Forcing Catholic Morality on everyone

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, either Catholic teaching is true, or it isn’t.

If it is true, then its moral teachings are true.

If its moral teachings are true, then any teachings which oppose those teachings can’t be true also.

Now, humans should be seeking truth, right? IOW, if people are faced between a choice of doing or following something which is true or something which is not true, isn’t it better that people follow what is true? Would you want to follow something which is false, or live by and espouse concepts which are not true?

So, loving our neighbor means wanting our neighbor to be able to follow true teachings instead of false teachings. It means wanting our society to be teaching truth and not falsehood. It means wanting people to live by truth and to carry out truth, and not to live by and seek out things which are not true.

I think mikey that you are struggling with relativism and indifferentism; the ideas that ‘truth’ can be different for different people, such that “if abortion is murder by YOUR belief, but it is NOT murder by Mr. X’s belief, then abortion is wrong for YOU but right for Mr. X.”

That just isn’t possible. A moral truth cannot be different for individuals, or groups. It must be the same for all.

Further, some people believe that "all belief systems have some truth and some falsehood so there is no one ‘true’ system’, therefore, each belief system is ‘just as good’ (and no better) than any other belief system, and ALL systems must be given exactly the same ‘weight’, even if the systems totally contradict each other. Again, truth does not ‘change’ depending on the person or society and their choice to ‘accept’ or reject something as truth. Either there is a moral absolute truth, or there is nothing but chaos.

If something is true, it is true even if not a single person will ‘choose’ to believe it.
and if something is false, it is false even if every single person ‘chooses’ to think it is ‘true.’

 

[Rence]

This is just a question… Why are we always trying to get the government to adopt Catholic values as law?
I mean we want to outlaw abortion and contraception, ban gay marriage, the list goes on and on…
But some Christian Churches and Jewish synangoues take issues with our morality…
Virtually all protestants while opposing abortion use some kind of contraception and reform jews and quakers say being gay is fine and support gay marriage…
Why does it have to be “my way or the highway” for Catholic morality… Why can’t we have our values to ourselves and they have their values…
We are governed by separation of church and state in this country…
A Quaker or Reformed Jew may be a gay or want an abortion… Why are we to oppose their value system?

It’s not supposed to be that way of course. We should value the next person’s rights, religious freedom, and autonomy as much as we value our own. But Catholics, like the next person (notoriously, the muslims for example), have the right to lobby for legislation that is important to them and their moral values - which are defined by the Church. So those who are, for example, lobbying for legislation to prevent gays from being married, are not doing so in the name of the Church necessarily, they’re doing so because they believe it’s wrong and believe people shouldn’t be allowed to do it. They do the same with divorce laws, abortion laws, contraception, etc. It’s the same for Muslims who are lobbying for legislation to allow Sharia law in their communities. People are all the same, not as different as we would all like to believe, and people value their own values above everyone else’s and reflect that in their votes, lobbying, petitioning, assemblying, speech, etc. I think it’s just that Catholics and Muslims are definitely making the most noise about it than others But honestly, they’re no different than anyone else who fight for what they believe to be right or true.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bohm Bawerk,

Come on… you can do better than a plagiarized quip… can’t you?

Actually, strictly from a sociological view, societies that murder their unborn and unwanted young, have little or no laws governing marriage and promote homosexuality - simply do not last. Ancient Greece and Rome are interesting case studies - and while their ultimate downfall can not be reduced to just these three items - their role in the destruction of these societies can not be ignored.

I really think you have skipped a step here, Mikeyrobbie in your OP. Civil society has adopted seven of the Ten Commandments - imagine what the world would be like if people did not have to obey authority (IV) could kill, and injure a person’s body or mind or reputation at will (V) sex was for the taking and no one could claim any exclusiveness (VI, IX) lying, perjury or any type of deception was without penalty (VIII) stealing can now be raised to an art form - “What is yours I now declare to be mine” (VII, X).

As I see it, those who state, “You can’t legislate morality” simply do not know what they are talking about. Now, all of the Commandments I have listed were considered as having come form God. Saying that some Jews do not abide by them is really of no significant consequence - people who claim there is no God seem to be found in every religion… and then they ultimately abandon the religion to fit their behavior.

I think if you look at the laws that makes for a good society: honest people, who value life, integrity, family and chastity - you will find a strong society. When the laws are relaxed or abandoned from these areas the society is weakened. Keep this up and it will fall.

God bless

“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

 

[Rence]

Jesus was not quiet about sin - He called it what it is. It would be a sin of omission to remain silent. Sin is never a “value system”.

Jesus called people to change their own actions and own their own decisions. He didn’t lobby the government to force people to obey His teachings, or change the laws to reflect his teachings. In fact, he said of his Apostles and disciples, “If they don’t hear you, shake the dust of their homes off your feet, and move on to the next home”.

 

[Rence]

If some cult thinks Grandma murder a virtue – are we forcing our morality on them by saying such is gravely wrong?

I think the OP was referring to activities that are legal…it’s illegal to kill Grandma…

 

[Rence]

We do? I wasn’t aware that there is a movement in the Catholic Church to actually make contraception illegal. Sure, the Church teaches that it is a sin, but there are a lot of sins that the Church does not seek to outlaw in terms of civil legislation. In many cases it would simply be a futile endeavor to try to do otherwise.

Actually, here on CAF, numerous people have said they wanted laws outlawing contraception — because they regard some contraceptives as the same as abortion. “We” do not, of course, though I can understand the OP thinking it’s a “Catholic movement” because he’s read about it here, where many may think this is an everyday repreentation of Catholics.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Rence,
Societies (civilized ones) build their legalities on morality. Much of that morality unofficially and/or coincidentally proceeds from religious concepts. That’s the way it has always been, from the beginnings of formal governance to 2011. If societies and legislatures and electorates can “force” calling murder a crime (and the basis is respect for a human life), then they can consider also how other activities and decisions impair an ordered society and jeopardize the formation of healthy households. It’s that simple.

 

[Rence]

Because what we believe is the truth.

Not “our” truth. The truth is not something which a person can own; what is true for us is necessarily true for everyone. Hence, THE truth.

Anyone who disagrees with THE truth is simply wrong – and therefore not entitled to act on their errors.

Does Catholicism possess THE truth? (Or at least closer to it than anyone else?) If so, you must as a matter of principle support constituting society on the basis of it – or else you are saying society ought to be constituted on the basis of falsehood.

And if you don’t believe Catholicism possesses the truth… why in the world are you a Catholic?

No, they don’t. Because they are WRONG.

They may THINK they are right. But they aren’t – they’re WRONG.

They may try to establish sharia law – but they have no right to do it, because it is false, and no one has a right to error. This would be true even if they succeeded in it.

Yah, Take THAT MikeyRobbie, Bohm, and especially you Rascalking :knight2:

 

[Elizabeth502]

Actually, here on CAF, numerous people have said they wanted laws outlawing contraception — because they regard some contraceptives as the same as abortion…

I will note, though, that during my lifetime I have witnessed an evolution from all contraceptives being behind the counter and by-request-only to locatable on the shelf in all convenience stores and even stores at gas stations…My point being that even in the U.S., it was fairly recently a societal assumption that sex was an adult activity and that therefore there it was inappropriate to display contraceptives as casually as candy bars.

Now we just assume that everyone behaves like animals apparently – no wait, worse: animals generally having mating seasons, whereas ours are 24/7/365.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Then we should all be free to do as we please. And everything is relative. There is no truth. Sorry, I’ve been down the Atheist avenue before…

 

[Rence]

When we live in a pluralistic, multicultural society, we should recognize that society must set limits on implementing into secular law what each group regards as the Truth. Society cannot follow Torah Law, nor Sharia Law, nor Gospel Law in their entirety. If it did, we would be living in a theocracy, not a democracy, in which opponents who didn’t believe the Law would be imprisoned, exiled, or executed.

Right. In choosing to live in a pluralistic and multicultural society, it’ a given that one is going to have to undertand that not everyone is going to be the same, and that the next person isn’t going to share one’s values based on one’s religion. The laws of this great nation aren’t based on, and can’t be based on, one particular religion or culture. That would be unfair to the rest, who have the right to live according to the dictates of their own religion. I wouldn’t want my rights as a Catholic stripped. So why should I try to take another person’s rights away? If their rights can be stripped based on someone’s religions values, so can mine.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bohm Bawerk,

Your concern for the reputuation of the Church is truly touching.

I think you should name the author of this ‘political philosophy’ as Lord Acton - and here is a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_Acton And, actually, Acton was neither talking about the Church duirng the Middle Ages (it was Vatican I) or of the Church becoming a politicl force (it was Papal Infallability).

Notwithstanding the learned Lord Action, in my view - this is just a reflection of every one of us within the height and breath - no matter how meger - of how we handle our own power and authority. If we have contempt for others, then that be demonstrated in how we wield that power we now have. The more power there is the chance of more oppression.

Dictators have a way of demostrating this principle on an almost daily basis - while it takes a while for democracies to manage that feat!

God bless

No. The quote is actually a very famous quote in political philosophy. What it means is that when an organization attains power, it becomes corrupted. This has been proven historically. For example, there was massive corruption within the Church during the Middle Ages, and this happened mainly because there was little distinction between the Church and State. In fact, it was because of this very political corruption that Protestantism emerged. The quote also explains why “benevolent dictator” is by and large an oxymoron.

For the good of the Church’s reputation actually, it is best for it to be removed from the realm of politics as much as it possibly can be. It still has a right to speak its mind, and its opinion should definitely be factored in the political decision making-process as they are a stakeholder in a community just as much as anyone else. The problem comes when the Church becomes a political force unto itself, and its unfortunate that many CAF Catholics advocate for that. If they knew anything about history, they would know the destructive path that ultimately leads to.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. (Romans 13:1-5)

This Scripture is addressed to Christians - assuming they already know the difference between what is “good” and what is “evil”. We also know that in Acts 5:29 we are told it is better to obey God than man.

I believe we live in times where it is difficult to engage in politics in good conscience. I myself have not been able to break away from my old Mennonite belief in non-participation in government. I do often struggle with the question of my duties as a Christian in this area though. Certainly, I believe actions speak louder than words, and one of the best way to make change is to be a witness in your own little corner of the world. Politics? I don’t think a truly godly person would ever make it to candidacy.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Rence,

This sounds good … but… one does not have to go too far before contradiction and conflict - like weeds springing up in one’s neatly planted garden - become visible. Let me give you an example… the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. elcivics.com/us_declaration_preamble.html

Note, while most religions of the American colonial time were represented, a few had question marks (?) given usconstitution.net/declarsigndata.html - one was a Catholic and, none eres listed as atheist.

I think this lack of atheists is significant because in the very beginning of this historic document it is acknowledged that the Creator (and, let’s not play games - we are talking about God) endowed on each of these unalienable Rights. While I can understand a desire to get away from George III - I really do not see how an atheist could sign the document. And, what that particular problem apparently did not develop in 1776 - we have this God aknowledged document (and the Constitution that followed) being responsible for this country being free of England all the laws that developed as a result.

Actually, the Founding Fathers found their documents to be fair to all - for the point was we are to live in harmony, the Government (unlike the English Crown) was not to establish a religion that others were to follow under pain of imprisonment, torture and even death.

We need to look to our roots - and, the US was founded on people who believed in God and went to great lengths to worship Him as they saw best. Those coming after the shooting had stopped - like atheists - entered a non-atheistic country (or, as native citizens developed their atheistic view while here).

God bless

Right. In choosing to live in a pluralistic and multicultural society, it’ a given that one is going to have to undertand that not everyone is going to be the same, and that the next person isn’t going to share one’s values based on one’s religion. The laws of this great nation aren’t based on, and can’t be based on, one particular religion or culture. That would be unfair to the rest, who have the right to live according to the dictates of their own religion. I wouldn’t want my rights as a Catholic stripped. So why should I try to take another person’s rights away? If their rights can be stripped based on someone’s religions values, so can mine.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Rence,

Maybe. But given a deteriiorating state of health and residence in the state of Oregon - your statment may need to be amended!

God bless

I think the OP was referring to activities that are legal…it’s illegal to kill Grandma…

 

[Elizabeth502]

When we live in a pluralistic, multicultural society, we should recognize that society must set limits on implementing into secular law what each group regards as the Truth. Society cannot follow Torah Law, nor Sharia Law, nor Gospel Law in their entirety. If it did, we would be living in a theocracy, not a democracy, in which opponents who didn’t believe the Law would be imprisoned, exiled, or executed.

Right. In choosing to live in a pluralistic and multicultural society, it’ a given that one is going to have to undertand that not everyone is going to be the same, and that the next person isn’t going to share one’s values based on one’s religion.

Who doesn’t understand this, Rence?

The laws of this great nation aren’t based on, and can’t be based on, one particular religion or culture.

That’s why they aren’t.

That would be unfair to the rest, who have the right to live according to the dictates of their own religion. I wouldn’t want my rights as a Catholic stripped.

What you get as a Catholic, and what meltzerboy gets as a Jew, is the inalienable right to practice your religion and apply that understanding of your personal religious values in how you vote, how you influence legislators, how you debate in the secular arena. That’s what freedom of religion gives you. There is no U.S. Constitution which mandates freedom from religion, and no “inalienable right” which gives all unbelievers virtual earplugs over what believers say about legislation, and the moral underpinnings on which legislation is actually built. There is no Constitutional guarantee that society is entitled to be free from discussion of religion, including how such beliefs form the priorities and preferences of other voters.

So, meltzerboy and Rence, you are part of this pluralistic, multicultural society. So are other Catholics, other Jews, so are Baptists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and atheists. You two don’t need to apply your reliigous upbringing to the secular sphere if you feel guilty about “forcing” your inalienable right to personal belief on society. But others don’t feel so guilty, and they have no requirement to be bound by your guilt, or your choice not to exercise your constitutional right. And rather than they having “no right” to express their beliefs, it is you two who have no constitutional right to argue that they should not express theirs. You have this backwards.

And to state that lobbying, even informally, for a particular point of view which incidentally stems a little or a lot from a religious philosophy, is equal to a “theocracy” reveals a misunderstanding of that word. Our Founding Documents prevent, permanently (barring an unlikely Constitutional Amendment) a theocracy from ever occurring, as that would directly oppose our governmental structure. The fact that there can be no formal alliance between a particular religion and the U.S. government cannot be legally interpreted to mean that citizens, including those wearing yarmulkes or Roman collars, have also been stripped of their rights to speak publicly about their religious views. American Jews are among the most politically activist of all religions, consciously applying Jewish morality to legislation. I’m surprised at you, meltzerboy. And it is one of the reasons that Jews are heavily represented in Congress and in the field of law: because they care about moral issues and understand that moral issues are applied – not just mentioned at temple on Saturdays.

 

[sw85]

No. The quote is actually a very famous quote in political philosophy. What it means is that when an organization attains power, it becomes corrupted. This has been proven historically. For example, there was massive corruption within the Church during the Middle Ages, and this happened mainly because there was little distinction between the Church and State. In fact, it was because of this very political corruption that Protestantism emerged. The quote also explains why “benevolent dictator” is by and large an oxymoron.

For the good of the Church’s reputation actually, it is best for it to be removed from the realm of politics as much as it possibly can be. It still has a right to speak its mind, and its opinion should definitely be factored in the political decision making-process as they are a stakeholder in a community just as much as anyone else. The problem comes when the Church becomes a political force unto itself, and its unfortunate that many CAF Catholics advocate for that. If they knew anything about history, they would know the destructive path that ultimately leads to.

It is far from universally true that this is the case. Western Catholicism in fact expressed a greater conviction re: separation of church and state – Two Swords and all that. Secular authorities were regarded as subordinate to but distinct from the Church. This was not the case for the Orthodox, where no such distinction was recognized, the Emperor routinely appointed and removed Patriarchs and could himself be excommunicated by them and so on. Yet the Byzantine Empire remained spiritually vibrant, happy, and holy until its destruction at the hands of Muslims.

At any rate, corruption appears to be a central feature of the human-organizational experience. As witnessed by the corrupt and degenerate state of our present secular democracies. We should concern ourselves, then, not with whether or not a Catholic society would be immune to corruption (which appears to be unreasonable to expect of any society) but with whether or not it would be rationally and justly founded.

When we live in a pluralistic, multicultural society, we should recognize that society must set limits on implementing into secular law what each group regards as the Truth. Society cannot follow Torah Law, nor Sharia Law, nor Gospel Law in their entirety. If it did, we would be living in a theocracy, not a democracy, in which opponents who didn’t believe the Law would be imprisoned, exiled, or executed.

I’m quite OK with living under a Catholic theocracy. Beats the hell out of our present godless degenerate mess of a society.

What is objectionable in modern authoritarian movements is not that they are authoritarian. Authority, properly speaking, is a good, hence why we are commanded in both Old Testament and New to obey it, even when doing so costs us our lives, provided it does not conflict with natural or divine law. What is objectionable in modern authoritarian movements is that they are in the service of falsehood and evil – atheism, socialism, materialism, etc. – and are therefore things of the world, and of the Devil.

I’m still curious as to why Catholics should obey the Father Flakes of the Ecumenical Cult of Niceness telling us “therefore we must tolerate their religious practices.” If recent history is any indication, our enemies have no intention of doing the same for us – even unto worshipping the devil, desecrating our Churches, raping our nuns, butchering our priests, and torturing our laity. I’m also curious as to why Catholics should be expected to disarm and kiss the dirt on which our degenerate utilitarian zeitgeist treads, as if doing so has done us any favors – if anything it has precipitated the unprecedented moral collapse of the Catholic laity, rebellion in the Church hierarchy, and total madness in the organization of our social and economic lives. To Hell with it. None of us should be surprised that non-Catholics (Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, etc.) should embrace policies that have the net effect of destroying Catholicism. What is remarkable to me is that so many Catholics should join them.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Right. In choosing to live in a pluralistic and multicultural society, it’ a given that one is going to have to undertand that not everyone is going to be the same, and that the next person isn’t going to share one’s values based on one’s religion. The laws of this great nation aren’t based on, and can’t be based on, one particular religion or culture. That would be unfair to the rest, who have the right to live according to the dictates of their own religion. I wouldn’t want my rights as a Catholic stripped. So why should I try to take another person’s rights away? If their rights can be stripped based on someone’s religions values, so can mine.

Yes, we live in a pluralistic, multicultural society. And, I think it is perplexing whether we should promote Catholic laws which would force non-Catholics to comply to them.

But, let me be very frank, our rights as Catholics have already been stripped.

-Do Catholics have a right to run adoption centers which NEVER give an orphan to a couple unless they are married and consist of a Man and a Woman. Not in this country.
-Do Catholics who work at hospitals have a right to not participate in abortions? Not unless they want to lose their jobs.
-Do Catholics have a right to work at a Catholic hospital that NEVER has any contraception available. Nope, contraception is now mandatory.
-Do Catholic priests have a right to talk about anything they want to in their homilies? Not unless they want to be taxed by the government. Which… for those of you who say the Church shouldn’t be tax exempt… this would mean that money that is collected in the pews would be taxed, and the government would give that money to fund abortion, planned parenthood, and contraception at hospitals and schools.
-Do Catholics have a right to pray in a public school? Or wear a rosary in a public school? Or say that gay sex is a sin in a public school?

All of these rights are being taken away.

Let’s stop with all this “separation of Church and State talk”. If your master is not God, then you must hate or despise God. Matthew 6:24.

A lot of people don’t serve God. Some of them are in our government. And it pleases them to hate the people of God and take away their rights. We need to call evil actions evil. And stop them.

P.S.
Multiculturalism is a failure according to many leading European politicians such as the Presidents of Germany and France. What that means is: we need to have one culture, because multiculturalism is a failure. It means “we should’ve never stopped being countries with a Catholic culture”.

 

[beehumble]

This is just a question…

Why does it have to be “my way or the highway” for Catholic morality… Why can’t we have our values to ourselves and they have their values…

We are governed by separation of church and state in this country…

A Quaker or Reformed Jew may be a gay or want an abortion… Why are we to oppose their value system?

As the viral video 180 put it, when people said the same thing, 'I would never have an abortion but if somebody else wants to that is their business so why should I interfere or try to stop them."

the video reveals this argument’s fallacy by rephrasing it:
“I would never kill Jews but if Hitler and the Nazis want to that is their business so why should I interfere or try to stop them”

Killing of innocents is not a “value system”, it is intrinsically evil and must always and everywhere be stopped in a civil society.

God bless you.

 

[Personanongrata]

Right. In choosing to live in a pluralistic and multicultural society, it’ a given that one is going to have to undertand that not everyone is going to be the same, and that the next person isn’t going to share one’s values based on one’s religion. The laws of this great nation aren’t based on, and can’t be based on, one particular religion or culture. That would be unfair to the rest, who have the right to live according to the dictates of their own religion. I wouldn’t want my rights as a Catholic stripped. So why should I try to take another person’s rights away? If their rights can be stripped based on someone’s religions values, so can mine.