.html

 

[shocktrooper]

QUAS PRIMAS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI
ON THE FEAST OF CHRIST THE KING
TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN THE PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES,
ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS, AND OTHER ORDINARIES
IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE.

…] 10. This same doctrine of the Kingship of Christ which we have found in the Old Testament is even more clearly taught and confirmed in the New. The Archangel, announcing to the Virgin that she should bear a Son, says that “the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father, and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”[12]

1. Moreover, Christ himself speaks of his own kingly authority: in his last discourse, speaking of the rewards and punishments that will be the eternal lot of the just and the damned; in his reply to the Roman magistrate, who asked him publicly whether he were a king or not; after his resurrection, when giving to his Apostles the mission of teaching and baptizing all nations, he took the opportunity to call himself king,[13] confirming the title publicly,[14] and solemnly proclaimed that all power was given him in heaven and on earth.[15] These words can only be taken to indicate the greatness of his power, the infinite extent of his kingdom. What wonder, then, that he whom St. John calls the “prince of the kings of the earth”[16] appears in the Apostle’s vision of the future as he who “hath on his garment and on his thigh written ‘King of kings and Lord of lords!’.”[17] It is Christ whom the Father “hath appointed heir of all things”;[18] “for he must reign until at the end of the world he hath put all his enemies under the feet of God and the Father.”[19]
2. Let Us explain briefly the nature and meaning of this lordship of Christ. It consists, We need scarcely say, in a threefold power which is essential to lordship. This is sufficiently clear from the scriptural testimony already adduced concerning the universal dominion of our Redeemer, and moreover it is a dogma of faith that Jesus Christ was given to man, not only as our Redeemer, but also as a law-giver, to whom obedience is due.[24] Not only do the gospels tell us that he made laws, but they present him to us in the act of making them. Those who keep them show their love for their Divine Master, and he promises that they shall remain in his love.[25] He claimed judicial power as received from his Father, when the Jews accused him of breaking the Sabbath by the miraculous cure of a sick man. “For neither doth the Father judge any man; but hath given all judgment to the Son.”[26] In this power is included the right of rewarding and punishing all men living, for this right is inseparable from that of judging. Executive power, too, belongs to Christ, for all must obey his commands; none may escape them, nor the sanctions he has imposed.
3. It would be a grave error, on the other hand, to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to him by the Father, all things are in his power. Nevertheless, during his life on earth he refrained from the exercise of such authority, and although he himself disdained to possess or to care for earthly goods, he did not, nor does he today, interfere with those who possess them. Non eripit mortalia qui regna dat caelestia.[27]
4. Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: “His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ.”[28] Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ. In him is the salvation of the individual, in him is the salvation of society. “Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved.”[29] He is the author of happiness and true prosperity for every man and for every nation. “For a nation is happy when its citizens are happy. What else is a nation but a number of men living in concord?”[30] If, therefore, the rulers of nations wish to preserve their authority, to promote and increase the prosperity of their countries, they will not neglect the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ. What We said at the beginning of Our Pontificate concerning the decline of public authority, and the lack of respect for the same, is equally true at the present day. “With God and Jesus Christ,” we said, “excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation.”[31]

Given at St. Peter’s Rome, on the eleventh day of the month of December, in the Holy Year 1925, the fourth of Our Pontificate.

The whold of this encyclical can be read at the Vatican site…
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_11121925_quas-primas_en.html

 

[shocktrooper]

continued…

1. If We ordain that the whole Catholic world shall revere Christ as King, We shall minister to the need of the present day, and at the same time provide an excellent remedy for the plague which now infects society. We refer to the plague of anti-clericalism, its errors and impious activities. This evil spirit, as you are well aware, Venerable Brethren, has not come into being in one day; it has long lurked beneath the surface. The empire of Christ over all nations was rejected. The right which the Church has from Christ himself, to teach mankind, to make laws, to govern peoples in all that pertains to their eternal salvation, that right was denied. Then gradually the religion of Christ came to be likened to false religions and to be placed ignominiously on the same level with them. It was then put under the power of the state and tolerated more or less at the whim of princes and rulers. Some men went even further, and wished to set up in the place of God’s religion a natural religion consisting in some instinctive affection of the heart. There were even some nations who thought they could dispense with God, and that their religion should consist in impiety and the neglect of God. The rebellion of individuals and states against the authority of Christ has produced deplorable consequences. We lamented these in the Encyclical Ubi arcano; we lament them today: the seeds of discord sown far and wide; those bitter enmities and rivalries between nations, which still hinder so much the cause of peace; that insatiable greed which is so often hidden under a pretense of public spirit and patriotism, and gives rise to so many private quarrels; a blind and immoderate selfishness, making men seek nothing but their own comfort and advantage, and measure everything by these; no peace in the home, because men have forgotten or neglect their duty; the unity and stability of the family undermined; society in a word, shaken to its foundations and on the way to ruin. We firmly hope, however, that the feast of the Kingship of Christ, which in future will be yearly observed, may hasten the return of society to our loving Savior. It would be the duty of Catholics to do all they can to bring about this happy result…
2. Nations will be reminded by the annual celebration of this feast that not only private individuals but also rulers and princes are bound to give public honor and obedience to Christ. It will call to their minds the thought of the last judgment, wherein Christ, who has been cast out of public life, despised, neglected and ignored, will most severely avenge these insults; for his kingly dignity demands that the State should take account of the commandments of God and of Christian principles, both in making laws and in administering justice, and also in providing for the young a sound moral education.

Given at St. Peter’s Rome, on the eleventh day of the month of December, in the Holy Year 1925, the fourth of Our Pontificate.

The whold of this encyclical can be read at the Vatican site…
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_11121925_quas-primas_en.html

 

[shocktrooper]

Actually, the Church disagrees

Spider42, After reading through your comments again, I am not sure how you can say that the Church teaches we should treat intrinsic evils as equal to other teachings that allow for prudential judgment. Either I have misunderstood you, or you have misunderstood the quote you were using to support your position.

Yes, the Church teaches we need to take into account the fullness of Her teachings but this is after laying down the law on intrinsic evils.

DOCTRINAL NOTE
on some questions regarding
The Participation of Catholics in Political Life

John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a «grave and clear obligation to oppose» any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.[19]

In this context, 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.

This paragraph above is, IMO, directed towards those that elevate issues that are subject to prudential judgment over those that are intrinsic evils. It has already been said that one cannot support an intrinsic evil. I am not sure how much clearer this can get. This can also mean, simply, that besides not supporting intrinsic evils, one must also engage in issues that are slightly less important, ones that are subject to prudential judgment. But in no way does the second and third sentences abrogate the first. If the second sentence began as…“However, the Christian faith is an integral unity…”, then you may be in a better position to make your case.

I must admit that I share your concern with everything else you wrote and agree that more “non-negotiables” need to be considered, but I also understand the reason for CA to reduce them the way they did.

Thanks for all the links provided. I have printed them out and made many notations. In light of the document I posted above (that you posted), along with the older encyclicals I posted earlier, I now like the “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” just a little bit more now. The language is not as strong as I prefer and it really does not draw clear lines between the non-negotiables and the other issues, leaving ambiguity and confusion for the reader. One of the most important lines in the document is at the beginning where it says…

It does not offer a quantitative listing of issues for equal consideration, but outlines and makes important distinctions among moral issues acknowledging that some involve the clear obligation to oppose intrinsic evils which can never be justified and that others require action to pursue justice and promote the common good.

and these two…

This is not new teaching but affirms what is taught by our Bishops’ Conference and the whole Church.

This statement is intended to reflect and complement, not substitute for, the ongoing teaching of bishops in our own dioceses and states.

So the document itself states it is not a complete teaching and that the entire history of the Church, including previous magisterial documents need to be considered in order to fully understand what the Church is really saying here. I am not making this point for your benefit; I just wanted to put it out there.

 

[pnewton]

Your acception of the notion of the role and the function of government with all corollaries (penal law specifically) is not in link with the view of Saint Augustine, of Saint Thomas Aquinas, of the refusal by the catholic church of dictatorship, of totalitarism, of the theocratical legal system of the State…etc…

I am surprised by this statement, though I would hope perhaps it was made from ignorance. Surely you do not support pedophilia being legal and simply a moral choice that one can choose to make or not make, do you?

If not, then why should a child not be able to have consentual sex with an adult? I have never heard one answer that would also not make underage sex between children equally subject to legal restraing.

No, I reject your unsubstantiated claim about the above saints unless you can show me where they supported legalized child sex.

 

[Linux]

No, I reject your unsubstantiated claim about the above saints unless you can show me where they supported legalized child sex.

I would have thought it obvious why child sex is harmful to society. It is not however obvious why homosexuality and abortion is harmful to society.

 

[pnewton]

I would have thought it obvious why child sex is harmful to society. It is not however obvious why homosexuality and abortion is harmful to society.

I conceded the possibility that the comment reflected ignorance. The only law I specifically addressed I would like to see involved underaged sex. I don’t mind if this was a mistake. I know it is easy to not actually read before responding with an opinion.

 

[Spider42]

Spider42, After reading through your comments again, I am not sure how you can say that the Church teaches we should treat intrinsic evils as equal to other teachings that allow for prudential judgment. Either I have misunderstood you, or you have misunderstood the quote you were using to support your position.

For what it is worth, I have never claimed that all teachings have equal weight. In fact, my biggest complaint about the CA list is that it drops items that the Church has identified as life issues - which carry special weight. I have simply quoted the Church’s warnings that it is morally dangerous to try to isolate and elevate a very select subset of teachings.

The problem is that, in treating the faith as a zero sum game in politics, we potentially undermine the very teachings we are trying to protect. An example I gave earlier was how collapsing the Church’s list item “Family” to “Gay Marriage” can fool Catholics into voting in theologically incoherent ways (‘supporting’ marriage by voting for candidates who, themselves reject our concepts about the Sacrament very publicly, etc.)

The US Bishops, referencing the same quote from Rome’s Doctrinal Note (#4) explain it this way:

1. 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…

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

So their interpretation of the same quote from Rome seems a little different then yours, they take Rome to mean that either approach would be a mistake. Ignoring the special significance of some teachings, or using those teachings as an excuse to ignore other fundamental ethical demands.

This paragraph above is, IMO, directed towards those that elevate issues that are subject to prudential judgment over those that are intrinsic evils. It has already been said that one cannot support an intrinsic evil.

The problem I have with your interpretation is that who decides which issues are of ‘prudential judgement’?

CA has elected to drop issues that Rome has described as “fundamental and inalienable ethical demands” (#4) in its doctrinal note. Rome’s list was given even more weight in Sacramentum Caritatis.

We are an apostolic church, if the Vicar of Christ promulgates a document that tells us that certain “moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation” must be considered by all Catholics in voting and a lay group produces a document that omits most those items altogether, where should Catholics be looking?

The language is not as strong as I prefer and it really does not draw clear lines between the non-negotiables and the other issues, leaving ambiguity and confusion for the reader.

In the bishops’ defense, they have no choice. They must use Rome’s list, not just the items they want, and they must be theologically accurate. If you try to vote Rome’s list of 11 items in their entirety, there are no easy choices. A great deal of thought and soul searching is required. Sure, a simplified, forceful list is ‘easier’, but as you note, these long documents from the Church are not even remotely close to all of Church teaching. How much more spiritually risky is it to rely on a simple powerpoint style presentation that offers an alternate list from Rome’s and ignores the explanations of the local princes altogether?

My apologies for not responding to you sooner. I only have a limited amount of time that I can spend here, and I have to approach these conversations with some care. I’m also used to reading, reflection, prayer, etc. between theological comments and this is a very different environment.

I applaud your efforts in studying the Church’s documents in this area and am most happy to have you as a brother in Christ.