How do we know which laws need to be instituted from a Catholic perspective?

[Burning_Sapling]

As far as I can tell, the Roman Catholic Church (“RCC” from now on) does not advocate that all sins which constitute grave matter should be prohibited by civil law. For instance, as far as I can tell, she does not seem to advocate that homosexuality, fornication, adultery, or contraception be deemed illegal. On the contrary, it is my understanding that the RCC holds the view that it would be/ is a sin for society not to hold laws against basic evils like murder, rape, unnecessary or excessive torture, theft, etc.

But if we are not under a requirement to institute laws against certain sins of grave matter and indeed might even be thought to be under a requirement /not/ to institute laws against certain such sins (consider again- homosexual sex in our present context), then the basis for determining which laws are morally necessary cannot simply be whether the sin against which the putative law would be directed is of grave matter. But if whether or not we are under moral obligation to deem a given sin illegal is not a function of whether or not the sin is of grave matter, then how do we know which sins we are morally required to have laws against?

This, for the record, is not meant to show a contradiction in the Church’s teaching. Thanks!

 

[Joe_5859]

I was just reading a bit about this idea in the book How to Defend the Faith Without Raising Your Voice. The book just touches on it briefly, though.

I think it is a good question. I would like to see a more thorough treatment of it. At its most basic level, it comes down to the Common Good. Things that threaten the Common Good ought to be crimes (or at least ought not be enshrined in the law as acceptable). I think there is a real sense in which any sin diminishes the Common Good. That’s why I think a more lengthy treatment of the subject would be helpful in parsing those things out.

 

[chefmomster2]

A small “quibble”. While the sexual act of homosexuality “may not” (I don’t know the answer. Interesting question!) necessitate a legal prohibition, the licensing of marriage should be legally prohibited for homosexuals.

 

[NekoNecro]

A small “quibble”. While the sexual act of homosexuality “may not” (I don’t know the answer. Interesting question!) necessitate a legal prohibition, the licensing of marriage should be legally prohibited for homosexuals.

In your opinion

The only laws that need to address “immoral” behavior (again, in your opinion) are only those that directly inflict harm on others such as murder, theft or rape.

Blasphemy isn’t good, but your not going to be physically injured or any less affluent if you hear it. Same for same sex marriage, I’m sure the idea of two men or two women living a married life really doesn’t sound very appealing to you or indeed seems impossible, but their attempt to do it does you no harm and if it bothers you that much you can always move.

 

[Joe_5859]

In your opinion

The only laws that need to address “immoral” behavior (again, in your opinion) are only those that directly inflict harm on others such as murder, theft or rape.

Blasphemy isn’t good, but your not going to be physically injured or any less affluent if you hear it. Same for same sex marriage, I’m sure the idea of two men or two women living a married life really doesn’t sound very appealing to you or indeed seems impossible, but their attempt to do it does you no harm and if it bothers you that much you can always move.

Same sex marriage does undermine the common good, though. It leads society to view marriage as something other than what it is, which has harmful effects for everyone seeing as how marriage and family are the foundation of society.

Not to derail the thread with a discussion on same-sex marriage.

 

[chefmomster2]

In your opinion

The only laws that need to address “immoral” behavior (again, in your opinion) are only those that directly inflict harm on others such as murder, theft or rape.

Blasphemy isn’t good, but your not going to be physically injured or any less affluent if you hear it. Same for same sex marriage, I’m sure the idea of two men or two women living a married life really doesn’t sound very appealing to you or indeed seems impossible, but their attempt to do it does you no harm and if it bothers you that much you can always move.

The OP asked about the Church and the legal system. How do we know which laws need to be instituted from a Catholic perspective? I would argue that we look at the Church’s stated position on legal issues.

I am not stating my opinion, but rather indicating what appears to be the belief of our church. The OP did not ask for our opinions on which laws WE thought were necessary, but which the Church would desire.

I also did not indicate any opinion about the issue of harm to anyone relevant to homosexuality. (Although I would assert that physical harm is the not the only harm to be considered.) I merely pointed out that the RCC supports the gay person, but decries the sexual practices. It follows that it would not support gay marriage which could be seen to legitimize these same practices.

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS
TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION
TO UNIONS
BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

II. POSITIONS ON THE PROBLEM
OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

1. Faced with the fact of homosexual unions, civil authorities adopt different positions. At times they simply tolerate the phenomenon; at other times they advocate legal recognition of such unions, under the pretext of avoiding, with regard to certain rights, discrimination against persons who live with someone of the same sex. In other cases, they favour giving homosexual unions legal equivalence to marriage properly so-called, along with the legal possibility of adopting children.

Where the government’s policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; **stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. **Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty.
One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application.
In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[Todd977]

As far as I can tell, the Roman Catholic Church … does not seem to advocate that homosexuality, fornication, adultery, or contraception be deemed illegal. On the contrary, it is my understanding that the RCC holds the view that it would be/ is a sin for society not to hold laws against basic evils like murder, rape, unnecessary or excessive torture, theft, etc.

The difference may be that in the most of first group of sins (homosexual acts, fornication, adultery) involve consenting adults; the second group of sins (murder, rape, torture, theft) are done against the victim’s will.

 

[Mumbles140]

Well couldn’t one argue (as is the case in Russia) that homosexual propaganda is leading others into sin, and therefore harming others (including minors)?

Perhaps, at some time, grave matter was against the law. However, as more liberal thinking entered society and strove to break the influence of religion on politics and the law, crimes such as adultery (The Scarlet Letter), homosexuality, witchcraft (now protected by freedom of religion) were ‘legalized’ much the same way marijuana is being debated currently.

The change in law does not change the Church teaching on the matter, but it appears the law has little regard left for Church teaching. Only certain ‘sins’ or ‘wrongs’, held collectively by various (but not even all) moral codes, such as rape and murder, are the lasting remnants of the morality in our laws.

 

[Burning_Sapling]

Thanks all for your helpful suggestions. Here are some thoughts and questions in response. I don’t expect anybody to try to answer all of them, unless you see some profound means of doing that at a stroke, but any attempts to handle or reply to any of them would be appreciated.

Mumbles140, you say that, “Perhaps, at some time, grave matter was against the law. However, as more liberal thinking entered society and strove to break the influence of religion on politics and the law, crimes such as adultery (The Scarlet Letter), homosexuality, witchcraft (now protected by freedom of religion) were ‘legalized’…”

But interestingly, it seems that some tolerance for activities of grave matter was practiced in Catholic countries before the birth of political liberalism. My understanding from glancing at commentaries of Aquinas on tolerance is that during his time in Italy the practice of non- Christian religions was tolerated insofar as the practitioner had not previously been baptized by the Catholic Church. But heresy is grave matter, and it is entailed by the practice of non- Christian religions that the practitioner is committing heresy. Now of course, heresy for someone who is not aware that they are committing any sort of sin is not grave sin. But it is still grave matter, no? Correct me if I’m wrong.

So it seems that you could say that at least since the middle ages the Church is just not necessarily interested in advocating punishment for activities which constitute mere grave matter and not grave sin. And then I suppose you might say that this is why the Church is not interested in advocating legal punishments for things like homosexual acts (assuming that she is not) since it is just not within our power to tell if the act is mere grave matter or not mere grave matter but also grave sin? Something along these lines?

Interestingly this still leaves a disanalogy with common intuitions about acts like murder- we tend to think, and it seems the Church would most likely agree, that murder ought to be punished even if not done under the 3 conditions of grave sin. But that might be a whole new discussion.

I’d also like to say a few things in reply to NekoNecro. First, Chefmomster is right to the extent that she is saying that I’m not interested in replies to this question that entail the denial of the doctrine of the RCC. I am interested in getting her official position on the issue insofar as she has one, and to the extent that she doesn’t I am interested in attempts to justify or explain her seemingly differential treatment of different grave sins. I am also interested if this seemingly is the key to understanding the issue- perhaps I am just mistaken in thinking that the church in fact does differentially treat different grave sins.

Further, NekoNecro, your suggestion that physical harms and ‘harms to affluence’ are the only ones we should need to have laws against cannot be right. Rape, for instance, is undoubtedly a physical act, but the reason it should be legally prohibited seems not to have to do with physical harm. Rape might physically harm someone as much as fully ethically condonable sexual activity between spouses- that is to say, not at all. The affront done to someone by rape, then, seems not to be a physical one but rather an affront to spiritual dignity.

Tod997, I find your suggestion that the disparity in the treatment of the different grave sins might be cashed out in terms of consent interesting. Maybe there is something to be said for the fact that the kind of danger brought about homosexual acts is not something forced on anybody where the kind of danger brought about by murder is forced on its (primary) victims. But would the Church also say that laws against suicide were necessary? This would be a counter- example. Also, assume for the second that the Church holds a doctrine to the effect that harms done with consent of the harmed needn’t be legally punished whereas those done without the consent of the harmed (assuming, at least, the act of harming is a grave sin or of grave matter) do need to be legally punished. There remains an interesting and seemingly difficult question as to how such a position is supported by the Church’s broader theology/ philosophy. Regardless, I find your suggestion interesting and perhaps promising.

Returning to the general question, I’d like to consider a few cases that might elicit important intuitions for solving or perhaps simply understanding the implications of the present query. Imagine you over- hear your neighbor killing his wife. You would be justified, perhaps required, to rush into the house and to take extreme measures to prevent this from happening. Now, contraception is also a grave sin. But if we somehow knew that our neighbors were using it, we would seemingly not be justified in breaking in and preventing them from using it, much less by “extreme measures” beyond those already present in breaking into their house. Maybe the difference in the intuitions between the two cases can be instructive as to how to answer the question. Perhaps whether vigilante justice of the form exampled in the murder case is required of us is a good guide for discerning whether a law is necessary.

 

[Burning_Sapling]

As a last suggestion- maybe I’m wrong to think that the Church holds that regardless of circumstances we are required to have laws against sins like murder and rape. Maybe in certain circumstances this would not be required of us, despite it being difficult to imagine what these circumstances would be? And then you could say that there is no real moral difference between the necessity of our laws to do with sins like rape and sins like homosexual acts- we need to be sensitive to prevailing conditions to determine whether we should institute laws of either type? Though I feel like I’ve read that the Church thinks that certain laws are required of us regardless of prevailing circumstances- like those against rape. Can anybody confirm or deny this?

Any help would be greatly appreciated, including correcting me on wrong assumptions I’ve made!

 

[Mumbles140]

Mumbles140, you say that, “Perhaps, at some time, grave matter was against the law. However, as more liberal thinking entered society and strove to break the influence of religion on politics and the law, crimes such as adultery (The Scarlet Letter), homosexuality, witchcraft (now protected by freedom of religion) were ‘legalized’…”

But interestingly, it seems that some tolerance for activities of grave matter was practiced in Catholic countries before the birth of political liberalism. My understanding from glancing at commentaries of Aquinas on tolerance is that during his time in Italy the practice of non- Christian religions was tolerated insofar as the practitioner had not previously been baptized by the Catholic Church. But heresy is grave matter, and it is entailed by the practice of non- Christian religions that the practitioner is committing heresy. Now of course, heresy for someone who is not aware that they are committing any sort of sin is not grave sin. But it is still grave matter, no? Correct me if I’m wrong.

I would strike a difference between religious tolerance and heresy. I would not call a Jew or pagan a heretic, whereas I would call Arius one. Heresy, in my mind, and seemingly in agreement with St. Thomas, is the teaching of false truths by one who has professed the faith, such as through Christian baptism.

Also, I meant ‘liberal’ not in the specific sense of political ideology, but in the more general sense of ‘change.’ While it is often hard to tell the two apart these days, one could take a liberal view on the burning of heretics without being labeled a ‘liberal’ in the sense we know of today - promoting homosexuality, public welfare, etc. At the time of Aquinas, where the Church had more of an effect on society than today, public welfare for the poor and oppressed would have been the norm.

Specifically referencing the question on grave matter, again, I have always viewed heresy as one of the sheep leaving the flock and trying to draw others away. If someone were never Christian, it is impossible to call them Christian heretics since they are not teaching false or perverted views of Christianity. Therefore, I believe this to be a moot point.

 

[Burning_Sapling]

Thank you, that is helpful. Yes, the research I’m doing right now is confirming your conception of heresy.

 

[tafan]

As far as I can tell, the Roman Catholic Church (“RCC” from now on) does not advocate that all sins which constitute grave matter should be prohibited by civil law. For instance, as far as I can tell, she does not seem to advocate that homosexuality, fornication, adultery, or contraception be deemed illegal. On the contrary, it is my understanding that the RCC holds the view that it would be/ is a sin for society not to hold laws against basic evils like murder, rape, unnecessary or excessive torture, theft, etc.

But if we are not under a requirement to institute laws against certain sins of grave matter and indeed might even be thought to be under a requirement /not/ to institute laws against certain such sins (consider again- homosexual sex in our present context), then the basis for determining which laws are morally necessary cannot simply be whether the sin against which the putative law would be directed is of grave matter. But if whether or not we are under moral obligation to deem a given sin illegal is not a function of whether or not the sin is of grave matter, then how do we know which sins we are morally required to have laws against?

This, for the record, is not meant to show a contradiction in the Church’s teaching. Thanks!

The church has a long held teaching of what behavior should be prohibited by law. From Thomas Aquinas’s Summa:

Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.

newadvent.org/summa/2096.htm#article2

 

[NekoNecro]

I’d also like to say a few things in reply to NekoNecro. First, Chefmomster is right to the extent that she is saying that I’m not interested in replies to this question that entail the denial of the doctrine of the RCC. I am interested in getting her official position on the issue insofar as she has one, and to the extent that she doesn’t I am interested in attempts to justify or explain her seemingly differential treatment of different grave sins. I am also interested if this seemingly is the key to understanding the issue- perhaps I am just mistaken in thinking that the church in fact does differentially treat different grave sins.

It does, Bishops have been excommunicated or effectiley sacked for speaking in favor of Women priests but when was the last time you heard of one getting sacked for promoting “kill the gays” legislation like in Uganda recently?

Further, NekoNecro, your suggestion that physical harms and ‘harms to affluence’ are the only ones we should need to have laws against cannot be right. Rape, for instance, is undoubtedly a physical act, but the reason it should be legally prohibited seems not to have to do with physical harm. Rape might physically harm someone as much as fully ethically condonable sexual activity between spouses- that is to say, not at all. The affront done to someone by rape, then, seems not to be a physical one but rather an affront to spiritual dignity.

I’d disagree with you on this that while rape does do mental harm it is first and foremost a physical act, the mental stress and diseases possibly inflicted coming as side effects in the rapists pursuit of self gratification.

You’ll notice that I intentionally said mental here rather than spiritual I hope, this is for two reasons. The first being that not all religions accept the concept of a soul or spirit and attempts to regulate spiritual “harm” will lead to laws against sacrilege, blasphemy and heresy based on the majority faith, this being the laws of a Theocracy.

The second is that unless you can prove something with evidence there is no reason for the legal system to believe in it. I can prove with the help of esteemed psychologists and doctors that rape can inflict immense physical and psychological harm. What I can’t do is prove the objective existence of spirits or souls, meaning I would be fighting for the protection of something we cannot prove even exists, which no secular legal systems are willing to do.

 

[Rau]

In your opinion

The only laws that need to address “immoral” behavior (again, in your opinion) are only those that directly inflict harm on others such as murder, theft or rape.

Blasphemy isn’t good, but your not going to be physically injured or any less affluent if you hear it. Same for same sex marriage, I’m sure the idea of two men or two women living a married life really doesn’t sound very appealing to you or indeed seems impossible, but their attempt to do it does you no harm and if it bothers you that much you can always move.

Agreed. Hence, no objection to the law providing an arrangement for 2 arbitrary people to join up their assets, care for each other etc. But this should not be confused with, or called, marriage.

 

[Holly3278]

In your opinion

The only laws that need to address “immoral” behavior (again, in your opinion) are only those that directly inflict harm on others such as murder, theft or rape.

Blasphemy isn’t good, but your not going to be physically injured or any less affluent if you hear it. Same for same sex marriage, I’m sure the idea of two men or two women living a married life really doesn’t sound very appealing to you or indeed seems impossible, but their attempt to do it does you no harm and if it bothers you that much you can always move.

Actually, it is not an opinion that same sex “marriage” should be prohibited. Its the Truth. The Catholic Church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith put out an article about this:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html