Must we Catholics agree with the Church on the Government's role in society?

[exnihilo]

I already said what I believe the role of government should be. You can believe the government should preserve the family if you want. I believe that is the role of religion.

Approached from either a natural philosophy or Christianity the family is the first human government. All government is derived from the family. Any institution that does not support the family is no government.

It should provide these things to all people who are too poor or who otherwise cannot obtain them on their own. Are you honestly telling me that the government should preserve the family, but not give food to someone starving to death?

Preserving the family can mean keeping law and order, providing punishment for crimes, protecting property, protecting inheritance, protecting marriage and parenthood, and more. Here government is preserving what are called negative rights. Giving food to people is a charitable act. It is a positive right, if it is a right. To make the government responsible for feeding people is to require it to forcibly take from some people in order to do so. That both deprives charity and expands the power and scope of government.

I’m interested how you reason that protecting the family is a religious issue but giving food is not? Both touch on morality and are in that way religious in nature. Man comes from the union of a man and a woman. This is biological. I think the argument for preserving this reality of biology is easier to make than an obligation to provide food.

What makes you think same-sex marriage is the only form of limited government I support…

I didn’t mean to suggest that is what you believe. What I was saying is that in the US we have a giant police state. The people as a whole obviously don’t have a desire for limited government. For that reason the argument from freedom that some people use to promote allowing same sex marriage just seems silly to me. I am saying I’m sympathetic to the libertarian argument, but I’m not going to make the first move and give up true marriage when in all other aspects the majority of this country promotes more government and less freedom.

 

[Reep]

Adherence to Catholic Social Teaching is not optional.

It’s not that easy. Social encyclicals are written for the society of the day. Centesimus Annus has sections that explain how parts of Rerum Novarum no longer apply.

It seems to me that Catholic social teaching is fairly broad and would include the ultimate labor issue (slavery) and perhaps other things such as what government does with those who teach/follow false religious beliefs.

For hundreds of years the early Church condemned the execution of heretics. Later the Church softened and eventually approved of their deaths. Even saints were directly responsible for executing heretics. Now the Church has re-established the earlier position.

The Church largely tolerated human slavery for many ages. Now it condemns it.

I am not being critical of the Church. I am just recognizing that sometimes it takes time to clarify and apply moral principles. Circumstances change.

As to the church’s social teaching today, I believe those teachings/policies will develop further. The record of government murder and abuse over the last hundred years has exposed modern government as eminently corruptible and violent. Every institution that depends upon violence to compel the obedience of its subjects is unjust and unworthy of respect. Indeed, its failure to respect basic rights is why it must employ its “monopoly” of violence. See CCC 1930

Modern governments have clearly demonstrated that they are incapable of fulfilling the functions that the social teachings of the Church would entrust to them (e.g. regulating laws relating to marriage). As this becomes more broadly recognized, I believe the Church will look to other institutions–non-violent, voluntary institutions–to carry out its mission.

 

[markomalley]

It’s not that easy. Social encyclicals are written for the society of the day. Centesimus Annus has sections that explain how parts of Rerum Novarum no longer apply.

Really?

Perhaps you can show me an example of where, in CA, it says that RN no longer applies?
Granted, there are circumstances now that are different than in the time RN was written, but that is a while lot different than saying something no longer applies.

But if you can perhaps give me a couple of examples of where JPII said t"his part of RN no longer applies", or, for example, “paragraph 71 of RN is obsolete,” well , I’d be happy to read them.

 

[Reep]

Really?

Perhaps you can show me an example of where, in CA, it says that RN no longer applies?
Granted, there are circumstances now that are different than in the time RN was written, but that is a while lot different than saying something no longer applies.

But if you can perhaps give me a couple of examples of where JPII said t"his part of RN no longer applies", or, for example, “paragraph 71 of RN is obsolete,” well , I’d be happy to read them.

Out of town, so it could take me a day to dig that out. Meanwhile, you could show us where Church teaching permitting slavery and the execution of heretics still applies. Good luck with that.

 

[markomalley]

Out of town, so it could take me a day to dig that out. Meanwhile, you could show us where Church teaching permitting slavery and the execution of heretics still applies. Good luck with that.

What Church Teaching permits slave traffic?

• Pope John VIII condemned it in 873.
• Pope Eugene IV condemned it in 1435
• Pope Paul III condemned it in 1537
• Pope Gregory XVI condemned it in 1839.

The mere fact that not all Catholics followed that teaching doesn’t mean that it wasn’t taught.

As far as heresy, I don’t know how many people the Church actually executed. So far as I have seen, when somebody was condemned for heresy, the Church held an ecclesiastical trial, excommunicated that person vitandi and turned the person over to the State for punishment in accordance with the State’s laws. (You might start pulling up examples of the papal states and, fine, but the laws there were equivalent to any other state in Europe at the time)

Now while there are no Christian states anymore that punish a person for heresy, heresy is still punishable in canon law by excommunication.

Now I will grant that the Church has gotten a whole lot more skittish on the death penalty, so I would imagine that the Church would get a tad bit upset if a modern state decided to punish heresy by burning at the stake…but that doesn’t mean the Church has changed her teaching…heresy is punishable by excommunication to this day.

I look forward to you “digging out” your CA making RN obsolete references.

 

[LilyM]

How is a same-sex civil union against the natural order? Civil unions are purely governmental constructs, they have no place in the natural order at all. Marriage exists outside of government, civil unions do not. How is it “against the natural order” to tell someone they can leave all their possessions to someone of the same sex when they die?

No, civil unions, same sex or otherwise, are not purely a governmental construct. They are a construct which apes and mimics, and therefore has an effect on, a God-ordained and hence moral if not always sacramental institution - marriage. So there is always a moral dimension to civil unions just as there is to civil marriages.

It should provide these things to all people who are too poor or who otherwise cannot obtain them on their own. Are you honestly telling me that the government should preserve the family, but not give food to someone starving to death?

What makes you think same-sex marriage is the only form of limited government I support? I do not believe the government should tell a woman what to do with her body, including taking drugs, traveling, or prostitution. I think these should be legal. The only reason I think abortion should be illegal is because the fetus has separate DNA, and therefore is an individual and has the aforementioned rights. Parents make decisions for their children, but if they make decisions which are detrimental to the children, they can be taken away. “Killing the child” is pretty detrimental.
I also don’t think the government should tell people how many people they can marry, either. If someone wants to “marry” 3 people, let them. Incest is tricky. I would tell the government to again butt out, but any children conceived through incest have a high likelihood of genetic disorders, and again that is detrimental to their well-being, so that law may have to stay.

Does “civil union” have a meaning independent of the state? No, it is a construct created purely by the government. But yet the Church says I am supposed to oppose same-sex civil unions. Which means that, in the Church’s eyes, whether or not something has a meaning outside the government is irrelevant.

 

[Kevin_B]

Approached from either a natural philosophy or Christianity the family is the first human government. All government is derived from the family. Any institution that does not support the family is no government.

Fine with me. It doesn’t bother me if you call it a government or not. I just don’t think it should protect families. And, again, I respect the Church’s belief that government should protect the family. However, since the Church is not infallible in the area of the role of government, then I am free to disagree with Her.

I’m interested how you reason that protecting the family is a religious issue but giving food is not? Both touch on morality and are in that way religious in nature. Man comes from the union of a man and a woman. This is biological. I think the argument for preserving this reality of biology is easier to make than an obligation to provide food.

To be honest, I would rather the providing food to be a religious function as well. The problem is, when the economy gets bad, donations drop and they have less money when they have to help more people. My ideal situation would be to have some sort of government sponsorship to charities that provide food and shelter to the needy.

Anyway, without food people die. Unmarried couples can still have children. No one dies by taking the government out of protecting marriage. Of course children do better when their parents are married, but there are a lot of bad married households for children as well, so the only way to make that argument without being a hypocrite is to make everyone take a test before having children.

No, civil unions, same sex or otherwise, are not purely a governmental construct. They are a construct which apes and mimics, and therefore has an effect on, a God-ordained and hence moral if not always sacramental institution - marriage. So there is always a moral dimension to civil unions just as there is to civil marriages.

How do civil unions mimic marriage? They have nothing in common.

Civil unions exist to give tax breaks and other political privleges, like inheritance rights.
Marriage unites two people in the eyes of God.

Civil unions are carried out by a government official
Marriage is carried out by a holy person.

Civil unions exist only for as long as the party wants them to.
Marriage exists for life.

In order to mimic something, you need to have a lot in common with it. Civil unions and marriages have NOTHING in common, except for the fact that both involve two people. But using that logic, any business contact involving two people would “mimic” marriage.

 

[casey_cates]

Since when can’t we legislate morality? What is a law except a protection from a wrong - perceived correctly or incorrectly.

What are laws against murder, theft, fraud, etc? Didn’t people initially realize it is wrong to murder, steal and commit fraud. People agreed and they made a law against it. What if I’m amoral and I don’t particularly see any problem with stealing money from my neighbor if I don’t want to work and feel like getting a candy bar? That’s your morals saying it’s wrong. Why are you imposing your morals on me?

 

[billcu1]

From what I have always been taught, the Church is infallible in the areas of faith and morality. That seems pretty clear. However, recently I have been called “not a Catholic” (which is a fallacy in itself, we are Catholics until we die) for disagreeing with the Church in an entirely different aspect of life: The role Government should play in our society.

I believe that Government should play an absolutely minimal role in society. It should ensure that no person in that country is denied the basic requirements for life: food, shelter, education. Even doing these simple tasks our government is notoriously inefficient! I would like it even more if they could sub-contract these roles to private organizations who could do it much more efficiently than they can. And, of course, they need to defend their citizens from attack (not attack countries preemptively, as we have been prone to doing in the last 50 years)

I do not believe it is the job of government to preserve the definitions of words.
I do not believe it is the role of government to force people to be moral.
I do not believe it is the role of Government to make sure every child has a mom and a dad.
I do not believe it is the role of government to encourage people to have babies (or not to have babies, for that matter)
I do not believe it is the role of government to “promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.” (from then Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter on the matter)
I do not believe it is the role of government to “[preserve]the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour”

In conclusion, I do not believe it is the role of government to decide what the word “marriage” means. Of course, in an ideal world (to me), the government would not be involved in marriage at all, only Churches would. But since that obviously is not going to happen, the next best solution in my opinion is to let the government “marry” any two consenting people who want to get “married”.

Yet people will claim that I am out of communion with the Church, but how? I am agreeing with them on all matters of faith and morality. The only area I disagree with them is on what the responsibilities of government should be. Since when is that an area of infallibility in the Church?

P.S. By the way, I am fully aware of both the fictional and real threats to the Church as a result of this endeavor. There are real threats, such as forcing Churches to provide adoptions to same-sex couples, and I would oppose any government forcing a Church to do that. There are also imaginary threats, like forcing Churches to marry people. Since the government has always allowed people to get married who would not be allowed by the Church (divorced people, for instance), and not once has any one of these couples sued the Church to marry them, there is no chance of this ever happening. And, if the 1st Amendment is repealed and this does happen, I would oppose it as well.

Same sex unions are against natural law. Marriage or unions for that matter are for procreation and unity when it comes to sex. Some argue well animals can be “homosexual” I don’t believe so. I don’t think they know what they’re doing but they lack human dignity too.

 

[Reep]

Since when can’t we legislate morality? What is a law except a protection from a wrong - perceived correctly or incorrectly.

What are laws against murder, theft, fraud, etc? Didn’t people initially realize it is wrong to murder, steal and commit fraud. People agreed and they made a law against it. What if I’m amoral and I don’t particularly see any problem with stealing money from my neighbor if I don’t want to work and feel like getting a candy bar? That’s your morals saying it’s wrong. Why are you imposing your morals on me?

True, murder is immoral, but so is sex outside of marriage, but to criminalize both on that ground is unwise. We must look beyond whether the conduct is immoral. The obvious difference here is that murder is a violent offense, like all violence (or the threat of it) to persons or their property. Stuff like stealing & assault. Murder and theft are pretty universally condemned as* both immoral and criminal*.

On the other hand, sexual immorality (like gambling, alcohol/drug use, and many other such vices) directly injure only those who engage in the conduct. These are probably the sort of things that cause disagreement over “legislating morality.” The criminal prohibition of such conduct typically causes more evil than it prevents.

Mere vices should be neither condoned, nor criminalized. Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas agreed with me centuries ago.

 

[casey_cates]

True, murder is immoral, but so is sex outside of marriage, but to criminalize both on that ground is unwise. We must look beyond whether the conduct is immoral. The obvious difference here is that murder is a violent offense, like all violence (or the threat of it) to persons or their property. Stuff like stealing & assault. Murder and theft are pretty universally condemned as* both immoral and criminal*.

On the other hand, sexual immorality (like gambling, alcohol/drug use, and many other such vices) directly injure only those who engage in the conduct. These are probably the sort of things that cause disagreement over “legislating morality.” The criminal prohibition of such conduct typically causes more evil than it prevents.

Mere vices should be neither condoned, nor criminalized. Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas agreed with me centuries ago.

Would you consider it correct to have a law against marrying a family member? A child? Those would not be mere vices, would they and yet it falls under sexual immorality.

 

[Reep]

Would you consider it correct to have a law against marrying a family member? A child? Those would not be mere vices, would they and yet it falls under sexual immorality.

I would not have marriage controlled by the government at all. That is for the Church and individual adults. As for crimes against children, children cannot give consent and sexual contact with them should always be punished as crimes.

 

[casey_cates]

I would not have marriage controlled by the government at all. That is for the Church and individual adults. As for crimes against children, children cannot give consent and sexual contact with them should always be punished as crimes./QUOTE/}

Well the reality is that legal marriage is controlled by government. And, as government is supposed to be of the People, by the People and for the People, we should have a say in what our society construes as marriage. And, as Catholics, our faith should inform our views. As Christians, we serve a higher Authority than government. So if we are blessed enough to have this representative government, it is our responsibility to make sure that our values are represented by electing reps that agree with our views and holding them to task. Many people in other countries are not as fortunate. This is why dictators don’t want God in society. They want to be the highest power and they decide (like China with the one child policy) what is moral and immoral.

I understand your point that you feel marriage is a sacrament but the government has always been involved; and, unfortunately, now I fear that it will soon be telling Catholic priests that it will be seen as discriminatory to not marry homosexuals. Therefore, if they want to marry people under the law, they will have to marry others in contradiction to their faith. Far-fetched? - think about the HHS Mandate. Religious liberty infringement disguised as a woman’s health issue.

As Catholics, we must deal with what is rather than what we wish. Our reality is that government is involved in marriage. I fear that if we bury our heads in the sand on these issues, we will have these unfortunate results.

 

[Reep]

I understand your point that you feel marriage is a sacrament but the government has always been involved; and, unfortunately, now I fear that it will soon be telling Catholic priests that it will be seen as discriminatory to not marry homosexuals. Therefore, if they want to marry people under the law, they will have to marry others in contradiction to their faith. Far-fetched? - think about the HHS Mandate. Religious liberty infringement disguised as a woman’s health issue.

As Catholics, we must deal with what is rather than what we wish. Our reality is that government is involved in marriage. I fear that if we bury our heads in the sand on these issues, we will have these unfortunate results.

Your solution is the same as the one that government always urges upon us: more of what’s not working now. I do not bury my head, but I understand that my vote never has–and never will–change anything (at least above the local level). If your vote actually changed anything, it would be illegal.

I propose a different solution. Let’s grow a spine, stand up and withhold consent. Government mischief is a given, so we need to shrink it, avoid its favors, and not look to it to punish our enemies. It will disappoint at best; and corrupt us in the end.

 

[casey_cates]

Your solution is the same as the one that government always urges upon us: more of what’s not working now. I do not bury my head, but I understand that my vote never has–and never will–change anything (at least above the local level). If your vote actually changed anything, it would be illegal.

I propose a different solution. Let’s grow a spine, stand up and withhold consent. Government mischief is a given, so we need to shrink it, avoid its favors, and not look to it to punish our enemies. It will disappoint at best; and corrupt us in the end.

I wasn’t referring to you personally. Just Catholics in general. I am all about small government but that seems to be a minority opinion in this day and age. Not sure what you mean by not look to it to punish our enemies.

 

[Reep]

Reep wrote: . . .Let’s grow a spine, stand up and withhold consent. Government mischief is a given, so we need to shrink it, avoid its favors, and not look to it to punish our enemies. It will disappoint at best; and corrupt us in the end.

I wasn’t referring to you personally. Just Catholics in general. I am all about small government but that seems to be a minority opinion in this day and age. Not sure what you mean by not look to it to punish our enemies.

I probably should have written “competititors.”

 

[LilyM]

How do civil unions mimic marriage? They have nothing in common.

Civil unions exist to give tax breaks and other political privleges, like inheritance rights.
Marriage unites two people in the eyes of God.

Civil unions are carried out by a government official
Marriage is carried out by a holy person.

Civil unions exist only for as long as the party wants them to.
Marriage exists for life.

In order to mimic something, you need to have a lot in common with it. Civil unions and marriages have NOTHING in common, except for the fact that both involve two people. But using that logic, any business contact involving two people would “mimic” marriage.

Two romantic (usually sexual partners) publicly make a moral if not sacramental as well as legal commitment to an exclusive and monogamous relationship. To building a life, and not just a business, together. Perfectly describes both marriage and civil unions.

I cannot have a civil union with someone who is merely a workmate and nothing more, nor can I have a civil union with my mother or my brother. Nor can I have civil unions with fifty people all at the same time. Nor can I have a civil union with a person I’ve never met and never intend to meet in the flesh.

In all of these respects a civil union is exactly like marriage and totally unlike a business partnership or indeed almost any other commercial or other contract.

 

[Kevin_B]

Two romantic (usually sexual partners) publicly make a moral if not sacramental as well as legal commitment to an exclusive and monogamous relationship. To building a life, and not just a business, together. Perfectly describes both marriage and civil unions.

I cannot have a civil union with someone who is merely a workmate and nothing more, nor can I have a civil union with my mother or my brother. Nor can I have civil unions with fifty people all at the same time. Nor can I have a civil union with a person I’ve never met and never intend to meet in the flesh.

In all of these respects a civil union is exactly like marriage and totally unlike a business partnership or indeed almost any other commercial or other contract.

None of the things you have stated are true. I’ll try to find text for a civil union document if I can. Nowhere does it mention Dex or romance. Nowhere does it say you cannot join a civil union with a coworker.

So yes, you are correct in the sense that, if all the things you falsely said were true of civil unions were in fact true, they would be very similar to marriage.

You are also forgetting that the sacrament of marriage contains absolutely no legal commitment at all. The legal commitment comes from the second sheet of paper you sign when a priest marries you. This one has nothing to do with God, and everything to do with uncle Sam. That sheet of paper is the one that is a “pale imitation of marriage”.

 

[LilyM]

None of the things you have stated are true. I’ll try to find text for a civil union document if I can. Nowhere does it mention Dex or romance. Nowhere does it say you cannot join a civil union with a coworker.

So yes, you are correct in the sense that, if all the things you falsely said were true of civil unions were in fact true, they would be very similar to marriage.

You are also forgetting that the sacrament of marriage contains absolutely no legal commitment at all. The legal commitment comes from the second sheet of paper you sign when a priest marries you. This one has nothing to do with God, and everything to do with uncle Sam. That sheet of paper is the one that is a “pale imitation of marriage”.

A business partnership is just that, a business partnership. Different documentation, different legal processes. Family is family. A civil union is a civil union. All quite distinct.

What the text of the document creating the union says is only a tiny part of the picture. Just like the text of a marriage certificate. A marriage certificate on its face doesn’t spell out all the law saying that a marriage is only between two people who are unrelated and of age, nor all the legal benefits and entitlements as well as legal obligations spouses have to each other. It will simply say ‘a and b married at such and such a place on such a date’. You need to look at what the law says marriage is and entails.

What does the legislation that recognises civil unions say about what a civil union is? Under what circumtsances does that legislation allow civil union documents to be recognised? In my jurisdiction that legislation is abundantly clear that a civil union is a domestic arrangement between same sex or heterosexual partners.

Only two people can enter into a civil union. A person cannot enter into more than one civil union at one time. People who are married cannot enter into civil unions. Marriage terminates a civil union. If the partners in a civil union separate, their property (all property, not just that held in common as would be the case with business partners) is dealt with under the same legislation dealing with marital and de facto spousal property, never the provisions that deal with splitting up the assets of a business upon its winding up. If one partner in a civil union lives overseas, they may make the same type of application to immigrate as spouses and de factos who live overseas, not under a business or parent/child or other type of visa. Etc etc etc. These are all legal restrictions that define what a civil union is, but would not for the most part appear on the face of any document creating a civil union.

So it is crystal clear that it is meant to be analogous in most if not all ways to marriage, while at the same time being very different to a merely business arrangement.

And I did say moral as well as legal commitment - I recognise that not all marriages are legally ratified. Sheesh.

 

[saddmister]

I can never,never,never peacably accomodate myself to any nation, government,society, or church that employs or sanctions the employment of the methods of a totalitarian police state to compel compliance to the agenda of radical homosexualism espoused by present day Liberal Supremacist politicians, technocrats, and elitist intellectuals in the United States.