Naked Body Scanners

[Romanova]

You still fail to address the fact that the scanners obscure faces and genitalia.

I’m not the poster you were addressing, but… At one airport, when they were training TSA employees on the use of the scanners, one employee assaulted another employee for taunting him because of the size of his genitalia. That doesn’t indicate obscuring to me – it apparently was clear enough that the second TSA employee could determine the size of the first employee’s genitalia. If that area of the body were truly obscured, how could the second TSA employee know the size of anyone’s genitalia?

 

[Romanova]

Really? I thought president Obama played a big role in getting them out there. Wasn’t it his decision after all?

Regardless of whether or not someone thinks they will or will not be beneficial, I don’t think we can sit here and say it’s a sin to travel now, I’m pretty sure that’s what this thread is about.

The Department of Homeland Security ordered the scanners after Michael Chertoff – the previous secretary of the same Department – began lobbying for their implementation shortly before leaving his job as secretary of DHS, and then continued to lobby for them after leaving DHS. Completely coincidentally (riiiight), Chertoff is now being paid by Rapiscan, the company that makes the scanners, and there are suggestions that he was profiting from the scanners even while he was secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

That sure makes me suspicious that they aren’t necessary… And if they aren’t necessary, I don’t want to submit myself to them. Like you, I travel a lot and have relatives overseas – but the new security procedures are making me rethink my love of travel. To willingly have nude photos of myself taken, by machines whose utility and safety is in doubt and which were implemented by a politician profiting from their implementation, seems to me like too high a price to pay. I suppose I’ll have to rely on Skype more often.

 

[pnewton]

The Catholic Church has not said these scanners are sinful. Until such a statement is made, no Catholic has the authority or right to put the burden of sin on another. Their conscientious opinion applies to no one but themselves. Any attempt to do so usurps the authority of the bishops.

 

[royal_archer]

The Catholic Church has not said these scanners are sinful. Until such a statement is made, no Catholic has the authority or right to put the burden of sin on another. Their conscientious opinion applies to no one but themselves. Any attempt to do so usurps the authority of the bishops.

catholicapologetics.info/morality/modesty/dress.htm

Have the bishops delcared that consenting to the activities of the TSA are always moral regardless of the reason for travel?

I accept that under certain circumstances the trip may be of such importance that it warrants the person submitting to the TSA searches. I do not believe that this applies to every trip.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

catholicapologetics.info/morality/modesty/dress.htm

Have the bishops delcared that consenting to the activities of the TSA are always moral regardless of the reason for travel?

I accept that under certain circumstances the trip may be of such importance that it warrants the person submitting to the TSA searches. I do not believe that this applies to every trip.

The absurdity of your arguments is breathtaking. Have the bishops ever declared that ***anything ***is “always moral?” Are they likely to? They certainly haven’t declared that using the Internet is “always moral,” yet we notice that hasn’t slowed down your posting. Surely placing the burden of (alleged) sin on something the Church has taken no position on isn’t the most moral thing I’ve ever seen.

 

[royal_archer]

The absurdity of your arguments is breathtaking. Have the bishops ever declared that ***anything ***is “always moral?” Are they likely to? They certainly haven’t declared that using the Internet is “always moral,” yet we notice that hasn’t slowed down your posting. Surely placing the burden of (alleged) sin on something the Church has taken no position on isn’t the most moral thing I’ve ever seen.

They haven’t spoken on the specific topic but they have spoken on related topics.

Let’s break this down:

Do you think that allowing someone to touch you or your children in an intimate place with out a justifying reason is moral or immoral?

 

[Maso]

I won’t fly anymore.

 

[Debora123]

The Catholic Church has not said these scanners are sinful. Until such a statement is made, no Catholic has the authority or right to put the burden of sin on another. Their conscientious opinion applies to no one but themselves. Any attempt to do so usurps the authority of the bishops.

My thoughts exactly, THANKS!

 

[Debora123]

That alone wouldn’t be a sin. But if you did something wrong in order to get there that thing you did wrong might be a sin. Obviously stealing a car or robbing a bank to get the money to travel would be a sin. You agree with that right?

Umm yes, I was talking about the scanners. Figured you’d know, considering that’s what this whole thread is about.

 

[pnewton]

catholicapologetics.info/morality/modesty/dress.htm

Have the bishops delcared that consenting to the activities of the TSA are always moral regardless of the reason for travel?

No. They haven’t given a Catholic postition either way on the use of these scanners, as you well know. Ergo, there is no Catholic position on the morality of these scanners.

I will not use them because of my moral objection, but I would never begin to suggest that my opinions are those of the Church.

 

[royal_archer]

Umm yes, I was talking about the scanners. Figured you’d know, considering that’s what this whole thread is about.

So do you agree that it is wrong to allow a stranger to touch your child in an inappropriate place with out appropriate justification?

 

[royal_archer]

No. They haven’t given a Catholic postition either way on the use of these scanners, as you well know. Ergo, there is no Catholic position on the morality of these scanners.

I will not use them because of my moral objection, but I would never begin to suggest that my opinions are those of the Church.

Nor have I said that my assertions are the official view of the church. But just because they have not explicity said that these are immoral, does not mean that they are not immoral. We each have the obligation to make appropriate decisions on right and wrong. Where the Bishops are silent on a specific issue, we have to look to related issues. I have not found anyone who has shown any reason why the components of my underlying rationale for my assesment are wrong. The only disagreements come with the assertion that the searches are needed for security which has nothing to do with my assessment. The other disagreement is that the need for the trip justifies the act. Which actually supports my assertion that the act is wrong unless the associated good (avoidance of a worse evil) is so significant it outweighs or Justifies the act.

 

[Debora123]

So do you agree that it is wrong to allow a stranger to touch your child in an inappropriate place with out appropriate justification?

No, I don’t. That’s what I’ve been saying in this whole post. If I thought it was wrong for a stranger to touch my child with appropriate justification, I guess I’d have to be against taking them to the doctor.

 

[Debora123]

Nor have I said that my assertions are the official view of the church. But just because they have not explicity said that these are immoral, does not mean that they are not immoral. We each have the obligation to make appropriate decisions on right and wrong. Where the Bishops are silent on a specific issue, we have to look to related issues.

The related issue in this case would be going to the doctor. Many of us have said that many times in this thread.

 

[karbear]

The related issue in this case would be going to the doctor. Many of us have said that many times in this thread.

And Royal Archer has provided several thought-provoking arguments that show where that analogy breaks down. They haven’t been properly challenged or addressed by anyone here.

intended end result of doctor visit = health, life
intended end result of travel = vacation, profit, or other

The end result cannot logically be said to be safety regardless of anyone’s opinion on the effectiveness of the scanners in this regard. Those opinions are relevant to the discussion, they just don’t change the facts of the intended end result.

The pope has counseled us to weigh the importance of preserving the dignity of the human person in these considerations. I would not take a child to a doctor who indiscriminately chose to have all patients strip down so long as there were other equivalent doctors available who did have a sensitivity to the dignity of the human person. If it were necessary, it would be for health and life. There are circumstances where the end result of a trip might not be vacation or profit, maybe the trip would save a life…that is a different situation.

 

[Debora123]

intended end result of travel = vacation, profit, or other

How about business, spending time with family, and being with loved ones during Xmas? And even if it WAS for vacation and profit, I don’t think it’s right for some random joe to tell us we’re sinning for doing something that the Church hasn’t said is wrong.

And besides, I thought we were talking about the new safety procedures here, not just about traveling in isolation. It would have been more accurate for you to say intended end result of new safety procedures = safety. I think that correlates pretty well with one’s intention of going to the doctor for a check up.

 

[karbear]

I have not found anyone who has shown any reason why the components of my underlying rationale for my assesment are wrong. The only disagreements come with the assertion that the searches are needed for security which has nothing to do with my assessment. The other disagreement is that the need for the trip justifies the act. Which actually supports my assertion that the act is wrong unless the associated good (avoidance of a worse evil) is so significant it outweighs or Justifies the act.

Seriously, in the interest of using this discussion to seek truth and help form and inform our consciouses, in the light of church teaching; would someone please argue against this on its merits! It is quite an interesting point that both for and against arguments agree on the premise that the act itself needs to be justified.

 

[onenow1]

Seriously, in the interest of using this discussion to seek truth and help form and inform our consciouses, in the light of church teaching; would someone please argue against this on its merits! It is quite an interesting point that both for and against arguments agree on the premise that the act itself needs to be justified.

Its like finding two needles in a hay stack ! “OH” My Gosh I found one. :twocents:

God Bless

 

[karbear]

How about business, spending time with family, and being with loved ones during Xmas? And even if it WAS for vacation and profit, I don’t think it’s right for some random joe to tell us we’re sinning for doing something that the Church hasn’t said is wrong.

It would have been more accurate for you to say intended end result of new safety procedures = safety. I think that correlates pretty well with one’s intention of going to the doctor for a check up.

The opinions put forth by random joe are deliberately transparent in both logic and premise, this leaves them open to counter argument. They are quite sincere and humble in this respect. The intent of discussion is to hear arguments that we may not have thought of and test our own. The purpose of this thread is to form/inform our conscience in light of church teaching by having the discussion with other sincere catholics. The opinion is not meant to condemn you. It is not wrong to post it.

intended result of safety procedures = safety (benefit of doubt)
intended result of travel = business/profit, vacation, visiting relatives, other
intended result of doctor = life, health

People don’t go to the airport to go through the safety check. They go to travel.

 

[Debora123]

People don’t go to the airort to go through the safety check. They go to travel.

Right, but obviously, traveling, in isolation, is not a sin. And I’m sure we can all agree on that. The discussion here, and the reason you started this thread, was because you were in doubt about whether or not it’s a sin to go through the new security procedures, correct? So I thought THAT was what we’re trying to justify here.

And it’s ok if it’s his opinion, that’s totally fine. But he’s making it out to be like it’s THE WORD or something. The Church has not spoken on this issue. She has not told us it was wrong. She has not told us to stop traveling. She hasn’t even said that these security measures need to be abolished. Royal is making is sound like it IS wrong and if we still travel we’ll be sinning. I don’t think a single person, especially one who isn’t a pope or a bishop or even a priest, can come out and tell us we’re doing something wrong just because that’s his opinion, and not because it’s what the Church teaches. I have nothing against his opinion, as long as he recognizes that it’s his opinion and doesn’t try to play it off like it’s Church doctrine by condemning anyone who wants to fly somewhere.