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

[fpt]

Here in the US, we follow the Anglo-Saxon tradition of contracts and torts.

Under the Constitution, which has been gravely misunderstood by various courts and politicians over the last 210 years, all of these social and criminal laws are determined by the individual states, not Washington, DC.

To quote Jason Lewis: The framers of the Constitution wrote it so that it would protect us from government and foreigners, and the states exist to protect us from each other essentially.

So in the Constitution, each state determines its own social policy.

The civil law and the penal law have two different roles. The nature of the penal law and the nature of the civil law are not the same.

1. The civil responsability is linked:

to the civil contracts and co for the non respect of contractual obligations of contract, or of the contractual obligations written by the civil code of laws or the equivalents (civil laws about the contract), by the equity, or by the commun law , or the custom, or the case law of juridictions: contractual responsablity with all the sources of contractual obligations.
And
to the civil torts (the non contractual responsability) if pains, if injuries because of an action and a behavior that can not enter in the penal sphere of law, for different legal reasons.

for getting damages via money. Here, the elements are: behavior, the injuries in the large sense, link of the causality between the fault and the injuries, and the money for a private interest or other forms of private reparation.

1. The penal responsablity is linked:

to the penal code of state for crimes and penal fines. The purpose is to put in jail and give money to the State for the penal public interest.

3.In France, there are the penal responsability, the civil responsability (contractual responsability and the extra-contractual responsablity — the non contractual responsability —) too, after the legal regime is so different.

Here, on the CAF, we need to identify in link with the global teaching of the catholic church:

what should stay in the sphere of morality and not enter of the other spheres;

what should enter and stay, only, in the sphere of the civil law, and not enter of the penal sphere;

what should enter in the sphere of the penal law and also enter in the civil spheres (both for public sanctions (jail or money for the State – and money for the victims --“penal victim and civil victim” –

For to do this job, we need to purify our own soul with all corollaries and thus t to do a analysis of the catholic doctrine in the details and with all the subtleties, for discerning: the fact of identifying the good spheres, in the catholic sense. Thus, we need to avoid the ideologies and the christian heresies. Otherwise it is morally wrong, unfair, not fair and not catholic

 

[cmodrmac]

The problem is that the Teachings of the Catholic Church are for Catholics-they are not meant to be used as civil laws or statutes -the way I read it Catholics somehow “must” follow these ? principles-the majority of Americans (what % majority is unclear) do not believe in them-the Catholic laity has spoken by actions regarding the birth control teaching

Likely some of these principles will be continued to be avocated for centuries to come -for example abortion prohibition

Certainly Catholics should not believe that Orthodox Jews should necessarily adopt these Principles or closer to home Luthrans and Episcopaleans

Thou shalt not kill is clear -it gets murky though when one considers " Thou shall not study embryonic stem cells " when viewed from a non Catholic perspective

 

[pnewton]

The problem is that the Teachings of the Catholic Church are for Catholics-they are not meant to be used as civil laws or statutes -the way I read it Catholics somehow “must” follow these

This simply is not true. Doctrine is teaching about truth, moral or theological, that apply all the time to every one. Canon Law applies only to Catholics, but that is not really applicable here. We do not answer Pilate’s question that truth is whatever you believe it to be.

Certainly Catholics should not believe that Orthodox Jews should necessarily adopt these Principles or closer to home Luthrans and

Our expectations are irrelevant. I do not expect Jews to follow the moral teaching of the Catholic Church in areas that they do not agree. But to the extent that they do not, they still commit objective sin, though they may not be subjectively held accountable. A homosexual that believes his desires are acceptable or a young couple that decide co-habitation is okay before marriage are still just objective wrong even if they have no religious background. They still may well be culpable though. People have a way of justifying sin that in the begining the know is sin.

 

[cmodrmac]

Every time I read the forum I am delighted to note the strength of faith in many of the individuals who Post.

However I get discouraged when an appeal to authority is made as an arguement in this case the Magisterium-it really ends all debate. It is obvious that in the True Believer the point is over-enough said

Unfortunately the majority of Americans do not believe in the authority of the Magisterium -and logical arguements are hard to make without this appeal in the case of the True Believer

 

[fix]

Every time I read the forum I am delighted to note the strength of faith in many of the individuals who Post.

However I get discouraged when an appeal to authority is made as an arguement in this case the Magisterium-it really ends all debate. It is obvious that in the True Believer the point is over-enough said

Unfortunately the majority of Americans do not believe in the authority of the Magisterium -and logical arguements are hard to make without this appeal in the case of the True Believer

Well, if one rejects the Church how can one claim fidelity to Christ?

 

[fix]

the way I read it Catholics somehow “must” follow these ? principles-the majority of Americans (what % majority is unclear) do not believe in them-the Catholic laity has spoken by actions regarding the birth control teaching

All the centuries of believers and martyrs are to be dismissed because so many reject and dissent today? Is that the standard? By historical standards very few dissent.

 

[seekerz]

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.

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:

…

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

“Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, 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.”

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.

(shortened for space)

I have read this thread, and your posts in particular, with interest. Thanks for providing much food for reflection, particularly with regard to this ‘summarizing’ of non-negotiables.

Not only does it seem a question of relying on ‘shortcuts’ with regard to matters of faith, but the distortion caused by focusing on some non-negotiables to the exclusion of others, raises in my mind, several practical concerns. For example, I have seen more than one post justifying the emphasis on opposing gay marriage as a ‘current issue’, while contending that divorce laws are not a ‘current issue’ in our politics.

However, the pertinent questions to me appear to be:

1. If defense of the family is the actual aim, do the two issues not have at least equal importance for Catholics? For example, how is preventing gays from marrying more of an emergent issue in protecting the traditional family when people are breezing in and out of their marital vows at alarming rates and where prevailing secular wisdom is to accept these upheavals as a normal part of life?
2. Is the idea of evaluating politicians based on non-negotiables simply to be applied to what said politicians talk about/promise, or is it to be applied to their entire life/persona? By this I mean, are we applying non-negotiables based on what politicians propose to do (or what we think they can practically achieve) or are we also applying these as a means of character evaluation?
3. Isn’t the Church’s more holistic approach, inclusive of all the essential aspects of moral living, more relevant and realistic, given that life’s important moral issues are intricately related and don’t come in isolated bubbles that we can address one at a time in some orderly sequence?