Is The ACLU A PAGAN GROUP?

[Brad]

Question for Penny_Plain, Catholic2003, and Sbcoral:

Let’s assume you are a principal of a public school. As a Christian that has been taught that you should be nice to others because Jesus was nice to others, would you be nice to the other teachers and the students? How could you justify being nice based on your Christian values? Wouldn’t this be promotion of Christianity?

Would you ever say a prayer to yourself? How could you do this? Wouldn’t this influence your behavior towards the rest of the schoool? If you saw each child as made in the image and likeness of God after such a prayer, your behavior would reflect as such and your behavior would promote Christianity. Is this fair to non-believing students that might embrace satanism as their code of life and might hate those that smile and give a warm greeting?

Because you have been taught to Honor your father and mother, would you call your parents from work ever if they were sick or in need? What is another teacher heard you? Wouldn’t you be promoting your faith to them, especially if they were considering euthanizing one of their parents?

Would it be ok to have an affair with someone else at school, as long as the affair was only carried out on school property, because it was Jesus that told us not to commit adultery and His teachings cannot apply in a public place. Certainly it would be ok to have an affair in school because you would be promoting no religion. What should stop you? Not your Christian beliefs - that wouldn’t be fair to the non-Christian man/woman that may find you attractive. Why should they not be able to have a legal affair with you? Because you are Christian? Who are you to force your beliefs on this person?

Would you reprimand your teachers for lying and breaking commandment 7? How could you? On what basis? It’s not illegal to lie except under oath. Are you trying to maintain order based on your Christian beliefs?

 

[Brad]

Catholic2003:

I guess John Adams, a founding father and our second president, had a lot of sympathy for evil as well:

From here and here. This is what they taught in civics class back when I went to school.

I don’t understand the parallel. Are you saying the soldiers promoted raping and molesting children? I doubt it.

I’m talking about drawing a line where freedom ends and license begins. The founding fathers took this as a given. Today’s culture doesn’t seem to understand the difference. There is a line. There are many things (as I have listed on this forum) that you cannot say or promote in certain situations.

Another example - I can’t go out on the street right now and get 500 people to promote the destruction of locally parked police vehicles, stealing their weapons and flipping them off in unison from the sidewalk.

I cannot promote the idea that it would be great to slay children in a given neighborhood by sending out emails suggesting this is a great idea and listing 5 house addresses as examples.

Freedom of speech has limitations - that limitation is license - fully understood as given by our founders.

 

[Brad]

Catholic2003:

Let’s summarize. We have a Catholic who has two choices - renounce Catholicism, or go to jail. We have a group of people, the ACLU, who think this kind of thing is contrary to the First Amendment, and are fighting this situation in court.

On the other hand, we have a person whose hate of the ACLU is so strong that he cannot admit they are on the correct side of even a single issue, and thus supports the anti-Catholic treatment program. I assume that Brad is intelligent enough to realize threatening people with jail unless they renounce their religion is a violation of the First Amendment. Thus, I interpret his support of the program to be a desire to live in a country where the Constitution does not apply, and the government has every right to throw people in jail unless the espouse the “correct” religion. Is there some other analogy, other than a Christian Taliban, that would better represent such a government?

This is an incorrect interpretation of what I believe.

You fault the Protestant organization and demand that they change. The problem with this is that it is the judge that gave the individual these 2 choices. If the ACLU had a problem, they should have gone to the judge to get the person moved to a different counseling group - not force the Protestant group to change. I support the freedom of the Protestant group to practice their religion. Don’t you?

Your comparison of anything representing Christianity as being analogous to the Taliban is disingenous or ignorant. There can never be a comparison between the 2 ideologies. The only way you can draw a comparison is to suggest that a Christian group is forcing someone to go to jail for disbelief when, as I explained above, we know it was not this group that made the decision - it was the judge.

 

[Catholic2003]

Brad:

I don’t understand the parallel.

Let me explain the parallel. In post #96, you stated that NAMBLA did not deserve legal representation. In fact, you maligned the ACLU for providing this representation. In 1770, the general populace thought the British soldiers did not deserve legal representation, and maligned John Adams for providing this representation.

In both cases, those providing the legal representation were able to see the big picture, that society benefits from having civil liberties, even though that means that evil and despised groups within society share in those liberties. So both John Adams and the ACLU went ahead and provided this great service to society, while enduring the scorn of those who could not see this big picture.

 

[Catholic2003]

Brad:

You fault the Protestant organization and demand that they change. The problem with this is that it is the judge that gave the individual these 2 choices. If the ACLU had a problem, they should have gone to the judge to get the person moved to a different counseling group - not force the Protestant group to change. I support the freedom of the Protestant group to practice their religion. Don’t you?

This sounds like a fairy-tale world. You think the government should give judges the power to send Catholics to programs where they must choose between renouncing Catholicism and going to jail; it’s just that the judge shouldn’t have gone ahead and done that. Well, if that would work, then why not remove the law against murder - People should just know that murder is wrong, and not commit murder; there doesn’t need to be a law against it.

In the real world, the only way Catholics are going to have the freedom to practice our religion is if no judge has the power to make any person choose between practicing their religion and going to jail. And the only way people are going to have any protection against being murdered is if murder is illegal.

America is a society of laws, not a society of individuals making whatever decisions they feel like for any particular circumstance. This is why it is important that both the BSA and NAMBLA be subject to the same laws as everyone else.

 

[Steph700]

Catholic2003:

Let me explain the parallel. In post #96, you stated that NAMBLA did not deserve legal representation. In fact, you maligned the ACLU for providing this representation. In 1770, the general populace thought the British soldiers did not deserve legal representation, and maligned John Adams for providing this representation.

In both cases, those providing the legal representation were able to see the big picture, that society benefits from having civil liberties, even though that means that evil and despised groups within society share in those liberties. So both John Adams and the ACLU went ahead and provided this great service to society, while enduring the scorn of those who could not see this big picture.

I think you have made some excellent points, this thread is really interesting. We are discussing some similar ideas about justice and legal representation in Tariq Aziz wins ‘unofficial support’ from Vatican thread.

For all of the complaints of the ACLU being evil or anti Christian I still haven’t seen a valid argument behind them… I think the problem is so many of us grew up with the mindset that

1. We are Christian
2. American is Christian
3. It’s ok if American companies/schools/etc promote Christian views over other views

and we’ve forgotten what the constitution says! Goodness knows I love the Church, but you’ve gotta get to a point where you realize that America is a state which is completely separated from the Church, and as a state it must be run in a way that people’s rights aren’t violated.

I don’t see the ACLU being anti-Christian, I see it being pro-law, pro-fairness, pro-Constitution. We’ve gotta get over the idea that for any institution/school/government/company to be good it must be pro-Christian. This may sound crazy to some, but in all actuality I feel safer knowing that the ACLU exists, b/c I know that if for some reason my constituational rights are violated the ACLU will be there to defend them for me… and that’s what they do- defend rights!

 

[Trelow]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No my problem is with Satan, not freedom.

CCC 841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day

I suppose that I shouldn’t object Allah. Different names don’t different gods make.

 

[Catholic2003]

Brad:

How could you justify being nice based on your Christian values? Wouldn’t this be promotion of Christianity?

Actually, overall, I’ve found Buddhists to be nicer than most Christians (including those on this forum, I’m sorry to say). So I guess that being nice would be promoting Buddhist values.

Brad:

Would you ever say a prayer to yourself? How could you do this? Wouldn’t this influence your behavior towards the rest of the schoool? If you saw each child as made in the image and likeness of God after such a prayer, your behavior would reflect as such and your behavior would promote Christianity. Is this fair to non-believing students that might embrace satanism as their code of life and might hate those that smile and give a warm greeting?

I don’t see how giving a smile and a warm greeting would prevent Satanists from the free exercise of their religion.

Brad:

Because you have been taught to Honor your father and mother, would you call your parents from work ever if they were sick or in need? What is another teacher heard you? Wouldn’t you be promoting your faith to them, especially if they were considering euthanizing one of their parents?

Terri Schiavo’s husband is Catholic. Not wanting to euthanize my father (my mother is already dead) puts me more in line with those cultures that respect their ancestors than with Catholicism as practiced today.

Brad:

Would it be ok to have an affair with someone else at school, as long as the affair was only carried out on school property, because it was Jesus that told us not to commit adultery and His teachings cannot apply in a public place. Certainly it would be ok to have an affair in school because you would be promoting no religion. What should stop you? Not your Christian beliefs - that wouldn’t be fair to the non-Christian man/woman that may find you attractive. Why should they not be able to have a legal affair with you? Because you are Christian? Who are you to force your beliefs on this person?

Why stop at affairs? By this logic, murder should be legal on school property as well.

Brad:

Would you reprimand your teachers for lying and breaking commandment 7? How could you? On what basis? It’s not illegal to lie except under oath. Are you trying to maintain order based on your Christian beliefs?

I guess that makes Donald Trump Christian - Didn’t he fire one of the apprentices for lying? And here I thought that there weren’t any good programs on TV that promote Christian values.

 

[Trelow]

CCC 2070 The Ten Commandments belong to God’s revelation. At the same time they teach us the true humanity of man. They bring to light the essential duties, and therefore, indirectly,** the fundamental rights inherent in the nature of the human person.** the Decalogue contains a privileged expression of the natural law: From the beginning, God had implanted in the heart of man the precepts of the natural law. Then he was content to remind him of them. This was the Decalogue.

 

[Exporter]

**The ACLU “IS” a pagan organization. It is directed by stooges of SATAN. The Communists helped the ACLU in the shaky early days. As the ACLU has started to recieve Federal funding, and funds from a well-known billionaire Liberal (has given millions )- the ACLU has started to attack the thing that holds America together - Religion. The aim of the ACLU is to eradicate God, Jesus or any Christian vestiges from American public life. They have just begun. Once God and Jesus are removed from America, then SATAN can take over. **

To determine the objectives of a group all one has to do is to monitor their actions.

 

[Lisa_N]

Catholic2003:

Anyone who thinks that there are some people or groups so evil that they do not deserve to have access to legal representation has problems understanding the concept of civil liberties.

The right to legal counsel on the taxpayer’s nickel is limited to criminal cases. I understand the case against NAMBLA is a civil case.

NAMBLA has access to legal representation. They can PAY for it like the rest of us do when we are involved in a civil matter. That the ACLU is offering free counsel to a group that promotes illegal activities, seems a bit peculiar if you maintain its mission is upholding our laws. I believe they are offering this protection because they support homosexual agenda and the normalization of homosexual activities. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Lisa N

 

[Brad]

Catholic2003:

Let me explain the parallel. In post #96, you stated that NAMBLA did not deserve legal representation. In fact, you maligned the ACLU for providing this representation. In 1770, the general populace thought the British soldiers did not deserve legal representation, and maligned John Adams for providing this representation.

In both cases, those providing the legal representation were able to see the big picture, that society benefits from having civil liberties, even though that means that evil and despised groups within society share in those liberties. So both John Adams and the ACLU went ahead and provided this great service to society, while enduring the scorn of those who could not see this big picture.

I understand what you are saying.

However, I believe I do see the big picture and believe in liberty and representation for all.

I criticized the ACLU not just for providing representation in this single case but because of an innumerable number of cases that restrict the freedoms of Christians while promoting the freedoms of non-Christians, the case of NAMBLA being an extreme example. You are saying that I criticize the ACLU for defending freedom - it is just the opposite - I criticize the ACLU for restricting freedom.

On a separate but related point, my big picture is in synchronization with that of the founding fathers. They believed that when leaders of government, be they judges or legislators, started putting themselves above the divine authority that gave us natural law, our form of government would rapidly fail.

The parallel to John Adams is not sufficient. I too believe in innocence until proven guilty. I am not condemning NAMBLA to gain acceptance by a large portion of society and for national pride as many “groupthinkers” might have been motivated against the British soldiers. I am condemning NAMBLA because they openly advocate something which is in violation of our laws and in violaton of natural law. I am not saying NAMBLA members should be held accountable for murder. I’m saying they should be held accountable for promoting and participating in child molestation.

I have never said the ACLU should not exist nor have I said everyone does not have the right to representation.

My problem with the ACLU is the freedoms it takes away, not what it defends. It seems(maybe I’m wrong) that you want to defend every ACLU action, even those that restrict freedom.

My problem with NAMBLA is they have crossed the line from freedom to license. It seems(maybe I’m wrong) that you want to defend everyone’s right to do anything they want - thus license and thus anarchy and completely uncivilized society.

Because I can draw a line does not make me an enemy of freedom. Christ did likewise and He gave us true freedom by creating boundaries that, if crossed, would lead to self-imprisonment. He didn’t want that for us.

 

[Brad]

Catholic2003:

This sounds like a fairy-tale world. You think the government should give judges the power to send Catholics to programs where they must choose between renouncing Catholicism and going to jail; it’s just that the judge shouldn’t have gone ahead and done that. Well, if that would work, then why not remove the law against murder - People should just know that murder is wrong, and not commit murder; there doesn’t need to be a law against it.

In the real world, the only way Catholics are going to have the freedom to practice our religion is if no judge has the power to make any person choose between practicing their religion and going to jail. And the only way people are going to have any protection against being murdered is if murder is illegal.

America is a society of laws, not a society of individuals making whatever decisions they feel like for any particular circumstance. This is why it is important that both the BSA and NAMBLA be subject to the same laws as everyone else.

No. You are using this example to pin me into a corner I never went into.

I never said judges should be allowed to send people to programs where they must renounce their Catholicism or go to jail. I am saying (for the 3rd time), the judge made the error. The Protestant group should not have to change because of no error of their own. The judge made the mistake. He could have considered the person’s religion before he made the choice and he could have decided to switch the person after he learned of the relgion problem.

The ACLU went in and demanded the Protestant group change, thus restricing their freedom.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Lisa N:

Come on Penny, do we have to use ridiculous examples? You are like Catholic2003 in responding with some totally silly argument that is not even relevant.

This is a club. Clubs generally have rules. No one is compelled to join a club, particularly if they have a fundamental disagreement with the club’s philosophy or if they do not qualify for membership. I guess MENSA should be forced to admit people with double digit IQs? Is it fair to exclude people who are not of extreme intelligence? Gee I wonder why the ACLU hasn’t gone after MENSA?

It would seem more productive, as you suggested with the Christmas carols, that if you disagree with the club’s fundamental message, don’t join. There are many clubs that have various restrictions on membership. It just happens the BSA has run afoul of the ACLU’s recent pet cause, homosexual activists. Thus the seemingly endless attacks.

The BSA has an objective of developing morally straight young men. Something that would prevent this goal from being met seems counterproductive. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to restrict homesexual scoutmasters. Do you? I think it’s also reasonable to disallow male scoutmasters for GIRL scouts. Let’s not be so open minded our brains fall out. There is a REASON for this prohibition. Further when deciding on a moral issue, ask if some great evil is being promoted by the restriction. Preventing Asians from joining is promoting the evil of racism. Is there some great evil perpetrated by not allowing homsexuals to sleep in tents with boys?

This seems so obvious so I am assuming you are deliberately being obtuse.

Lisa N

No, I’m not being deliberately obtuse.

Several posters made the point that, because the Boy Scouts are a private organization, they can choose to admit or exclude whomever they please, including homosexuals.

I agree.

Where I disagree is the idea that you have the right to insist they include some groups but allow them the right to exclude others. If they want to exclude homosexuals and Hindus, they can do that. Unfortunately, that also means they can exclude whites, people in wheelchairs, and the left-handed because it’s their club and they can do what they want.

 

[Brad]

Steph700:

I think you have made some excellent points, this thread is really interesting. We are discussing some similar ideas about justice and legal representation in Tariq Aziz wins ‘unofficial support’ from Vatican thread.

For all of the complaints of the ACLU being evil or anti Christian I still haven’t seen a valid argument behind them… I think the problem is so many of us grew up with the mindset that

1. We are Christian
2. American is Christian
3. It’s ok if American companies/schools/etc promote Christian views over other views

and we’ve forgotten what the constitution says! Goodness knows I love the Church, but you’ve gotta get to a point where you realize that America is a state which is completely separated from the Church, and as a state it must be run in a way that people’s rights aren’t violated.

I don’t see the ACLU being anti-Christian, I see it being pro-law, pro-fairness, pro-Constitution. We’ve gotta get over the idea that for any institution/school/government/company to be good it must be pro-Christian. This may sound crazy to some, but in all actuality I feel safer knowing that the ACLU exists, b/c I know that if for some reason my constituational rights are violated the ACLU will be there to defend them for me… and that’s what they do- defend rights!

Demanding homosexual mentors be in tents with young boy-scout youths may be defending the right of the homosexual to play out his fantasy but it does harm to the rights of the boys - don’t you think?

 

[Penny_Plain]

Brad:

You are right. I am being extremely patient with you and allowing diaglogue to continue.

The reason I’m being extremely patient is that you proclaim to be Catholic and yet you have not problem with the ACLU taking AWAY the rights of Christians.

You have yet to address the entire first ammendment. It says that goverment should not establish a religion NOR prohibit free excercise thereof. How is singing “Noel” as part of a school concert establishing a religion? I can tell you how it is restricting the free excercise thereof. This is against this constitution that you seem to hold so dear. I truly believe in the constitution - not something that you want to misinterpret as such.

So, let’s review:

1. You are wrong on your interpretation of the constitution
2. You are wrong suggesting that a Catholic should support the right to exist of an organization that promotes the benefits of molesting and raping children.

Your patience is duly noted. Let’s hug.

As I live and breathe, I do not know what rights the ACLU is taking away from Christians. The ACLU has no power to take away rights, for starters; all it does is argue in courts for a particular outcome.

Yes, I’m sure you can tell me exactly how singing “Silent Night” at a public school play is prohibiting the free exercise of religion. You can sing it anywhere you want, Brad. Just don’t use my tax dollars to subsidize it, force my children to participate in it, or force me to listen to it if I want to go to my kids’ school and hear the show.

Yes, I’m Catholic. Yes, I love “Silent Night.” But I don’t understand why you feel entitled to use tax money to make Jewish, Hindu, and Muslim kids sing it and their parents listen to it. You feel so strongly about it, no law prevents you from renting an auditorium and putting on your own show, just like Mickey and Judy.

You seem to know a great deal about NAMBLA, Brad. I don’t know if it supports the “raping and killing of children” or not. I find NAMBLA and its members repulsive, as I do members of the KKK, the Nazi party, and many metal bands. However, I believe that all of these groups have the right to express themselves.

It’s a very American concept, really – the marketplace of ideas. Some ideas are good, and some are bad. (You’ll note I distinguish the thought from the deed, here.) The best way to determine which is which is to throw them all out there and discuss them. Drag the Nazis and Klan members out from under their rocks, shine the light on them, and see how their ideas hold up when exposed to public discussion. The answer usually is “not very well.”

The marketplace of ideas depends on the ability to express ALL ideas, not just ones that pass some sort of governmental test of approval. The people, not the government, decide which ones are good and which ones aren’t.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Brad:

Let’s assume you are a principal of a public school. As a Christian that has been taught that you should be nice to others because Jesus was nice to others, would you be nice to the other teachers and the students? How could you justify being nice based on your Christian values? Wouldn’t this be promotion of Christianity?

Would you ever say a prayer to yourself? How could you do this? Wouldn’t this influence your behavior towards the rest of the schoool? If you saw each child as made in the image and likeness of God after such a prayer, your behavior would reflect as such and your behavior would promote Christianity. Is this fair to non-believing students that might embrace satanism as their code of life and might hate those that smile and give a warm greeting?

Because you have been taught to Honor your father and mother, would you call your parents from work ever if they were sick or in need? What is another teacher heard you? Wouldn’t you be promoting your faith to them, especially if they were considering euthanizing one of their parents?

Would it be ok to have an affair with someone else at school, as long as the affair was only carried out on school property, because it was Jesus that told us not to commit adultery and His teachings cannot apply in a public place. Certainly it would be ok to have an affair in school because you would be promoting no religion. What should stop you? Not your Christian beliefs - that wouldn’t be fair to the non-Christian man/woman that may find you attractive. Why should they not be able to have a legal affair with you? Because you are Christian? Who are you to force your beliefs on this person?

Would you reprimand your teachers for lying and breaking commandment 7? How could you? On what basis? It’s not illegal to lie except under oath. Are you trying to maintain order based on your Christian beliefs?

Do you get these out of a book? If so, you need a better book.

 

[Brad]

Catholic2003:

Actually, overall, I’ve found Buddhists to be nicer than most Christians (including those on this forum, I’m sorry to say). So I guess that being nice would be promoting Buddhist values.

Would not promoting Buddhist values be wrong?

Catholic2003:

I don’t see how giving a smile and a warm greeting would prevent Satanists from the free exercise of their religion.

And neither would saying “Merry Christmas” or establish a after-school Bible study group, nor wearing an “I love Jesus” shirt - all of which the ACLU is opposed to. Thank you for proving my point.

Catholic2003:

Terri Schiavo’s husband is Catholic. Not wanting to euthanize my father (my mother is already dead) puts me more in line with those cultures that respect their ancestors than with Catholicism as practiced today.

So you have a problem with the way some Catholics practice their religion but you think that Catholics that go to public school and after school programs should not be allowed to express or learn about their faith daily between the hours of 8am and 6pm?
How will these kids become the devout Catholic you suggest they should be when they are told that faith is not even allowed for about 70% of their waking day?

Catholic2003:

Why stop at affairs? By this logic, murder should be legal on school property as well.

Some kids seem to take that advice to heart. Take Columbine. I suppose they weren’t allowed to be taught the 10 commandments in school.

Catholic2003:

I guess that makes Donald Trump Christian - Didn’t he fire one of the apprentices for lying? And here I thought that there weren’t any good programs on TV that promote Christian values.

I don’t know - I don’t watch junk - as I tell my kids - it turns your brain to mush. Ooops - that’s a lie - don’t tell the ACLU - I might get on their mailing list.

 

[Lisa_N]

Penny Plain:

No, I’m not being deliberately obtuse.

Several posters made the point that, because the Boy Scouts are a private organization, they can choose to admit or exclude whomever they please, including homosexuals.

I agree.

Where I disagree is the idea that you have the right to insist they include some groups but allow them the right to exclude others. If they want to exclude homosexuals and Hindus, they can do that. Unfortunately, that also means they can exclude whites, people in wheelchairs, and the left-handed because it’s their club and they can do what they want.

No, you said that. I believe that a private organization can make its own rules and accept the consequences, which might mean no access to public funding.

What I objected to was your use of ridiculous examples, i.e. left handed people or Asians. You act as if denying homosexuals leadership roles is simply capricious, as would be denying membership to southpaws. There is NOTHING in the Boy Scout charter that would indicate being left handed or Asian is counter to the BSA’s philosophies. But being an atheist or a homosexual or an immoral criminal IS counter to the mission of the BSA. That is what distinguishes the example of homosexuals versus Asians and lefties. The BSA clearly does not want the risk or influence homosexuals in their club. They do not want avowed atheists in their club either because they specifically ascribe to the philosophy that there is a “higher power.”

Futher what I object to with respect to the ACLU, is their picking and choosing of organizations to either support or attack. IOW if they object to an organization that has a focus on “a higher power” why not attack AA? If they want “equal access for all” then why not attack MENSA for limiting membership to those with a certain IQ? THe difference IMO is that neither AA or MENSA have a specific reference to prohibition of homosexuals. Thus they are apparently safe from the programmed attacks of ACLU.

Until I see some unbiased choices of their supported causes, I will continue to maintain that the ACLU is simply an apologist for the radical homosexual movement and will give them the kind of respect that position deserves (IMO).

Lisa N

 

[Trelow]

CCC 1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. the choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."

1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

1736 Every act directly willed is imputable to its author: Thus the Lord asked Eve after the sin in the garden: “What is this that you have done?” He asked Cain the same question. The prophet Nathan questioned David in the same way after he committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and had him murdered.
An action can be indirectly voluntary when it results from negligence regarding something one should have known or done: for example, an accident arising from ignorance of traffic laws.

1737 An effect can be tolerated without being willed by its agent; for instance, a mother’s exhaustion from tending her sick child. A bad effect is not imputable if it was not willed either as an end or as a means of an action, e.g., a death a person incurs in aiding someone in danger. For a bad effect to be imputable it must be foreseeable and the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it, as in the case of manslaughter caused by a drunken driver.

1738 Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect.** the right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order**