If you would accept this to be the definition of morality, then you would have no choice but to declare fornication, pre-marital sex, contraception, homosexuality, and masturbation, among others, as immoral because these acts are not as of today socially accepted.
Nobody, in particular. It just emerges from general concensus. And it is maintained by the current society. If someone violates the codified laws, they will be punished by the legal system. If someone violates the unwritten rules, they will be ostracized.
That is a very bad analogy. People do not get killed in a divorce. Not that there is a need for analogy, the facts speak for themselves. What is better, to be stuck in a bad relationship, or close the chapter and move on? Besides, the Catholic Church allows separation - which is a de-facto divorce. The Church only “frowns” on re-marriage, not the divorce (separation) itself.
Didn’t you ask for my views? Then why do you object for expressing them?
I wonder how would you have behaved if you were to walk a mile in their shoes? The instinct to survive is very strong. Besides, you still have to substantiate that there is an “absolute moral law” - on secular grounds, of course.
Some do, others do not.
Depends on the society. In some societies they are declared as immoral, in others they are not. In the Scandinavian societies they are perfectly accetable, in the Islamic ones they are punishable by law. Which one is more palatable is a matter of taste. Personally I prefer freedom to Sharia, or any other type of totalitarian system - be they secular or religion based.
No, it is not de-facto divorce. For divorce presupposes the existence of a valid marriage
I did not ask your opinion about that. It was your opinion in reply to brentomistic in post #263.
I, in their shoes? My feet would not fit their shoes. God provided manna from heaven when the Israelites hungered in the desert. The source of absolute moral law would be there so that it shall not be violated.
That is why we say that your optimal strategy is not in the nature of man.
Marriage is a legal, secular construct. Don’t forget, we are talking about secular matters here. The CC allows separation, but not re-marriage. The de-jure divorce ackowledges the de-facto separation, the cessation of a legal relationship. It makes no sense to say that the legal cessation of a relationship is socially harmful, while the actual separation is acceptable.
I stand corrected. Indeed I replied to Brentomistic, you just jumped in, and I replied to you.
There was precious little “manna” on the snowy peaks of the Andes. There was a “choice”, starvation, or cannibalism. And the outside world did not throw the “first stone”. The survivors were accepted and no blame was piled upon them. In other words, their behavior was not condemned as “immoral”.
Powers do not define “moral laws”, they define “actual legal laws”. The two are not identical. Moral “law” is an oxymoron. History does bear witness to the constant turmoil, to power struggle, to changing socially acceptable norms. I don’t know if you think that we are headed in the right or wrong direction. Personally, I would not trade places with any member of any of the older societies, not even with the most powerful ones. The good old times are today, and it will be better tomorrow.
You cannot expect the people of yesteryear to be aware of the mathematical intricacies of game theory. So, formally they were not aware of it. But they did have a pretty good inclination of the “stuff” behind the theory, which is attested to by the formulation of the Golden Rule, and the Inverse Golden Rule - none of which are original Christian propositions.
Within a secular context, marriage is useful for some people but not ALL people which is why we are witnessing the rise of de-facto relationships.
A rather subtle good example there
. I think it went right over his head though.Divorce kills marriage or is the death of a marriage; that should be obvious. The Church doesn’t frown on re-marriage, for divorce, or separation if you will, does not end the previous marriage. It is more than frowned upon, re-marriage is “prohibited” with the spouse still living. To do so is to be in mortal sin, and quite possible is automatic excommunication as well, so it’s a LOT more than just frowned upon. That’s the official angle, what any individual catholic does with it may be an entirely different matter.
Not so. From: blog.worldvillage.com/family/the_second_marriage_divorce_rate_is_it_possible_to_beat_the_odds_and_make_your_second_marriage_a_success.html
4 Causes of Racism -
Very true. I see nothing wrong with it. As long as two people love each other, the “paper” can be superfluous.
The “till death” clause does not necessarily appear in a civil marriage. However, a contract can be dissolved or invalidated by mutual agreement. Moreover, some couples agree to have an open relationship, where extra-marital engagement is permitted.
Thanks for the recommendation.
Only if you wish to be poetic.
I put the word “frown” into quotes, to allude to the fact that I was talking figuratively. However, this part of the thread is concerned with secular underpinning for the Church’s position of sexual matters. So to refer to “mortal sin” should not be applicable here. I already agreed, that the Church’s position is defensible on theological grounds, so the point is moot.
Maybe. “Stereotyping” can occur on both secular and religious basis. It is an “us” versus “them” point of view. But what is your point? What does that have to do with anything concerning the secular underpinning of the Catholic teachings about sexual matters?
You’re the one who said “the Church” frowns upon it. I don’t really know what you mean by putting quotes around it. If you go to mention Church, and then somebody corrects you on that, you certainly then shoudln’t want to reach for the secular exemption, because there is no such thing as a secular Church. You strayed from your secular turf IOW.Only if you wish to be poetic.
I put the word “frown” into quotes, to allude to the fact that I was talking figuratively. However, this part of the thread is concerned with secular underpinning for the Church’s position of sexual matters. So to refer to “mortal sin” should not be applicable here. I already agreed, that the Church’s position is defensible on theological grounds, so the point is moot.
Oh, come on. It means that Church does not allow it. Should I spell it out in more detail? The Church does not object separation. The Church will allow re-marriage, if one of the couple dies. The Church allows re-marriage in one more instance: if the marriage has not been consummated.
If you say so, but from what I have gathered over the years, the use of the word frown (a frown being a very weak thing) in such an instance usually designates a position that some organization officially doesn’t allow on paper, but in practice does otherwise (nudge-nudge wink-wink).
Any two people have the free will to cohabit without a ‘piece of paper’. However, some of the following stats are interesting:
I don’t know where these statistics come from, but I will accept them - provisionally - until you can establish them.