L
- Status
L
Linux
Guest
In places like London Uk. Reason, not religion, has decided the age of consent because it has been concluded that sex under a certain age does not comply with the pragmatic good of society and its rational development. A child might give consent, but that does not mean
that they are ready to psychologically or physically.
P
PatriciaEllen
Guest
Can you provide a link to the research and movement you are referencing. Other than pedophiles who are associated with the National Man Boy Love Association, I can’t think of any reputable group of geneticists, psychiatrists or pediatricians who would in any way agree with such findings.
The secular laws of almost every state in the U.S. require a man and woman to be at least 18 years old to enter into marriage. A few states allow marriage between a man and woman at a slightly younger age but only with the permission of their parents. Any state that currently has a law allowing civil unions between homosexuals has that law because it was passed by the voters of that state. While I don’t like or support that law, a union of two homosexuals by a justice of the peace or say, an Episcopal member of that church’s clergy, is not a union or marriage that the Church in any way recognizes as legitimate. The Catholic Church will never allow same sex weddings within the Church and I have yet to see any movement that is demanding that the Catholic Church do so.
Current secular law in most Western societies holds views very similar to what you call natural law. When it comes to pedophilia, I can’t imagine how difficult it would be to find a secular humanist who would consider children being raped and sexual violated socially or ethically acceptable. Christopher Hitchens himself would probably claw his way out of his grave to fight against any law that attempted to legalize pedophilia.
When you tie state (secular) law inextricably to religious law, in this case Roman Catholic law, you are moving towards theocracy. In pluralistic societies where many members of that society have differing religious faiths, you open the door to the various faiths slugging it out at the voting booth and sometimes the streets as to whose religious laws should be the law of the land. England has granted Muslims an almost entirely separate legal system based on Islamic law. In the U.S. our constitution protects all members of society from religious courts because of separation of church and state. Whatever judgement is passed on a person under Rabbinic law or Cannon law is not recognized under U.S. law and is left to the person who is a member of that faith dealing with their own religious authorities within their faith’s structure.
Currently, every theocracy in existence came to power by the violent actions of a minority of fanatical religious groups: Iran, Saudi Arabia, various counties in Africa that are still in the midst of civil wars based on religion. The overwhelming majority is being fought by and brought about by a Muslim minority that is killing other Muslims.
As Western countries see in increase in Muslim immigrants from societies that accept practices we find abhorrent (such as child brides which is no different from pedophilia), tying state laws to religious laws means you have to be willing to accept that Muslims may vote and pass laws that reflect their religious values, not yours.
T
thenobes
Guest
What moral system do you use to choose the postulates for your moral system?
peace
steve
M
MidnightSun12
Guest
This is the story where I first heard about this:
foxnews.com/health/2011/08/24/mental-health-group-looks-to-remove-stigma-from-pedophilia/
But, there was also a time when no secular humanist would have ever dared to suggest that two men sodomizing each other would be ethically acceptable (think back to before the 1960’s). There was also a time when nobody dared to suggest that contraception between married spouses could ever be ethically acceptable (think back to before the 1930’s). This is the problem with moral relativism… once you can justify a little bit of evil, it’s only a matter of time before you can justify a lot of evil.
The difference is that not all religions are equal. Catholicism was established by God and is the fullness of Truth. All other religions contain a lesser degree of Truth in as much as their theology and morality disagrees with what has been established infallibly by the Catholic Church.
That said, I have no idea how to create a perfect Catholic society and I won’t pretend to have this answer (I’ll leave this up to God to figure out). All I know is that I have to love my neighbour as myself to help get as many souls as possible into heaven and how I cast my vote will matter just as much on judgment day as how I helped to protect the souls of a family member or a close friend.
S
sambos671
Guest
An interesting point. However, is it really a democracy when you can’t verbally express your point of view? As Catholics are being moderated by society to prohibit speach about certain of their beliefs? And of all the Catholics who hold to a pluralistic society how many actually personally hold that behaviors such as homosexuality is an acceptable practice for Catholics or for themselves which ultimately is the point?
S
sambos671
Guest
How can you be Catholic and strongly for abortion or gay marriage? There is something oxymoronic about that. What affects Catholics btw is what about when the state imposes a requirement for Catholic priest to conduct a gay marriage. Or which is probably the case in Canada prevent a priest from advising a parishoner against having an abortion? Then the issue becomes more relevant. No?
S
sambos671
Guest
Good point!!!
P
PennyinCanada
Guest
Let’s look at my neighbors in their 80’s.
The dad came from a family of 6. He was in utero when his father died in an accident. His mother resorted to God and prayer to take care of 6 children, and as adults, 3 of them became priests/nuns. That’s half.
My neighbor married and had 8 children. They are all adults and half of them are not priests/nuns, but rather half are in ‘irregular’ marriage situations. They can no longer receive communion in the Catholic Church. As for their children, I have not asked how many even go to Church.
This is a French family.
My understanding of Quebec is this, correct me if I’m wrong.
The French has made 2 languages throughout Canada law and every street sign in my city must be bi-lingual. Services must be available in French. (This gives anyone speaking French an advantage when applying for jobs) However, when you travel to the province of Quebec, the French province, it’s shocking to find that there is absolutely no English allowed. None of the street signs will have English, and no stores are allowed to have English in it’s advertising. This means that if you are a restaurant selling Ukrainian food, you are not allowed by law to post Ukrainian food in Ukrainian. This is how strongly they are protecting their ‘language rights’. The law they insist the whole country follow does not apply to themselves. When you look at Quebec demographics, I saw a long time ago they have the smallest birthrate in Canada. They seemed to have forgotten that babies grow up speaking French and have French families. They are a dieing nation, as is most countries around the world. They practice birth control obviously, and their churches are sold. This is the generations coming from the Eldest Daughter of the Church with so many saints!
The dad came from a family of 6. He was in utero when his father died in an accident. His mother resorted to God and prayer to take care of 6 children, and as adults, 3 of them became priests/nuns. That’s half.
My neighbor married and had 8 children. They are all adults and half of them are not priests/nuns, but rather half are in ‘irregular’ marriage situations. They can no longer receive communion in the Catholic Church. As for their children, I have not asked how many even go to Church.
This is a French family.
My understanding of Quebec is this, correct me if I’m wrong.
The French has made 2 languages throughout Canada law and every street sign in my city must be bi-lingual. Services must be available in French. (This gives anyone speaking French an advantage when applying for jobs) However, when you travel to the province of Quebec, the French province, it’s shocking to find that there is absolutely no English allowed. None of the street signs will have English, and no stores are allowed to have English in it’s advertising. This means that if you are a restaurant selling Ukrainian food, you are not allowed by law to post Ukrainian food in Ukrainian. This is how strongly they are protecting their ‘language rights’. The law they insist the whole country follow does not apply to themselves. When you look at Quebec demographics, I saw a long time ago they have the smallest birthrate in Canada. They seemed to have forgotten that babies grow up speaking French and have French families. They are a dieing nation, as is most countries around the world. They practice birth control obviously, and their churches are sold. This is the generations coming from the Eldest Daughter of the Church with so many saints!
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
This is an extraordinary misunderstanding of Catholic teaching towards the purpose of government. Catholics believe that a legitimate government is there to protect virtue, and a valid government cannot, by definition, support intrinsic evil. Neither can we as individual Catholics.
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching/sharing-catholic-social-teaching-challenges-and-directions.cfm
L
Linux
Guest
In an ideal world where everybody is Catholic by nature, you would be correct.
But this is not an ideal world. It is the real world. The government perhaps unknowingly permits the existence of what you would call evil for the sake of avoiding a greater pragmatic evil called fascism. Even in a purely Catholic context I can see a bases for choosing the lesser of two intrinsic evils if no other option is available. A government cannot knowingly support evil; in fact state law, insofar as their is a split between church and state, is invincibly ignorant of divine revelatory knowledge of good and evil and religious truth in so far as it being a foundation for secular law. Laws are not and cannot be legitimately actualised according to divine revelation or the teleological conception of natural law in a “secular democracy”. If what you mean by an ideal government is that secular law ought to reflect Catholic beliefs alone, then what you really want is a theocracy; not a democracy. I already explained the problems that arise with a theocracy.
If you accept the existence of a secular democracy, then you have to accept that some laws may not reflect your religious beliefs, and also the fact that evils will be permitted to exist in favour of preventing a greater evil; evils such forcing your beliefs on other people (fascism) and their-by corrupting the Catholic message and the image of the faith.
The devil is smarter than you think.
L
Linux
Guest
In an ideal world where everybody is Catholic by nature, you would be correct.
But this is not an ideal world. It is the real world. The government perhaps unknowingly permits the existence of what you would call evil for the sake of avoiding a greater pragmatic evil called fascism. Even in a purely Catholic context I can see a bases for choosing the lesser of two intrinsic evils if no other option is available. A government cannot knowingly support evil; in fact state law, insofar as their is a split between church and state, is invincibly ignorant of divine revelatory knowledge of good and evil and religious truth in so far as it being a foundation for secular law. Laws are not and cannot be legitimately actualised according to divine revelation or the teleological conception of natural law in a “secular democracy”. If what you mean by an ideal government is that secular law ought to reflect Catholic beliefs alone, then what you really want is a theocracy; not a democracy. I already explained the problems that arise with a theocracy.
If you accept the existence of a secular democracy, then you have to accept that some laws may not reflect your religious beliefs, and also the fact that evils will be permitted to exist in favour of preventing a greater evil; evils such as forcing your religious beliefs on other people through an organised system of government and law (fascism) and their-by corrupting the Catholic message and the image of the faith.
The devil is smarter than you think.
But this is not an ideal world. It is the real world. The government perhaps unknowingly permits the existence of what you would call evil for the sake of avoiding a greater pragmatic evil called fascism. Even in a purely Catholic context I can see a bases for choosing the lesser of two intrinsic evils if no other option is available. A government cannot knowingly support evil; in fact state law, insofar as their is a split between church and state, is invincibly ignorant of divine revelatory knowledge of good and evil and religious truth in so far as it being a foundation for secular law. Laws are not and cannot be legitimately actualised according to divine revelation or the teleological conception of natural law in a “secular democracy”. If what you mean by an ideal government is that secular law ought to reflect Catholic beliefs alone, then what you really want is a theocracy; not a democracy. I already explained the problems that arise with a theocracy.
If you accept the existence of a secular democracy, then you have to accept that some laws may not reflect your religious beliefs, and also the fact that evils will be permitted to exist in favour of preventing a greater evil; evils such as forcing your religious beliefs on other people through an organised system of government and law (fascism) and their-by corrupting the Catholic message and the image of the faith.
The devil is smarter than you think.
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
I never claimed that our country is a theocracy. I still fail to see how this relates to the role of legitimate government according to Catholic theology, and the practice of the Catholic faith in all aspects of life, including participation in government. Catholics are not exempt from practicing their faith in any aspect of life.
Also, according to Catholic theology, their is no legitimate government that supports intrinsic evil. Governments that do so rule not by any kind of right by God, but by force and coercion. We, as peaceful Catholics, must still abide by laws which are not inherently evil (this is why it is a venial sin if one drinks underage). But we also cannot support or condone laws that are gravely disordered (such as those legalizing abortion or recognizing illegitimate unions as equal to legitimate unions). It is a grave matter to do so, whether or not the government is ‘secular’. The government in Rome required burning incense to gods, and Catholics refused, although they obeyed other laws and payed taxes. So it is with any law that supports intrinsic evil. Believe it or not, abortion and gay ‘marriage’ are just as opposed to Catholic dogma as burning incense to false gods. There are many martyrs to attest to living Catholic beliefs in public life…
You speak of ‘secular’ government as though Catholics can separate their innate beliefs and dogmas from the way they act in reality. Such is a blatant falsehood. You speak of an ‘ideal’ Catholic world. My friend, the world has never been ideal, yet Catholics have stood up for their faith in less than ‘ideal’ situations, under the rule of governments of all kinds, and will continue to do so today. Anyone who leaves their faith at the door of the church is not truly Catholic. Some are ignorant, but they must be instructed. Catholics will not roll over and support secular humanism; a world apart from God. At least, not the Catholic Catholics. Such has it always been…
L
Linux
Guest
Fascism:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Read more: answers.com/topic/fascism#ixzz2GPDdI9H7
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Read more: answers.com/topic/fascism#ixzz2GPDdI9H7
L
Linux
Guest
There is a difference between morally supporting evil and supporting laws that prevent all forms of fascism; religious or otherwise. In preventing fascism, the permission of certain kinds of intrinsic evils might unavoidably exist as a result. Permitting abortion and same sex marriage is not the same thing as morally supporting abortion and same sex marriage. It is simply a requirement of democracy that these things are permitted since your beliefs are not self evident. It is not self evident that a soul is conjoined with the fetus at the moment of conception. It is not self evident that gay marriage is a moral evil. Catholic Morality for that matter is not self evident. Its a belief and is therefore equal with every other religious and personal belief in the eyes of a secular state or democracy.
If you want that to change, then you are going to have to overthrow democracy and enforce a theocracy.
M
MacBP
Guest
As a Canadian Catholic I’m not sure how I would characterize Catholicism in Canada. I’m a fairly orthodox in my beliefs and nothing has actively prevented me from practicing my beliefs. With that said, I am not a public figure. For a public figure to be a practicing Catholic would be significantly more difficult. I’m unsure whether one could speak out against gay marriage without finding one’s self dragged before the human rights tribunal (this has happened to some Canadians; notably Bishop Henry in Calgary). The government has tossed around the idea that Catholic Schools are not permitted to teach Abortion is morally wrong. Public acceptance of abortion is unwavering high (although experience has taught me that most individuals are not capable of defending those beliefs) and gay marriage and contraception is a given.
Basically, whereas the US is still engaging in a great debate over ethics of the nation, Canada has already thrown itself behind a socially liberal agenda.
I do think you make a good point, though. If Catholics are going to try and enshrine morality into law then they should expect to be dealt with in kind.
As a side note, I think anyone who believes that the Church will not be eventually forced to marry homosexuals is fooling themselves. The value of religious liberty is not at all recognized by most people in Canada.
Let’s face it, at the end of the day all law is the imposition of will. Someone is imposing their will upon someone else. Laws against murder, for example, represent the vast majority of society imposing their will on people who desire to murder. Laws against polygamy involve the monogamist aspects of society imposing their belief on the polygamist aspects. We do we pretend that attempting to enshrine morality derived from religion into law is in any way different from every other source of law?
Basically, whereas the US is still engaging in a great debate over ethics of the nation, Canada has already thrown itself behind a socially liberal agenda.
As a Canadian I can whole heartily say that most people love abortion and gay marriage. Not for pluralistic reasons but simply because they love abortion and gay marriage.
This makes a few assumptions that are not entirely correct. You assume that Catholic moral teaching exists in a void, completely absent from any real world context. You reduce Catholic moral teaching to subjective opinions instead of a simple acknowledgement of the reality around us. Catholic moral teaching is not arbitrary; consequently, it is possible for secular government to apply Catholic moral teachings without becoming a theocracy. The nature of sex and sexuality, the sanctity of life, and right to freedom and private property are all aspects of Catholic moral teaching which exist within the natural law. Catholicism defined these arenas of morality, it not create them.
Again we assume that Catholic social teachings are arbitrary. They aren’t. This isn’t the Catholic Church forcing its version of the truth down everyone’s throat, it’s the Catholic Church trying to force people to accept the Truth. Big difference.
I do think you make a good point, though. If Catholics are going to try and enshrine morality into law then they should expect to be dealt with in kind.
As a side note, I think anyone who believes that the Church will not be eventually forced to marry homosexuals is fooling themselves. The value of religious liberty is not at all recognized by most people in Canada.
I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what, exactly, a secular democracy is. Secularism (should) mean that no system of belief is given priority over one another. It does not mean, however, that no system of belief is given representation. We act as though it is acceptable to derive our laws from every source of thought and logic except for religion. The only way this makes sense is if we pre-ssupose atheism. At this point, however, we do not have a secular democracy but the atheistic version of a theocracy.
Let’s face it, at the end of the day all law is the imposition of will. Someone is imposing their will upon someone else. Laws against murder, for example, represent the vast majority of society imposing their will on people who desire to murder. Laws against polygamy involve the monogamist aspects of society imposing their belief on the polygamist aspects. We do we pretend that attempting to enshrine morality derived from religion into law is in any way different from every other source of law?
Whether the world is Catholic or not it does exist in the same reality as Catholicism. I think we all agree that law derived exclusively from divine revelation is not appropriate in a secular society. With that said, just because the Church teaches it does not mean that principle was formed in divine revelation. Abortion is the perfect example of that. You don’t need religion to know that murder is wrong.
L
Linux
Guest
If secular humanism is secular democracy, then it is your belief that Catholicism is not compatible with the idea of there being a split between church and state, and neither do you support American democracy. You support a theocracy.
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
Again, as I have said previously, no Catholic in any form of government can ever support intrinsic evil. The ends never justify the means in the case of dogma. Ever. I’m sorry, but the Church will never be on your side. This is a time when the Church will likely lose members and be persecuted because of these very beliefs of which I speak. But we cannot waiver. We literally cannot. The Church itself will never falter, and hell shall never prevail against it. If you want to prevent fascism, find another way, but please don’t define a government that protects life and sacred institutions as fascist. If a government that outlaws abortion and gay marriage is ‘fascist’, then I really wouldn’t mind living under it. Sorry if this is shocking.
Incidentally, according to your views of a fascist government (not the definition, but your interpretation of moral laws fitting under this definition), I find a government that requires religious institutions to provide for things diametrically opposed to its dogmatic beliefs, sanctions the murder of innocents, and forces secular humanism and relativistic morality on its citizens (and then requires such things to be taught in schools) to be quite fascist, indeed.
L
Linux
Guest
Again, permitting is not the same as supporting. God permits evil for the sake of a greater good or preventing a greater evil. It is not unimaginable that a governing body might face the same choice.
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
It really is not complicated. As I said before, Catholics under ANY form of government will not support intrinsic evil. Those that do will have committed grave sin. 2,000 years ago, you could very well be saying that I don’t support the Imperial government and that it was incompatible with Catholicism. I would say to you the same thing as now: we will never support intrinsic evil. That is literally the end of the debate. There is no in between. Call it what you’d like, but this is the way it is.
I find the concept of practicing a faith that is to be lived in every aspect and then abandoned to support a government rather amusing, don’t you? How is that faith at all?
- Status