Now You Can Be Sued For Being Catholic

[centurionguard]

How about little change for a moment … a temporary break…same topic of the thread title – Being Sued For Being Catholic, but from a somewhat novel vantage point ?

The province of Quebec where I currently reside, really has a unique personality … not always an admittedly pleasant personality perhaps, but one bearing a dynamic generated by people so frequently passionate about what they believe ( or have ceased to believe). Subsequently, from here also comes a story with a markedly unique perspective on Catholics who were sued and ruled to pay compensation by a human rights tribunal.

The root of the pertinent context could be classified as rare by today’s standards : Not totally unlike the fact that the late John F. Kennedy was the only Catholic president of the USA ever, so also Quebec Premier Maurice Duplessis who placed a Crucifix over the Speaker’s chair in the assembly in 1936, used to say that he led the “only Catholic government in North America.”

Despite some of the unholy things happening here today, no one can deny this province was built on a rich Catholic heritage . Going back a little further in time to the province’s infancy, we discover it was founded largely (if not exclusively) by the religious orders who took it upon themselves to build schools and hospitals.

The roots of Quebec’s Catholic heritage can be easily traced all the way back to the early 1600’s . Once the roots took hold and society began to thrive ,the (practically exclusive) Catholic character of Quebec continued to grow proportionately … to the point where Quebec was sometimes referred to as a “jewel in our Blessed Mother’s Crown” .

As recorded in an article published by the New York Times , Dec. 10, 1881 during the speech delivered by Mark Twain at a banquet in Montreal which had been given in his honor , Mr. Twain remarked: “This is the first time I was ever in a city where you couldn’t throw a brick without breaking a church window. Yet I was told that you were going to build one more.”

That little bit of background information, albeit incomplete, provides some context for the past. The present however, is radically different here. For one thing, a sad fact of today is that this province’s abortion rate leads all of Canada’s other provinces.

Two links which follow describe how a Quebec’s human rights tribunal called on the city of Saguenay to end the practice of reciting a Christian prayer at the start of council meetings, to remove the crucifix and Sacred Heart statue from a civic meeting room (utterly amazing that they have been able to continue until now) and to pay “the plaintiff $30,000 in damages for the supposed pain the council-chamber praying inflicted on his delicate atheist sensibilities. This is absurd …”
Both articles originate from the only complete English language newspaper remaining in Montreal – The Montreal Gazette.

The first article Crucifix Stays in Assembly… appears to have a better overview of the circumstances.

While the second article which emanated also from the Montreal Gazette two days later does make some excellent points, (despite the fact that its author is not identified)
Civic spaces should be neutral ground for religion ,in its tone ,appears to come from someone who either has an axe to grind, or a Crucifix to grind …… or both.

…
Its still good and perhaps surprising that Premier Jean Charest supported the mainstay
to keep the Crucifix in the Québec Assembly.

I had lived in La Belle Province du Québec for many years in Sept Isles and Ste Foy.

My belated father grew up in Memphremagog not far from Sherbrooke in the Eastern townships Québec\Vermont border. I’ve always had very fond memories of Québec and its rich Catholic heritage.

I think most of English-speaking Canada misunderstands much of what has happened in the history of Québec in a bias way particularly with the historical English upper crust of society running the roost “sort of speak” with big American/Canadian business in Montreal.

With the onset of Modernism going full swing after WW-II and setting the big stage in the 1960’s up to present day much of the reputation of Canada’s biggest core of Catholics in Québec and the rest of Canada has lost its shine. Per-ca-pita Catholics in Québec (“once”) enjoyed the greatest number of Catholics in all of North America.

But not unlike the rest of North America burning their bras and going full swing with moral liberalism and sexual immorality.

 

[NeedImprovement]

…
Its still good and perhaps surprising that Premier Jean Charest supported the mainstay
to keep the Crucifix in the Québec Assembly. …

Indeed, as Catholics , we ask ourselves , how could keeping a Crucifix visible to the public ever be a bad thing ?

It is unfortunate that in this present inversion of moral values which pervades society, we have laws in Canada which say, “Yes, your Crucifix is offensive to me.”

We would therefore be wise to proceed cautiously before ever claiming even a small moral victory in the keeping of the Crucifix in the National Assembly of Quebec, when it has already been removed from the schools. We shouldn’t permit it to mollify us in some way. As we are seeing time and time again, thanks to the depraved intellects which rule over human rights issues in modern society, efforts continue to reduce God to merely a sentiment in our hearts, or to little more than a symbol of our heritage.
… A couple of things to consider :

One American-Canadian connection which contributed to the current gay rights/anti-hate legislation here in Canada is former MP Svend Robinson. Robinson who is openly gay, was originally a US citizen who later became a member of Canada’s parliament (NDP) .

Despite a tumultuous personal life and political career, in 2003, he got the House of Commons to pass a law to include sexual orientation in the hate propaganda sections of the Criminal Code of Canada. Robinson had been citing violence done to gays as justification for the Canadian law . According to this article from the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, published in 2005, entitled The “privilege of speech” in a “pleasantly authoritarian country”: how Canada’s judiciary allowed laws proscribing discourse critical of homosexuality to trump free speech and religious liberty , the “violence to gays” justification in Canada “…is dubious: as critics of the amendment have shown, homosexuals–like all Canadians–were adequately protected before the amendment not only from crimes of violence, but also from the advocacy of violence against them.”

What I find disturbing is that Robinson , in 1999 tabled a petition calling for the name of “God” to be removed from the preamble of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This preamble begins: “Because we believe in the supremacy of God…” For that initiative, Robinson was relegated to the backbenches by Federal NDP leader Alexa McDonough .

What should be arguably much more disturbing to us is that our Canadian legal experts and the Supreme Court of Canada declare:

Although the Preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does refer to God (“Canada is founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”), legal experts and the Supreme Court of Canada have agreed that this reference is merely symbolic and does not contradict the religious freedoms contained in the document itself.

Did you catch that ? They’ve turned religious freedom into a two-edged sword. Effectively, Canada’s legal experts and Canada’s Supreme Court have successfully accomplished precisely what Svend Robinson originally set out to do - to remove the name of God from the Canadian Charter of Rights … Oh sure, the word is still there, but even before Svend had pulled out his eraser, they’d already decided to empty it of all its moral and supernatural meaning ; and to strip it of its Identity.

It would seem “marriage” is to be only one of several weighty definitions slated for pulverization by legislative authorities on the butcher’s block… under the guise of “human rights” . Now “God” can no longer be considered a name … God is only a word … a symbol.

Surely every Christian can see that the aforementioned is not and cannot be compatible with “Hallowed be Thy Name.”

…… Of course, if these guys were to join up with our struggling catholic brothers and sisters who similarly mistakenly think the Eucharist is nothing more than a symbol , then at least they would be open to correction.

If these sorry *arbiter backbiters * have ever proven anything to us , it’s that the word, “Supreme” contained in the title “Supreme Court of Canada” is becoming the least “symbolic” word of all .

 

[chevalier]

I am a Catholic lawyer and I come into contact with the liberal agenda from time to time academically, though if I wanted to pursue all contact that’s available, I’d have my hands full even here in Poland, a Catholic country.

As for Mexico, no, I don’t think you could be sued successfully for saying that same sex “marriage” is wrong. My guess and this really is a vague guess, the suit would perhaps not be thrown out right away as inadmissible but it wouldn’t succeed.

And in Poland, a while ago, senators of the supposedly Catholic-Democratic party styled the Civic Platform (Platforma Obywatelska) decided not to propose amendments to new private international law (an act dealing with conflict of law provisions, especially in matters of civil estate) to include a ban on recognising foreign same-sex marriages. They have been supporting in vitro as well. They still frequently call upon their Catholicism, such as the talk about party members participating in spiritual retreats, being members of this or that etc. I suppose they may be learning from Catholic fence sitters from other countries.

Heh, on some days I wish I could become the papal litigator flying from place to place around the globe to go to court for Catholic institutions, organisations and people.

 

[rapunzel77]

So, after all this evidence, what is to be done? Are we doomed? screwed? Can we honestly fight this onslaught of tyranny? It is soo discouraging. I know, I know we all must pray but meanwhile…what can we POSSIBLY do???

 

[chevalier]

So, after all this evidence, what is to be done? Are we doomed? screwed? Can we honestly fight this onslaught of tyranny? It is soo discouraging. I know, I know we all must pray but meanwhile…what can we POSSIBLY do???

Endure but I think the job of Catholic lawyers may be to defend or even counter-sue, just as a soldier would fight for a country hard-oppressed but not yet defeated. Some kind of Templars with black briefcases.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I welcome anyone who is versed in the science of picking out the lies, ambiguities, and prevarication speech or equivocations to join the thread and share you wisdom with us. Everyone is welcome but I think our focus should be on helping each other to detect, identify and sift out all the deception in the purported substantiation of the charges of discrimination, and it’s related components. I think related stories would be helpful too.

Thank-you in advance and God Bless.

The sueing of Catholic priests is hardly surprising. So long as there is a split between religion and state, there will always be a split between the religious concept of morality and the idea of human rights. Today, “human rights” is not based on the presupposition of Christian revelation. Human-rights is simply a government endorsed “right of way”, which is based purely on the long-term material good of those who run society. When religion was one of the backbones of society and the economy, it was easy for those in power to ignore the opposing minority simply because a substantial portion of society was religious. But now we live in an age where religion is losing its grip on the human consciousness; It is no-longer seen as the most important factor of human civilisation. The material good can be understood without religion, it “appears” that a certain degree of economic and social stability can be achieved without religious driven virtue, and it is no-longer obvious that God exists.

I dare say that there are gay men and women that have high positions in the power-structures of society, so much so that they have an influence; that and the fact that most people today have such a simple understanding of what it means for something to be good it is not easy for them to distinguish between deception and that which is truly good. For example we all have an intuitive understanding that to try and break up a loving relationship is wrong, to destroy love is wrong, thus it is understandable that people think that attacking gay marriage is wrong. It is no-longer self-evident or common-sense to think that it is wrong to be gay, and, with moral relativism, wide spread atheism, and hatred of the Catholic church as a corrupt institution, it is becoming increasingly difficult to prove that homosexuality is immoral.

While there is certainly remnants of religious influence in the idea of human rights today, It is meaningless to politically attack homosexuality by way of revelation or scripture, simply because today’s understanding of politics and morality are not regulated by those rules or assumptions any-more. Power, security, social stability, and economic success, are the factors that define what is right and wrong. If it cannot be proven that homosexuality is morally harmful to these factors, and more harmful to human health than a packet of cigarettes (which causes cancer), then homosexuality will be accepted as sufficiently moral, even if harm is done to the individuals involved. All these facts lead to the eventual undermining of religious concepts and any religious establishment that refuses to move with the times and the shifting of power.

Today, it is a human right, a political right, to be Gay, and religion can say nothing. In the eyes of today’s morality, it seems to be an increasing fact that the catholic faith is viewed as evil and at best a tolerable ignorance.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Fight the good fight and try to convey Truth. If they remain blinded to Truth, then move on, others may see.

Fear of being sued? Lose Money? Lose Property? Job kept his sights on what’s really important as have many Christians. What can the persecutors of Christians do? Sue for the soul? They can try but never give them payment. They do not care about right and wrong – all they want is payment.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I am a Catholic lawyer and I come into contact with the liberal agenda from time to time academically, though if I wanted to pursue all contact that’s available, I’d have my hands full even here in Poland, a Catholic country.

As for Mexico, no, I don’t think you could be sued successfully for saying that same sex “marriage” is wrong. My guess and this really is a vague guess, the suit would perhaps not be thrown out right away as inadmissible but it wouldn’t succeed.

And in Poland, a while ago, senators of the supposedly Catholic-Democratic party styled the Civic Platform (Platforma Obywatelska) decided not to propose amendments to new private international law (an act dealing with conflict of law provisions, especially in matters of civil estate) to include a ban on recognising foreign same-sex marriages. They have been supporting in vitro as well. They still frequently call upon their Catholicism, such as the talk about party members participating in spiritual retreats, being members of this or that etc. I suppose they may be learning from Catholic fence sitters from other countries.

Heh, on some days I wish I could become the papal litigator flying from place to place around the globe to go to court for Catholic institutions, organisations and people.

Thankyou for the post(s) and the thoughts they present. I might just comment that to this particular part …

As for Mexico, no, I don’t think you could be sued successfully for saying that same sex “marriage” is wrong. My guess and this really is a vague guess, the suit would perhaps not be thrown out right away as inadmissible but it wouldn’t succeed. …

…although I would agree and , as MindOverMatter2’s accurate overview of the apparent ever more constrictive limitations imposed by society on true moral conscience states –

… Power, security, social stability, and economic success, are the factors that define what is right and wrong…

… I might endeavor to point out that, regarding the nature of the lawsuits in question, there are different ways to define, or measure “success”.

In these cases, I don’t believe “success” has as much to do with financial compensation as it does with “silencing” one’s opponent , or perhaps more precisely, “stifling the truth”. And these measures needn’t even be permanent ; only of a duration long enough to permit the passing or ramming through of (ahem) ‘pertinent’ legislation . After that, their primary objective has been achieved.

We could recall that thearticles mentioned a Mexican bishop was censured by the government for his comments.

Furthermore, we witnessed what happened when good conscientious Californians overturned Prop 8 . Effectively, they undid that legislation legally and according to the will of the people. But what was the outcome ?.. Initially, an unacceptable violent backlash of intolerance by the gay militants ; and finally, one single judge acting alone- against the will of the people - a judge who neglected to program the coordinates for “spinal column” into his GPS, and the entire fiasco brought matters back to where it had previously been.

I think the efforts are concentrated more on silencing the truth as opposed to financial gain, which is why I’m trying to focus on the particular deception in the practical methodology and initiatives. As my dear old dad used to say, “You have to know the demon you’re dealing with.”

It is my hope that we can all become a little more aware of how and when we are being lied to by some of the more twisted elements of authority – particularly, those who use human rights tribunals and commissions as springboards.

 

[NeedImprovement]

… I apologize : a lot of time constraints today and I have to head out to a long apostolate right now, so my replies are limited. But , regarding the issue we’re looking at, to provide more perspective here is a linked article on a talk given by by Father John Hardon,S.J. , entitled Sexual Suicide

Father Hardon, in this talk, moves to a larger sphere of thought - the “bigger picture” as he examines this question :

“…As a…solution we seek a break between sexual intercourse and reproduction. And our nation is dominated by this…demonic error. Our nation spends, and I am not exagerating, billions a year to break the relationship between sexual intercourse and reproduction.”

More later… thanks for participating everyone.
God Bless.

 

[francisca]

It is meaningless to politically attack homosexuality by way of revelation or scripture, simply because today’s understanding of politics and morality are not regulated by those rules or assumptions any-more.

I agree that it’s kind of useless to talk about our scripture or bible revelation to secular court, because secular court need to entertain all people including other religious groups and even unbelievers. The world would see us “histerical” in our belief, and label us as “religious group who refuse to listen to others opinion”.

But in the case of catholic institution is asked to act against catholic believe, we can quote our scripture as evidence to show to the secular court that “this is what my bible say, and to ask me to act otherwise is offence against religious freedom”

 

[JustinH]

If the state prohibited the Church from expressing its opinion, or practicing its religious ceremonies, then that would be discrimination. But legislating gay marriage is not, as long as clerics of the Church are not required to perform such marriages.

Mexico has a long disdain for the Catholic Church because of the legacy of the invasion and occupation by Spain. Unfortunately, the Church encouraged the slaughter and subjugation of the native people of Mexico at one time, if you believe the history books. In addition, the Church became a large land owner, and was considered by many to be a corrupt organization before the revolution.

It is somewhat ironic and paradoxical that the Catholic religion prevails, while the Church is reviled in some ways from a secular point of view.

So, the question is, did this clergy member engage in discriminatory or hateful speech toward gays? If he did so, then is such speech a crime in Mexico, as it is in many other places? If so, then he probably should be sued. Such speech should have a penalty associated with it. If not, then of course, it is not fair to sue him. There is no reason that a church official should be above secular law.

It is an interesting topic. I read an article the other day which speculated if we are in the early stages of the post gay era, as it is said we are progressing in the post racial era. It is true that the race bigotry diminution is a matter of attrition. As older bigots die, then younger folks who are not racist replace them.

The same appears to be true with sexuality. More and more younger people do not want to be classified as either gay or straight. This is less and less a matter of personal identity. Hence the gender distinction in marriage becomes unimportant. Just as the anti-discrimation laws regarding race and marriage, as well as the integration of the military were among the start events in reducing and eventually eliminating racial prejudice, we may be entering that phase with sexuality bigotry. DOMA has been struck down at the state level on constitutional grounds. The military has been required to integrate by the courts, and the Congress has agreed, even at the military’s request. It turned out that the average military members were not as bigoted as the older chiefs and career officers who projected their own prejudice on the younger generation. The California Prop 8 battle is making its way to the US Supreme Court with the attorneys who represented Gore and also Bush in the election fight. They are doing do on moral grounds.

So, there is a big question for the Church. The Catholic Church was a moral leader in the race issues. It was an advocate of anti-discrimination. As the older generation of bigots die off, will the Church be perceived as a perpetrator of bigotry on issues of sexuality? Will the Church emulate the behavior of the Mormon Church when the subject was racial bigotry? Recall that the Mormon’s taught that the longer you practice Mormonism, then the whiter your skin becomes, if you are a person of color. They taught this as doctrine well into the 1970’s. Marriott took over a hotel that my uncle worked for in 1986. He was an executive with an MBA from Cornell Business School in Hotel and Restaurant Management. They offered him a job as a bus boy in banquets.

So, bigoted thinking and speech does have an effect. Religious organizations can play a role. In that sense, perhaps those who promote bigotry in our societies should be sued.

It will be interesting to see how the Church adapts to the changing world.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

People do the Evil-not Christ’s Church. The Church does not change nor does it have to.

 

[NeedImprovement]

• Our focus in this thread is on identifying the deception in the methods presently being used to persecute the Catholic Church … under the guise of or in the name of human rights.

…That being said, for the original objective of the thread, it is only necessary to establish two groups in reference here: Those who are simply gay, and those who are gay and actively engage in the gay militant agenda. However, the focus is not on them. It is on the deception being used to persecute the Church.

Remember post # 3 … on how the gay militants key on language to try and condition us and on how they love to stick anyone who objects with labels…? Well, as we have just been recently reminded , another label the accusers love to stick us with in efforts to stifle the truth is “bigot” . Do you know anyone at all who likes being called a “bigot” ? … Neither do I. -

They employ that word against us the way police officers aim their spike strips at a moving vehicle … with that same desired effect – stopping us in mid-speech.

Another word they love to plagiarize, to pluck out of context, is the term *“racism”. *“Racism” , as we commonly know by its gruesome past, can be such an abhorrent harmful thing, but it in no way is even remotely connected to opposition against the assault on the one, true, everlasting definition of marriage (no matter how badly our ultramodern politically paranoid dictionaries continue to massacre that definition).

To equate racism with opposition against the assault on marriage and the family , is to stoop to a new low. It dishonours the memory of those who have gone before … who carried that unjust cross of racism all the way to Calvary ; and of those who took up that cross anew - of Jackie Robinson, of Rosa Parks, of Dr. Martin Luther King. (We mention , with profound respect, the Jews who died in the Holocaust as well).

Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr. , senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Maryland, and founder and Chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition (HILC) , tells it like it is, rather prophetically in the CNN Opinion article entitled Same-sex ‘Marriage’ Will Hurt Families, Society

Have a read. It’s a great article. BTW, did you know that the federal judge who decided he alone was going to overturn Proposition 8, Judge Vaughn Walker, is openly gay ? Here are Bishop Harry R. Jackson’s own words from this terse excerpt demonstrating just how futile and illogical (if not absurd) it is to equate racism to the gay militant assault on marriage and the family :

“The majority of Californians, including two-thirds of the state’s black voters, have just had their core civil right – the right to vote – stripped from them by an openly gay federal judge who has misread history and the Constitution to impose his views on the state’s people.

… The implicit comparison Judge Vaughn Walker made between racism and opposition to same-sex marriage is particularly offensive to me and to all who remember the reality of Jim Crow.”

 

[JustinH]

Remember post # 3 … on how the gay militants key on language to try and condition us and on how they love to stick anyone who objects with labels…? Well, as we have just been recently reminded , another label the accusers love to stick us with in efforts to stifle the truth is “bigot” . Do you know anyone at all who likes being called a “bigot” ? … Neither do I. -

.”

Good one.

Well, if you don’t want to be called a bigot, then don’t act like one. Simple.

If you mimic racial bigotry, then you will be compared to racial bigots.

When a minority is concerned, try to understand that you in the majority, when you impose your views on them, YOU are not being discriminated against because they point it out to you or demand their rights.

In general, history has shown, that when minorities feel oppressed by the majority, they are being oppressed by the majority. In general, throughout history, majority groups have oppressed minority groups. The powerful have oppressed the weak, until those who are oppressed stand up and demand their rights.

Sometimes the Church has been on the right side of things, and sometimes on the wrong side. No person or organization is perfect.

Stop crying about it when you are called out on your behavior. It is a joke to claim to be persecuted by militant homosexuals. Consider the abuse and discrimination that has been heaped on them.

I have been a minority. I was the only white kid in a Japanese school. I experienced prejudice first hand.

Stop it. Take responsibility for your behavior. If someone identifies you as a bigot, then take a good look at yourself. There is probably a good reason for it. That is not a word that simply pops into people’s heads, unless there is a reason for it.

 

[NeedImprovement]

On several occasions, it has been fellow members who’ve directed my attention to rules and guidelines concerning certain subjects to be (or not be) discussed here at CAF. I remain grateful for those “heads-ups”.

In case anyone missed it , and for everyone’s awareness/benefit : The gate of the Social Justice forum is currently headed by 4 stickies - posted there by our moderators. The 4th sticky is entitled Church Teaching on Same-sex Issues.

It presents a clear summary of the Church’s teaching on same-sex issues drawn from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and from The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, while providing an accompanying link for more in depth reading.

We are asked (in the sticky) to be sure and read this description of the Church’s position prior to posting in the Social Justice forum.

The meatier part of the sticky in excerpts:

Catechism of the Catholic Church

2357
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

---

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons:

(bolds mine)

…Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity… (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”. This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.

Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”. They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity. The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered” and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.
…
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.

 

[John21652]

In the 1960s one of England’s most famous jurists, Lord Chief Justice Patrick Devlin wrote a book called The Enforcement Of Morals. In it he argued that a common morality is the glue that holds a society together. He also argued that morality has both a public and a private sphere and that the even the latter has an impact on social cohesion. With that in mind, Devlin’s thesis is that if it is considered that private morality is having a negative impact upon the wider social cohesion, then the state, through the Law, can enforce that shared morality.

Devlins tome ignited a famous debate between himself and the equally famed Professor of Philosophy, H.L.A.Hart. Hart of course, was a prominent Utilitarian and that particular brand of consequentalist ethical deliberations were all the ‘rage’. At the time, most people thought that Hart had won the debate. Now, many consider Devlin to be correct.

Devlin wrote that -

“What makes a society of any sort is community of ideas not only political ideas but also ideas about the way its members should behave and govern their lives; these latter ideas are its morals. Every society has a moral structure as well as a political one…without shared ideas on politics, morals, and ethics no society can exist.”

He then mounts a case for when society should intervene in the enforcement of morals and states that it is not unusual for a society to do so. He cites under age sex laws, euthanasia and others as examples of when a collective judgement can be and is made about morality for the benefit of society.

He writes -

Societies disintegrate from within more frequently than they are broken up by external pressures. There is disintegration when no common morality is observed and history shows that the loosening of moral bonds is often the first stage of disintegration, so that society is justified in taking the same steps to preserve its moral code as it does to preserve its government and other essential institutions.

In other words, moral decay undoes the glue that holds societies together. By way of analogy devlin asks what effect would it have on society if a man chose to get drunk every night in the privavcy of his own home. The conclusion of course is “very little”. He then asks what would the effects be on society if half the population got itself drunk every night? Considered, he suggests that there are no theoretical limits to the number of people who get drunk every night before society i entitled to legislate against drunkeness. The standard for measuring when society should intervene is that of the ‘resonable man’.

Devlin argues that -

Not everything is to be tolerated. No society can do without intolerance, indignation,and disgust; they are the forces behind the moral law.

Author Jim Nelson Black wrote [When Nations Die](When Nations Die) and shows how a morally divided society will not stand. The lessons from ancient Greece and Rome are ample proof. Black cites social decay, cultural decay amd moral decay as causing the downfall of Rome and Greece.

it is time perhaps to remind ‘practical men’ that danger stalks the cause.

 

[karoleck]

John has given a good summary on the correlation between a society adopting moral evil and the fall of an ordered society.However, I believe that the "blue print"we have before our eyes ,as Catholics, are the Teachings of Vatican 11 and in regard to the issues raised in this thread ,The Church In The Modern World.

Here is a small snippet written 40years ago on how society has got to the stage of sueing Church Leaders and I quote----under the title of Systematic Atheism—20 “Modern atheism often takes on a systematic form also which,in adition to other causes,so insists on man’s desire for autonomy as to obje****ct to any dependence on God at all”----" It holds that religion,of it’s very nature,thwarts such emancipation"(social &economic)—"That is why those who hold such views**,wherever they gain control of the state**,violently attack religion—"make use of all the means by which the civil authority can bring pressure to bear on it’s subjects"

These quotes are just a few lines that foretell what would happen when Church Leaders and in future Lay Catholic’s in society confront the attacks of atheism in regard to marriage,homosexuality and all the other social evils of our times.

I conclude with Kinds Of Atheism And It’s Causes–19 “The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God”.—“Believers can thus have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism.To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith,or present it’s teaching falsely,or even fail in their religious,moral,or social life,they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion” (remember how some"catholics"voted for leaders ,who clearly supported abortion–is one example of this!)

 

[NeedImprovement]

…

Devlin argues that -

Author Jim Nelson Black wrote [When Nations Die](When Nations Die) and shows how a morally divided society will not stand. The lessons from ancient Greece and Rome are ample proof. Black cites social decay, cultural decay amd moral decay as causing the downfall of Rome and Greece.

it is time perhaps to remind ‘practical men’ that danger stalks the cause.

Hi John 21652 . I really enjoyed reading your post # 54 . But each time I click on the link to “When Nations Die”, it only brings me to a blank page with a message that “internet explorer can not display the web page” .

… Any chance of providing another link ?

Thanks.

 

[NeedImprovement]

THOU SHALT COMMIT SODOMY … ?

When any of my friends were getting married , I was usually invited to show up.

Although some of my friends do not share our Catholic faith, it never seemed to inhibit them from asking me to attend their respective weddings just the same.

Somewhere around 12 years (or more) ago, on 3 separate occasions, I’d been invited to attend the civil marriage ceremonies of 3 different friends of mine. They were each married down at city hall by a judge or justice of the peace.

Firmly embedded in memory from those occasions, is that, the very last verbal instruction/reminder the judge gave each couple while declaring them “officially” married, in the eyes of the state was: " The law says the spouses must sleep together", or, “By law, the spouses are obliged to sleep together.”

This last comment by the judge never failed to elicit a smile (perhaps even a smirk) or two from at least some of us who were in attendance.

It has me wondering lately however, that if nothing has changed at city hall, then each time the judges give that final instruction at a gay civil union ceremony, it surpasses the sanctioning of an act. In all practicality, the judges are confirming that the state obliges the partners to commit sodomy.

 

[valentino]

MindovermatterII: proponents of homosexuality were hit in the face with the AIDS epidemic.It clearly demonstrated that this kind of behavior was damaging(deadly)to their health.But what was society’s recommendation.Not to stop but to find a way to allow it but to avoid its consequences.They decided lets you condoms and spend billions on coming up with a cure.No matter.Although they acknowledged the death potential AIDS had on its contractors they completely ignored the deathly effect it had on the person spiritual life.