Court ruling does support incest, polygamy

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The papal magisterium (Pius XII) in Humani Generis taught that all human beings (except the original pair of course) are descended from the same parents. That is the Catholic teaching and it is in the CCC as well.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

The Catholic Encyclopedia in its article on consanguinity takes the position that sibling relations are not contrary to the natural law.

*By the law of nature, it is universally conceded, marriage is prohibited between parent and child, for the reverential relation between them is recognized as incompatible with the equality of relations engendered by the bond of marriage. The universal sentiment of peoples is likewise opposed to marriage between all persons related in any degree in the direct line, thus between grandparent and grandchild.

HISTORY OF IMPEDIMENT

Because of the acknowledged derivation of the human race from the common progenitors, Adam and Eve, it is difficult to accept the opinion of some theologians that the marriage of brother and sister is against the law of nature; otherwise the propagation of the human race would have begun by violation of the natural law. It is readily understood that, considering the freedom of intercourse between such persons, some effort would soon be made (in the interest of the social welfare) to prevent early corruption within the close family circle by placing a bar to the hope of marriage. Hence among all peoples there has arisen a natural repugnance to the marriage of brother and sister. Some theologians suppose herein a positive Divine law, but it is not easy to point out any such early Divine enactment. Abraham married Sarah who was his sister by his father, though of a different mother (Genesis 11; cf. Genesis 20:12).*

newadvent.org/cathen/04264a.htm

For those unfamiliar with some of the terminology, “positive” above means it is enacted by the legislator (God in the case of a divine law) as opposed to being inherent in the nature of things (which is what the natural law consists of)

I agree with Pius XII that we are all descended from an original pair and I also agree with the Catholic Encyclopedia that sibling relations are not contrary to the natural law. When the Code of Canon Law was being assembled, this issue actually came up and what resulted was that the phrasing of the relevant canon was designed to simply say that the Church does not grant dispensations for siblings to marry without implying a judgment as to whether it was in accord with natural law.
 
cor,

That’s a good post.

There are a couple of ambiguities that linger, however, despite the attempts of the Magisterium to clear things up. The Director of Apologetics at Catholic Answers, Jimmy Akin, made a brief discussion of the issues here.

First, it’s dogmatically certain that God creates each soul individually and ex nihilo. This is true also for Adam and Eve. Being a simple substance, it’s quite silly to talk about the immortal soul of a human “evolving”.

It’s not beyond the pale of orthodoxy, however, to believe that the bodies of our first parents evolved, and then two (Adam and Eve) were imbued with souls by God. The Hebrew would even seem to support this reading. In any case, the now-immortally-ensouled children of these two then mated with humans with material (think animal) souls, and begot children with immortal souls. Et cetera, et cetera. Eventually, the only humans who existed were humans with immortal souls. Hence, all humans could be* truly *descended from Adam and Eve, and incest not play into the picture.

This could be. I’m not saying it is or that it is not – simply that it’s an option to be explored. Since reason cannot be opposed to faith, I’m willing to go where the science (or the Church) takes me. As it stands, I’m reserving judgment until it’s clear.

BTW, the “some theologians” spoken of in the article who condemn incest would include St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
Please return to the topic or this thread will be closed.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary
 
cor said:
I wouldn’t mind polygamy being legal. Since some Mormons want to practice it, I think it is a matter of religious freedom that it be allowed. We should permit people to practice their religion as much as possible.
Click to expand...
I hope your only joking here.
 
After Lawrence, another case i forget the name of went before the USSC regarding the prohibition of homopsexual behavior in the Military. the USSC ruled in favor of the UCMJ prohibition based on the Constitutional role of Congress to “make rules for the governance of the land and naval forces”, and military personnel willingly submit to stricter rules and regulations with full knowledge BEFOREHAND of entering the service.

Lawrence does not give blanket freedom to anything at all. however, sexual relations between non-related consenting, non-paying/prostituting adults cannot be regulated. incest wiull not be legalized because of an existing, immensely strong relationship between the parties.

if you will notice that prison guards regularly are convicted for having sex with inmates on the grounds that inmates cannot give FULL consent because the guards hold a certain dominion over them that renders any consent seemingly given, tainted by their unique relationship. the same will hold true for incest. siblings, children and parents have unique relationships that taint any consent given because of the nature of the family bond.

polygamy might survive a prosecution per se challenge because in MOST polygamous communities, the man civilly married his FIRST wife, and subsequent wives were taken under private civilly meaningless ceremonies. that is, no civil paperwork was filed, and the man just cohabitates with his civil wife, and his other “religious wives”. the state cannot prosecute a person for simply living with multiple women, as long as no party applies for, or represents themselves as LEGALLY married. i.e. filing for their taxes as civilly married or filling out forms as such.

as long as a multiple spouse household does not in ANY way represent themselves as LEGALLY (civilly) married, or hold more than one valid marriage certificate among all persons, then their sexual conduct and cohabitation among CONSENTING adults is protected by Lawrence.
 
40.png
cor:
Are you saying that all sins should be illegal?
Click to expand...
No. What I am saying that we should not make sin legal.
40.png
cor:
Should, masturbation be illegal?
Click to expand...
In some cases, yes. For example, I would hope that the public would be in favor of making it illegal to teach masturbation as part of the curriculum of sex education. Such a crime should be punishable by a fine, and perhaps even jail time.
40.png
cor:
Should lying – other than things like perjury or calumny – be illegal?
Click to expand...
The gravity of the crime determines whether or not it should be illegal or not. You have illustrated this effectively and where I stand on the issue of making sin illegal.
40.png
cor:
What about non-abortifacient contraception?
Click to expand...
My personal opinion is that all forms of artificial contraception should be illegal. The devestating effects of contraception is painfully real in our society. Many people look at the decision of Roe v. Wade in 1972 as the start of a very dark chapter in American history. That chapter started well before that including the decision of Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 when the supreme court ruled that a law regarding a ban on selling contraception was deemed unconstitutional. The effect of that decision is still felt today by the legalization of closing the marital act from its natural purpose.

Step 1: Supreme Court legalizes the sinful behavior of artificial contraception.
Step 2: Supreme Court legalizes the sinful behavior of abortion on demand.
Step 3: Supreme Court legalizes the sinful behavior of homo-sexual acts.
Step 4: Supreme Court legalizes polygyny (date of legalization to be determined)
Step 5: Supreme Court legalizes polyandry (date of legalization to be determined)
Step 6: Supreme Court legalizes incestous relationships (date of legalization to be determined)
Step 7: Supreme Court legalizes prostitution across the board (although already legal in some regions in the US already, it wouldn’t surprise me if states were prohibited from making it illegal entirely some day; date of legalization to be determined)
Step 8: Who knows what else? The landslide could actually get much worse.

Since you feel that non-abortifacient contraception is acceptable to remain legal, should we allow incestous relationships if the couple contracepts or even decides to permaneantly sterilize themselves? Or perhaps are you ok with these forms of relationships to be legal altogether regardless of the risks associated with birth deformalities?

Should prostitution be illegal (even though currently legal in some parts of the country already)? Or do you think that it should be legal everywhere if properly regulated?
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
The gravity of the crime determines whether or not it should be illegal or not.
Click to expand...
So something shouldn’t be criminalized just because it is a sin (which seemed to be your initial argument or at least how I understood it) – according to you, it should be criminalized if it is a sufficiently grave sin. According to Aquinas, IIRC, hating God is the gravest of all sins. Are you saying then that hatred of God should be criminalized! You would then be establishing a so-called “thought crime” – of course if one kept it to one’s self no one would know, but if one expressed hatred of God, say on a blog, one would know. Are you then saying that expressing hatred of God should be criminalized? That would go against the freedom of speech clause in the First Amendment.
Since you feel that non-abortifacient contraception is acceptable to remain legal, should we allow incestous relationships if the couple contracepts or even decides to permaneantly sterilize themselves?
Click to expand...
I don’t support criminalizing relations between cousins (and in the Church’s law, second cousins can marry today without a dispensation while first cousins need a dispensation to do so) as, for one thing, it turns out that the risk for birth defects for first cousin couples is about the same as that for any woman over the age of 40 giving birth.

cousincouples.com/?page=facts

As for brother and sister, contraception can fail and some forms of sterilization can fail (vasectomy for example can very rarely fail). If two siblings were absolutely infertile, I would be disinclined to throw them in jail for their engaging in sexual activity with each other. I would be more open to something like a fine, but since I agree with the CE article that it is not contrary to natural law, I would find it difficult to justify in such a case. These are my present thoughts on the matter.
Should prostitution be illegal (even though currently legal in some parts of the country already)? Or do you think that it should be legal everywhere if properly regulated?
Click to expand...
Hypothetically, if a husband wants to have conjugal relations with his wife but his wife is reluctant but the wife says that she’ll oblige if the husband washes the dishes for her and the husband does so and they thus have conjugal relations – does that constitute a form of prostitution? If it does not – apart from the state of being married (because we could use an example where the couple isn’t married in which it would be fornication and ask whether it would also be prostitution) – what is the morally relevant difference between it and what we normally think of as “prostitution”?

I think I would have to answer the above question first before forming a reliable opinion on whether prostitution should be criminalized. Until then my thoughts would have an extremely tentative character.
 
I agree with most of what cor says. The state’s two-fold purpose is to protect individual rights and provide for the good of the society. Today, however, the state typically errors on the side of not protecting us enough from others.

Prostitution carries a risk to individuals and to society. There are diseases that spread through sexual contact. When sex is totally monogamous, sexually transmitted diseases go the way of the dinosaur. The state has a legitimate concern in preventing disease.

Sodomy is another area the state has fallen short in recent years. Ever wonder how much this error has cost us each, individually? The state’s intent to allow homosexuals to needlessly abuse their own bodies has cost us billions in real money. You and I are paying for their recreation in very real terms. Many innocent people have paid with their lives. If aggressive enforcement of the laws that were largely on the books until relatively recently quite likely would have saved us from this scourge.

Dan
 
40.png
cor:
Are you then saying that expressing hatred of God should be criminalized? That would go against the freedom of speech clause in the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
Well, if I murder a person with full knowledge of the action I am undertaking, and I consented fully to that action, that would be a mortal sin which by definition is hatred for God. Yes, hatred for God should be criminalized since all mortal sin is also detrimental to society.

However, a great point that you brought up (thought police) is how do you know with certainty that someone has committed a crime that deserves to be punished, even if it is murder? No one can possibly know with 100% certainty that a person does a criminal action with the full knowledge and consent which demands punishment by the government.

Hmmm. What about other mortal sins like having strange gods, not keeping the sabbath holy, not honoring your parents, adultery, coveting? Perhaps my argument is a bit weaker when it comes to these mortal sins.

But then again, look what happened to Israel after King Solomon introduced strange gods into his kingdom; it fell apart. Our society seems to be following a similar path, all in the name of individual freedom.
 
40.png
Stylteralmaldo:
Well, if I murder a person with full knowledge of the action I am undertaking, and I consented fully to that action, that would be a mortal sin which by definition is hatred for God. Yes, hatred for God should be criminalized since all mortal sin is also detrimental to society.

However, a great point that you brought up (thought police) is how do you know with certainty that someone has committed a crime that deserves to be punished, even if it is murder? No one can possibly know with 100% certainty that a person does a criminal action with the full knowledge and consent which demands punishment by the government.

Hmmm. What about other mortal sins like having strange gods, not keeping the sabbath holy, not honoring your parents, adultery, coveting? Perhaps my argument is a bit weaker when it comes to these mortal sins.

But then again, look what happened to Israel after King Solomon introduced strange gods into his kingdom; it fell apart. Our society seems to be following a similar path, all in the name of individual freedom.
Click to expand...
I forgot to address your point regarding the First Amendment if someone expresses verbally that they hate God. This is the point where intent is important and our government would have an awful difficult time knowing the thoughts of others and whether that verbal expression’s intent was (again bringing up your point of “thought police”).

If someone hates God, they will not limit that hatred to their verbal expressions. They will, through their actions, act on that hatred through whatever grave sin they chose to enact upon, be it perjury, murder, adultery, etc. all of which are detrimental to society. I hope that clarifies my thoughts on the matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top