Religious freedom & Morality of the State

[tjw163]

In considering the modern gay marriage debate in the U.S.A., as well as other political debates on “social issues,” I keep hearing the old complaint that religious beliefs (which imply accompanying moral beliefs) cannot be imposed on everyone. Yet you can’t escape the fact that some moral beliefs ARE imposed on everyone. A simple example is prohibition of murder because it is wrong to do so, and it is wrong because it unjustly deprives another human being of his/her life.

This got me thinking: Has the Church–either through the Magisterium or her rich theological Tradition–ever given clear guidance on how to distinguish between moral beliefs that should be legislated and moral beliefs that should not be legislated (or supported with votes in a democratic model of government)? (I distinguish “moral beliefs” from “religious” beliefs simply because I already know that the Church supports religious freedom regarding public or private worship and expressions thereof in the Second Vatican Council document Dignitatis Humanae, even while stressing the moral duty people have to pursue God and the one true Church and noting that this freedom is limited by the need to preserve “public order.”)

For example, as a thought experiment, how does the Church evaluate the State legality of the following sins of sexual purity:

1. Lust in the heart: Impractical to prosecute because without an accompanying action (e.g., prolonged stare / voyeurism; an admission to State authorities), you can’t tell that a person is doing it. But should it be legislated and penalized if it is known?
2. Private (not public) masturbation: Some societies (including a 17th-century Puritan colony in New Haven, CT) include masturbation as a capital offense. Should masturbation be considered a criminal act?
3. Use of artificial birth control: No longer an act of one person but of (presumably) a couple. Should it be a criminal act?
4. Homosexual relations: The famous U.S.A. court case here, of course, is Lawrence v. Texas. Notably, Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, but in his dissent, he stated that he thought the law itself was “silly” and that if he were a Texas lawmaker, he would vote to repeal the anti-sodomy law. According to Catholic Church teaching, should State law prohibit homosexual acts?
5. State recognition of Gay marriage: Here, the big difference is that it’s no longer about prohibiting a sin, but rather, recognizing a union based on what is at best considered by the Church to be “gravely disordered.”

In short, do we have any clear Church guidelines in determining which sinful acts (or words or thoughts) should also be prohibited by State law? In other words, at point do you draw the line between sinful acts that should not be illegal and sinful acts that should be illegal?

Thanks in advance. I am eager to read your responses!

 

[Krakatoa]

I have no official answers, just a couple of thoughts. First, I would say that the prohibition against murder is more than just a moral belief. In other words, human beings don’t just believe murder is wrong, they know it is wrong. It is not imposed on us, it is written into us via Natural Law. I also believe that private transgressions that cause no public harm (though they may harm the soul), should probably be left to the Church and not the state. It would seem to be an impractical use of public resources to prosecute those suspected of personal sins such as lust, masturbation, etc.

 

[GIR]

My very limited understanding of Thomism leads me to understand that not all sins should be made illegal, though I can’t remember the exact reason why. I suppose making all sins illegal would mean we’d all end up in jail, because we’re all sinners. The government should only spend resources fighting things that harm the common good

Also, as said before, personal or private sins are impractical to legislate. However, and again I’m speculating here, laws agains sodomy etc. might be termed “laws of concern”, that is, it’s recognized that few if any offenders could be caught and punished, but the existence of the law demonstrates that the act is not OK.

 

[tjw163]

Thanks for the responses.

Krakatoa rightly referred to the Natural Law with regard to my murder example, but of course even the Natural Law needs a final interpreter (the Magisterium ultimately has that authority) because our sinful condition detracts from our ability to know the Natural Law fully, with certainty, and without error. Hence, the need for laws to be codified by the State. But yes, the Natural Law is written on our hearts and is thus not so much “imposed” from outside the self. Good point.

GIR referred to the concept of the “common good”–a concept that is widespread in the Vatican II documents (among others). But I must admit that the term “common good” is itself a little nebulous to me. In reality, any sin offends the common good, in a manner of speaking, because it corrupts a member of the human family, and that causes a “ripple effect” throughout all of humanity.

Perhaps I can shift the focus of my original post. Has the Church issued any guidelines on determining when the “common good” is better served by legislating against a sinful action, and when it is better served by not legislating against that action?

Ultimately, I would like to apply such principles to the gay marriage debate (among others), but without the principles, it can be difficult to make sense of it all. How does one respond, for example, to heterosexual married couples who argue that recognizing gay marriages doesn’t damage their heterosexual marriage in any meaningful way, and thus, does not detract from the common good? It seems that a response to that argument requires demonstration of a sort of “ripple effect” as described above, in which case, why legislate against the sin (or withhold State recognition of the sin) that causes that ripple effect but not against other sins that also cause ripple effects?

Hopefully this clarifies my original question.

 

[a_theist91]

So your a bigot looking for ways to justify your intolerance is what your saying?
And your ripple effect theory is simply childish.
Your rights extend so far as they dont over lap some one elses. Two consenting adults can engage in any sexual act they so choose within the privacy of their home or another private space and it will have literally no effect on you.
But we are all a part of the same human family you cry! I dont like what those other people do it makes me feel icky, i want them to stop! Thats about as far as the ripple effect goes, we aren’t all damaged somehow by the private actions of other adults which impact us in no definable way.
So sad to say the notions of freedom are dead.

 

[tjw163]

@ a_theist91:

You seem to reading your own misconceptions and bias into my posts. I am actually trying to figure out whether it is just to legislate against gay marriage in a secular state, but I am using Catholic principles to understand that proposition. Nothing wrong with Christians exploring their own faith tradition in figuring out how to act with regard to certain morality issues.

You also say that two people can engage in an private sexual act without consequence to others. But what if that act is degrading to one or both of the parties involved? That can change the way the person approaches relationships and how that person interacts with others, which can affect how those others interact with others, etc. Hence the “ripple effect.” How often have victims of sexual assault, for example, lashed out not against the perpetrator but against others close to them? Doesn’t that cause a strain, feelings of anger, and potentially more damaging acts? You obviously disagree with such a “ripple effect” idea on the grounds that the others aren’t impacted in a definable way. But just because people struggle to define the damages, that doesn’t mean that no damage is done.

But that’s actually besides the point; I was showing that we already don’t legislate some of these things, so on what grounds would we legislate against gay marriage? Hence my final statement: “why legislate against the sin (or withhold State recognition of the sin) that causes that ripple effect but not against other sins that also cause ripple effects?”

You seem concerned about preserving freedom, but Catholics don’t stop there. A valid Catholic approach wishes to preserve freedom in order that free persons might pursue the good. I wish to know where in the Catholic tradition we have discussions of how to best accomplish this in the laws of a secular State. That’s the point of my post. This was to be applied to gay marriage, but it ought to be able to be applied to discussion of any sin. (Though it sounds like you don’t consider homosexual intercourse to be a sin.)

Finally, if you want to start tossing around labels and insults like “bigot,” “intolerance,” and “childish,” you are free to do so. But it seems unnecessary, and it reveals more about you than it does about me. And by the way, in the future, if you (or anyone else) replies and only argues points incidental to my main question in my previous two posts, I will not respond, even if you use insults. No sense getting too far off track here.

 

[OrangeOwl]

Are you a law student? Or have any sort of legal background?

 

[tjw163]

Are you a law student? Or have any sort of legal background?

No, I’m not a law student and do not have any real background in law. (My educational background is in Finance & Theology.) I made references to law in my earlier post just to illustrate situations where certain sins were regarded as criminal acts. I am not trying to argue from the standpoint of secular law, though; I am seeking to understand how Church teachings impact how a Catholic leader or voting citizen should try to shape secular law.

 

[OrangeOwl]

Ah. Oh, well. I just thought it could’ve made this discussion interesting. But, no, I got what you were trying to do by referencing the criminal laws.

I am actually rather interested in your topic question, and I have no real answer myself. I haven’t done any research on it (a bit preoccupied at the moment), but I happened across an interesting couple of paragraphs in the CCC awhile back.

*2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."88 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,89 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.*

Of course, given your background in Theology, you are probably well aware of this section.

 

[tjw163]

I happened across an interesting couple of paragraphs in the CCC awhile back.

*2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."88 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,89 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.*

Of course, given your background in Theology, you are probably well aware of this section.

I do recall reading this at one point; thanks for bringing it into the discussion. It’s interesting: It seems that the decline of morals could be furthered by laws too permissive OR laws too strict. If too strict, laws could encourage a backlash against the Church and even revolution. But I suspect that CCC 2286 is mostly referring to laws being too lax, not too strict.