Social justice with sexual morality issues

  • Thread starter Thread starter TK421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TK421

Guest
I understand that the Church is opposed to civil states recognizing gay “marriage” within their legal systems because of its undermining effect on valid marriage culture and culture in general.

Which is something I’ve come to accept, but this made me curious. How do Catholics handle civil law & justice in other areas of sexual morality, such as with pornography, fornication, marital infidelity, or masturbation (if that were even realistically enforceable). These are all serious moral challenges within society. Does the Church support using a civil justice system against these injustices, but pretty much everybody realizes that they’re a lost cause so you don’t hear about it much? Or is there a dividing line in this, where something can be immoral and yet not merit enforcement from a civil authority?

Anybody know a good article on this topic?
 
The state does not have civil recognitions for masturbating or fornicating, but the Church clearly teaches against these things. Historically, when divorce gained ground, even in the 1880s, Pope Leo XIII was openly against the state advancing such a notion. He also opposed the recognition of marital concubines. See more on his encyclical Arcanum. 😉

For his part, Pope Paul VI openly said that artificial contraception was disordered behavior in Humanae Vitae, and certainly the Church has openly and consistently opposed the legalization of abortion.
 
Well there’s no ‘recognition’ on masturbation or fornication, etc., but theoretically shouldn’t one support using a civil authority to help enforce moral behavior in other areas, such as homosexual sex in general, fornication, and masturbation?

There are laws pertaining to theft, rape, and other crimes because those are widely accepted as bad behavior. Fornication is not, but it ought to be. Granted, these are not the kind of crimes that can be realistically enforced, but that in itself doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t exist. The state can barely enforce the rule to not shoot a bald eagle in the wild, but it still has the rule.

The major divide between a Catholic and a secular person on this matter is related to consent. A person masturbating in their room, or two people fornicating, or a person watching porn are all doing it with their own consent and/or the other person(s)'s consent. If it’s consensual, then there’s supposedly no harm. A libertarian-leaning secular might be willing to acknowledge that there is harm in these activities, consensual or not, but still wouldn’t accept that as grounds for criminality. But this isn’t a Church teaching.
 
To add on to this, there is an ironic polarization. In the common secular view, because something is consensual, then it ought not to be criminal. In the Catholic view, it is literally the complete opposite. The fact that something is done with consent is precisely what can make it gravely sinful. If the person is not consenting, then the evil of it is either mitigated or nullified entirely.

edit: Thanks for the link to the Arcanum btw. I like how papal encyclicals have such cool sounding names.
 
TK421 said:
Well there’s no ‘recognition’ on masturbation or fornication, etc., but theoretically shouldn’t one support using a civil authority to help enforce moral behavior in other areas, such as homosexual sex in general, fornication, and masturbation?

There are laws pertaining to theft, rape, and other crimes because those are widely accepted as bad behavior. Fornication is not, but it ought to be. Granted, these are not the kind of crimes that can be realistically enforced, but that in itself doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t exist. The state can barely enforce the rule to not shoot a bald eagle in the wild, but it still has the rule.

The major divide between a Catholic and a secular person on this matter is related to consent. A person masturbating in their room, or two people fornicating, or a person watching porn are all doing it with their own consent and/or the other person(s)'s consent. If it’s consensual, then there’s supposedly no harm. A libertarian-leaning secular might be willing to acknowledge that there is harm in these activities, consensual or not, but still wouldn’t accept that as grounds for criminality. But this isn’t a Church teaching.
Click to expand...
Some of these things existed in America, precisely in a time when the country was more traditional/more dominantly Christian. They included:

----sodomy laws
—obscenity laws

There was also the “Catholic Legion of Decency”, which kept sundry immoral actions, off of television and movie screens. Pre-marital sex was not portrayed on television shows and even married couples were not shown having a “sexually charged” relationship. A same sex kiss, of course, was out of the question. Nor was there foul language in movies, or even taking the Lord’s name in vain.

It always struck me how quickly filmmakers, even of an older generation that had worked their entire careers under the “Hays Code”, adjusted to the violence, sexuality, and use of obscenity that suddenly exploded onto the scene during movies in the 70’s. Some noteworthy examples include Clockwork Orange (1971), Network (1975), and Taxi Driver (1976).

In any case, I agree that there is a tension between traditional Christian morality, and “liberalism.” If Christians are willing to tolerate a society in which pornography is rampant, I see it as a concession to something they can do nothing about, as opposed to an ideal or a principle of liberalism or freedom of expression.

So I agree, I don’t see how a Christian could support something like the free availability of pornography. If they believe it is not only gravely immoral, but also something that propagates grave social ill – destroying families, breeding sin, and harming individual psyches – the only logical stance is to propose that, in an ideal society, such a thing would be banned and be a punishable offense (as it presumably was in the 1940’s or 1950’s).
 
Yeah that’s how I’m seeing it. I suppose the reason issues such as fornication aren’t brought up is because Catholics recognize that because secular society is too heavily beguiled that they can’t even get issues such as abortion through their skull, then good luck trying to convince them on more advanced moral issues.

This all feels so strange to me because a couple years ago I was a progressive libertarian and now suddenly the idea of criminalizing fornication is starting to make sense to me. It’s like I had amnesia.
 
TK421 said:
Yeah that’s how I’m seeing it. I suppose the reason issues such as fornication aren’t brought up is because Catholics recognize that because secular society is too heavily beguiled that they can’t even get issues such as abortion through their skull, then good luck trying to convince them on more advanced moral issues.

This all feels so strange to me because a couple years ago I was a progressive libertarian and now suddenly the idea of criminalizing fornication is starting to make sense to me. It’s like I had amnesia.
Click to expand...
I can appreciate the impulse; I confess that, sometimes when watching movies from the 50’s or early 60’s, I have the feeling that something was lost, even though I was born into a post-60’s society.

A country that does exactly what you are proposing is, obviously, Iran and other Middle Eastern countries. So the question seems to be, “how do you ‘clamp down’ on abuses of freedom, without abusing the notion of freedom itself?”

Even society of the 50’s and early 60’s, though it fostered more “traditional values” and suppressed much that was sinful, also suppressed Jews, Catholics, and racial minorities, and “anti-miscegenation” laws were as prevalent as anti-sodomy laws.

Was this a historical accident, or was the culture itself “repressive” in a more ominous sense of the word?

Even religious liberty itself could be at stake, in a culture that “clamps down” on perceived immorality; because God forbid the dominant culture perceives your religion to be immoral. This is precisely the problem that Catholics are experiencing in places like Syria (deny Allah and you are, by definition, harmful to a society’s morals).
 
@DaddyGirl:

No, I don’t see that as ironic at all. If something is morally obligatory than that trumps whatever your petty guttural feelings happen to be on the matter.

This is a false dilemma, because any person, religious or irreligious, that I know would agree that feelings must be superseded at times. A person might feel weary and not in the mood to prepare food for their child, but if they do not prepare food for their child and allow them to go hungry, then almost anybody would agree that that is unethical behavior. Nor does it follow that the person preparing food, despite being weary, is supposedly not doing it consensually. Of course it’s consensual: they love their child and they want them to be nourished, which is something that takes priority over their fatigue. You might actually argue that it is even more consensual than what it would be regularly, because their willingness to supersede their feelings shows their desire to do the right thing.

So the divisive issue is not over whether one ought to do something in spite of their feelings. Almost everybody acknowledges that idea as prudent, even if they don’t necessarily agree on the specifics of when it would apply. .
 
TK421 said:
@DaddyGirl:

No, I don’t see that as ironic at all. If something is morally obligatory than that trumps whatever your petty guttural feelings happen to be on the matter.

This is a false dilemma, because any person, religious or irreligious, that I know would agree that feelings must be superseded at times. A person might feel weary and not in the mood to prepare food for their child, but if they do not prepare food for their child and allow them to go hungry, then almost anybody would agree that that is unethical behavior. Nor does it follow that the person preparing food, despite being weary, is supposedly not doing it consensually. Of course it’s consensual: they love their child and they want them to be nourished, which is something that takes priority over their fatigue. You might actually argue that it is even more consensual than what it would be regularly, because their willingness to supersede their feelings shows their desire to do the right thing.

So the divisive issue is not over whether one ought to do something in spite of their feelings. Almost everybody acknowledges that idea as prudent, even if they don’t necessarily agree on the specifics of when it would apply. .
Click to expand...
There is a difference, though, between forcing oneself and forcing others. According to the principle of religious liberty, for example, a conscience cannot be forced. One must give oneself to God freely, not through compulsion or threats, otherwise it (obviously) is not freely chosen.

Forcing others is indeed more problematic than forcing self; after all, one consents to force self.

In the example that Daddy Girl gave, I could see a spouse not wanting his or her spouse to give something that goes against the other’s own feelings and desires, and is a sheer act of willpower or conscious choice.

That’s how I feel about it, anyway, in non-sexual contexts. If I pressured or forced a behavior in others, or they pressured or forced it in themselves, at least in the sense of consciously doing that which they have a strong disinclination to do, I have the sense that it isn’t “real”, isn’t “true.” I’d rather they didn’t do it.
 
@Port:

Yeah, if you flip it around, if a non-Christian society is prepared to put their morals on paper as written, enforceable law, then Christians are the ones that find themselves on the short end of the stick. I suppose the only explanation to this is to accept the fact that this is a possible danger we face (and one that does in fact in exist in many places), but if you’re convinced that Church morality is correct, then you are still obligated to continue to advocate for the Church’s morality.
 
Portofino said:
There is a difference, though, between forcing oneself and forcing others. According to the principle of religious liberty, for example, a conscience cannot be forced. One must give oneself to God freely, not through compulsion or threats, otherwise it (obviously) is not freely chosen.

Forcing others is indeed more problematic than forcing self; after all, one consents to force self.

In the example that Daddy Girl gave, I could see a spouse not wanting his or her spouse to give something that goes against the other’s own feelings and desires, and is a sheer act of willpower or conscious choice.

That’s how I feel about it, anyway, in non-sexual contexts. If I pressured or forced a behavior in others, or they pressured or forced it in themselves, at least in the sense of consciously doing that which they have a strong disinclination to do, I have the sense that it isn’t “real”, isn’t “true.” I’d rather they didn’t do it.
Click to expand...
This is something you can’t answer except case by case, but when Church teaching says that spouses are required to fulfill their marital duty to one another, it is not a blank check, because a spouse is also required to put the other person first. Husbands own their wives and wives own their husbands (noted in the epistles). So in the broader sense, if you’re being unloving to your spouse by making excessive demands of them, then said person may be the one that needs to correct their behavior and not the other person. So let’s pretend that there’s an occasion where I don’t want to have sex with my future spouse (:confused::confused::confused:!!!) but she desires me. I would probably just accept her without whining because I love her and that’s what I should do. It should also be noted as a side point that even if a person initially “isn’t in the mood” it can often go away once things get started.
 
TK421 said:
I understand that the Church is opposed to civil states recognizing gay “marriage” within their legal systems because of its undermining effect on valid marriage culture and culture in general.

Which is something I’ve come to accept, but this made me curious. How do Catholics handle civil law & justice in other areas of sexual morality, such as with pornography, fornication, marital infidelity, or masturbation (if that were even realistically enforceable). These are all serious moral challenges within society. Does the Church support using a civil justice system against these injustices, but pretty much everybody realizes that they’re a lost cause so you don’t hear about it much? Or is there a dividing line in this, where something can be immoral and yet not merit enforcement from a civil authority?

Anybody know a good article on this topic?
Click to expand...
For information:

Read my messages (messages of fpt), good reading.

Aren’t there 13 Non-Negotiables, not just 5?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=746168

Whats wrong with a theocracy?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=748921

Why isn’t adultery against the law?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=747697
 
TK421 said:
Well there’s no ‘recognition’ on masturbation or fornication, etc., but theoretically shouldn’t one support using a civil authority to help enforce moral behavior in other areas, such as homosexual sex in general, fornication, and masturbation? .
Click to expand...
Correct,

The Church’s understanding of the role of Civil Authority is to make manifest the Natural Moral Law. This is the manner by which civil laws should be evaualted as to their Justice or Injustice.

For a law to be a Just law, it must therefore correspond the Natural Law. What is permitted under the Natural law should be permitted under civil law. What is against the Natural law should, likewise be against the civil law.

Any deviation from that would be an act of injustice.

We see that represented in Scripture in Romans 13:3-5
Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
Click to expand...
So here we see the biblical grounds for a truly Just society. When those who do good have no fear of the State, but those who do evil could expect the State to bring punishment.

So yes, it is the teaching of the Church that the State would act with Justice if behaviors such as masturbation, contraception and pornography were prohibited. And that the lack of such prohibitions would be, by definition, an injustice.
 
My humble understanding of the catholic doctrine of the social justice, in the details with all subtleties, concerning the sexual issues. My summary:
  1. About Prostitution:
The proxenetism should be punished by the penal law of state. The proxenet (the procurer) should be punished by the penal laws of State; The brothels should be banned by the penal laws of State;

The sexual traffic and the sexual slavery have to be banned and punished: the supplier, the buyer and the owner of sexual slaves should be punished by the penal laws of the State;

The promotion of the prostitution should be banned and punished by the penal laws of the State;

The prostitution on the public place (the sexual acts for money on public place) should be punished by the penal law of State;

The physical violence on the prostitute should be punished by the penal laws of the State, but the acception of the physical violence does not have to be full of radical feminism, full of sexism from male (the machism) and has to be in function of this very special situation where the rules of game are not the same than in the real world: the level of the acception of physical violence should be stricter than in the other situations (see a special case law of the violence on prostitutes); the judicial debate about the means of proofs;

The prostitution under the legal age of the majority (between a person of 18 years and more, the client, and a prostitute under 18 year old) should be punished by the penal law of the state. Only, the client of 18 years and more should be punished the penal laws of State, not the prostitute under the age of 18 year old;

The sexual acts for money between two adults in the private place (in a bedroom, at home, in a motel, in a hostel, in a flat, in a house), should not be banned, prohibited and punished by the penal laws of State. The client and the prostitute should not be annoyed by the penal laws of the State;
  1. About homosexuality:
The civil law of State does not have to recognize the “marriage” for the same sex persons. The State has no natural power to redefine the marriage: no natural rights to change the acception of what is the marriage;

The penal law of State does not have to criminalize the homosexual acts of the same sex persons who are consenting adults, in their bedroom, at home. It is not the business of State;

The promotion of homosexuality in school (primary school, secondary school, and Grammar school) should be banned by the penal law of State; The homo-education does not have to be normalized and banalized by the school, by the civil law and by the administrative law (the educational law of state);
  1. About forcination, adultery, polygamy and polyandry and other.
The premarital sex between two consenting adults (the forcination) , in their bedroom, at home, does not have to be criminalized by the penal law of State;

The forcination between two consenting teenagers (the premarital sex) in their bedroom, at home, does not have to be criminalized by the penal law of State;

The adultery between two consenting adults in their bedroom, at home, does not have to be criminalized by the penal law of State;

The civil law of State does not have to recognize the polygamy and the polyandry, and the polygamy and the polyandry have to be banned by the penal law;

The civil law of State does not have to recognize the “marriage” between three persons and more;

The rape on woman by a man or the rape on woman by a woman or the rape on man by a woman or the rape on man by man has to be punished by the penal law of State;

The conjugal rape on the wife or on the husband has to be punished by the penal law of State;

The sexual violences on a woman or on a man have to be punished by the penal law of State;

The sexual acts of pedophilia have to be punished by the penal law of State;
 
For information

4 non-negotiables point

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PEOPLE’S PARTY
ON THE OCCASION OF THE STUDY DAYS ON EUROPE

vatican.va/holy_father/be…arians_en.html
  • protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;
recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defence from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;
  • the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.
vatican.va/holy_father/pi…ptoris_en.html

DIVINI REDEMPTORIS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI
ON ATHEISTIC COMMUNISM
TO THE PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES,
ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS, AND OTHER ORDINARIES
IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE.
  • The communism
 
I made this thread and then assumed it died. Just checking in to say thank you very much for the links 👍
 
You can’t legislate Christian morality because Christianity is not a legal religion. Jesus was very clear that if you want to have sex with a married woman, you have already commited adultry, even if you don’t go through with the act. How do you make a desire to commit adultry illegal? This goes for all sin. Sin is in the heart, not in our actions. The Church doesn’t even state that homosexual acts are sins, it states they are grave matters which are only mortal sins if they are done with full freedom and knowledge. How can you know if someone is acting with full freedom and knowledge?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top