Sodomy Law

[Dakota_Roberts]

If you want to talk about criminalizing other unnatural acts that is fine with me. This thread is about sodomy which was illegal for centuries and should be today.

You mean like how the heretic King Henry VIII made it criminal and the observant catholic Queen Mary promptly reversed it upon accession?

 

[The_Bucket]

If you want to talk about criminalizing other unnatural acts that is fine with me. This thread is about sodomy which was illegal for centuries and should be today.

For what possible reason and to what end? Grave matter is grave matter. Sodomy is no worse than masturbation when committed with full knowledge. So why are we singling out one (or two) particular sex act(s)? There’s no reason for that whatsoever.

We crack down on things like rape, molestation and incest because they are violent acts. They commit violence against the spirit, the body and the mind? What violence does sodomy commit that should involve temporal authorities? Governments have the responsibility to protect their citizens from violence against the body. But self-inflicted violence against the spirit? I think not. And the violence is not so great when these acts are committed without full knowledge, which I imagine constitutes the vast majority or instances.

I really can’t wrap my mind around a thought process that says civil authorities should base their laws on one particular religious doctrine and go beyond the punishments proscribed by that doctrine. The Church calls on civic officials to ban the distribution of pornography in the catechism. It clearly spells out the horrible nature of sexual crimes like rape and incest. It says absolutely nothing about what civic officials and governments should do when it comes to sodomy, fornication or adultery. And there’s a reason for that.

And devoutchristian that is absolute nonsense and you know it. Not only did Christ let the woman caught in adultery skate from the death penalty, he saved her from ALL temporal penalties. She got to just go on her way. And the woman at the well had all of her sins rattled off and Christ suggested no punishment whatsoever for her. None. He did not deny in either cases that the women had sinned but clearly spelled out that temporal punishments for those sins were not appropriate. Like I said, Christ’s Kingdom is not of this world and every time the Church has involved itself deeply in temporal matters it has become insanely corrupt. We ought not to repeat those errors.

 

[John_Savage]

Is that Right to Sodomy article true?

Given the Wikipedia secularized version where it states: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law

So by this I would surmise man’s justice system doesn’t deem such gross moral sexual acts as morally profane as the Catholic Church sees it and as most other religions see it; but, rather chooses to candy-coat such acts using the politically correct form and seeing such acts as merely unnatural.

Should I be surprised.

I’m sure many informed Catholics have heard and perhaps read the scathing and abhorring ill famed book Rite to Sodomy.

In answer I suggest reading this article: Understanding a Cesspool of Corruption Christ or Chaos. rcf.org/docs/droleskeyriteofsodomy.htm

 

[devoutchristian]

We crack down on things like rape, molestation and incest because they are violent acts.

Incest isn’t necessarily violent.

I really can’t wrap my mind around a thought process that says civil authorities should base their laws on one particular religious doctrine

Well that’s the Church’s teaching. Live with it.

Not only did Christ let the woman caught in adultery skate from the death penalty, he saved her from ALL temporal penalties.

What other temporal penalty was prescribed by Jewish law?

 

[fix]

You mean like how the heretic King Henry VIII made it criminal and the observant catholic Queen Mary promptly reversed it upon accession?

You mean like how same sex marriage supporters point out deviations in marriage laws and want the exception to be the norm?

 

[The_Bucket]

Incest isn’t necessarily violent.

Are you serious? The vast majority of incestual “relationships” involve an adult and a minor. Or they involve two minors and the older one had been molested so he/she passes on the behavior. That’s incredibly violent even if it doesn’t involve beating anyone.

Well that’s the Church’s teaching. Live with it.

Except that it isn’t. Thanks for playing.

 

[fix]

For what possible reason and to what end? Grave matter is grave matter. Sodomy is no worse than masturbation when committed with full knowledge.

Says who? Not the Church. Even Aquinas pointed out the differences in gravity of sexual sins. The impact on society between the two certainly are different.

What violence does sodomy commit that should involve temporal authorities?

Do you think so called private sins have no impact on society? The more it is taught such things are normal the more we have agitation to alter society’s understanding of right and wrong.

Governments have the responsibility to protect their citizens from violence against the body.

That is a reduction view of morality and certainly not part of the Catholic tradition.

I really can’t wrap my mind around a thought process that says civil authorities should base their laws on one particular religious doctrine and go beyond the punishments proscribed by that doctrine.

It is not simply a sectarian matter. It is a matter of the natural moral law.

 

[The_Bucket]

Says who? Not the Church. Even Aquinas pointed out the differences in gravity of sexual sins. The impact on society between the two certainly are different.

St. Thomas Aquinas was an extremely holy person and a great doctor of the Church. But his theological opinions are not dogma. The Summa is a fantastic document to study but it’s not a definitive logical proof of the existence of God. Just as his logical proofs are not Gospel, neither are his theological opinions on sin.

St. Augustine, another great doctor of the Church and amazing saint was quite wrong in fact when he spoke about the nature of sexuality and sexual sin. He contended that sex even in marriage was a “necessary evil” and a venial sin because it always incited lust. He is definitely wrong on that matter.

The Church teaches that there are two types of sin: Venial and mortal. Period and end of discussion. Mortal sin is mortal sin and grave matter is grave matter. You can’t go around trying to rank them. Well, I mean you can, but the Church doesn’t and so I try to follow that example.

Do you think so called private sins have no impact on society? The more it is taught such things are normal the more we have agitation to alter society’s understanding of right and wrong.

Absolutely not. We are all part of the mystical body of Christ and therefore there is no such thing as a “private sin.” I’m not arguing against the doctrine of the Church. I’m simply noting that given that 6 billion people in the world are not Catholic that it makes little sense to advocate for temporal laws completely based on the doctrine that governs 1/7th of the world’s population. I’m also pointing out that Christ clearly spoke out against temporal punishment for sexual sin when he absolved the woman who was discovered in the act of adultery.

That is a reduction view of morality and certainly not part of the Catholic tradition.

Sure it is. The Church also teaches that we should not let people starve to death or die because they lack proper health care. That’s violence against the body as a result of indifference or public corruption. Government should provide some modicum of public order and civic virtue, but civic virtue is not the virtue taught by Christ. Government is not here to protect our souls. That’s the role of the Church.

It is not simply a sectarian matter. It is a matter of the natural moral law.

Again, this is totally impossible and it’s been pointed out time and again that the enforcement of the laws when they existed simply resulted in the prosecution of homosexuals and left heterosexuals pretty much alone.

I am not arguing that we should condone unnatural sexual acts. I am saying that prosecuting people who commit them is manifestly unfair, violates the right to freedom of worship and privacy (yes it exists, no abortion has nothing to do with privacy) and not something even Christ Himself would have done. And even if Christ would have prosecuted people who commit sodomy, it’s almost impossible to actually successfully do so because it’s extremely difficult to prove whether the acts are completed or not without again, another gross violation of personal privacy.

Finally I shall ask a question that takes my argument on the offensive: For what possible reason would you want to prosecute and lock up people who engage in this sexual act? And would your prosecution of these individuals extend to say, married Buddhist couples whose religion says these sexual acts are not immoral? If so, why? Also, would you prosecute a Catholic married couple who engaged in oral stimulation that resulted in accidental climax? If not, why? That’s technically sodomy even if the nature of the action resulted in no sin whatsoever because it was an accident.

 

[fix]

St. Thomas Aquinas was an extremely holy person and a great doctor of the Church. But his theological opinions are not dogma. The Summa is a fantastic document to study but it’s not a definitive logical proof of the existence of God. Just as his logical proofs are not Gospel, neither are his theological opinions on sin.

St. Augustine, another great doctor of the Church and amazing saint was quite wrong in fact when he spoke about the nature of sexuality and sexual sin. He contended that sex even in marriage was a “necessary evil” and a venial sin because it always incited lust. He is definitely wrong on that matter.

The Church teaches that there are two types of sin: Venial and mortal. Period and end of discussion. Mortal sin is mortal sin and grave matter is grave matter. You can’t go around trying to rank them. Well, I mean you can, but the Church doesn’t and so I try to follow that example.

The Church says , specifically, the opposite.

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother.” The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

Can you point to any document that claims all grave sin is exactly the same?

Absolutely not. We are all part of the mystical body of Christ and therefore there is no such thing as a “private sin.” I’m not arguing against the doctrine of the Church. I’m simply noting that given that 6 billion people in the world are not Catholic that it makes little sense to advocate for temporal laws completely based on the doctrine that governs 1/7th of the world’s population. I’m also pointing out that Christ clearly spoke out against temporal punishment for sexual sin when he absolved the woman who was discovered in the act of adultery.

The Church is not against sodomy laws. Do you have proof She is?

Again, this is totally impossible and it’s been pointed out time and again that the enforcement of the laws when they existed simply resulted in the prosecution of homosexuals and left heterosexuals pretty much alone.

There is nothing immoral about laws that prohibit homosexual activity specifically.

Finally I shall ask a question that takes my argument on the offensive: For what possible reason would you want to prosecute and lock up people who engage in this sexual act?

The law is a teacher. Teach that deviant acts are legal and that is how people form their conscience.

And would your prosecution of these individuals extend to say, married Buddhist couples whose religion says these sexual acts are not immoral? If so, why? Also, would you prosecute a Catholic married couple who engaged in oral stimulation that resulted in accidental climax? If not, why? That’s technically sodomy even if the nature of the action resulted in no sin whatsoever because it was an accident.

Again, I am not against including other types of acts but why is it unfair to have laws that target homosexual acts specifically?

 

[The_Bucket]

The Church says , specifically, the opposite.

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother.” The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

Can you point to any document that claims all grave sin is exactly the same?

So basically the Church says that circumstances matter. I concur. Nevertheless, mortal sin is mortal sin. You know as well as I do that it requires full knowledge; are you going to contend that the vast majority of people who commit these kinds of sins have full knowledge and full commitment of the will? I really doubt it and you and I have no right to make that judgment. And honestly, neither does the Church or civil government. The Church defines the sin and rightly so; God makes the judgment.

The Church is not against sodomy laws. Do you have proof She is?

The catechism does not specifically spell it out one way or another, however to this point…

There is nothing immoral about laws that prohibit homosexual activity specifically.

There is something certainly immoral and wrong about singling out homosexual activity if you’re not also going to prosecute people for masturbation, viewing pornography, committing adultery or fornicating. I based that on this:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. **Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. **

Sodomy laws specifically target homosexuals.

Again, I am not against including other types of acts but why is it unfair to have laws that target homosexual acts specifically?

And again I ask you to address my questions. Would you favor prosecuting a married Catholic couple who engaged in totally licit oral stimulation that ended in unintentional climax? That’s technically sodomy but there’s no sin present, much less mortal sin. Or are you going to just lock up people based on whether you think they committed mortal sin?

 

[fix]

So basically the Church says that circumstances matter. I concur. Nevertheless, mortal sin is mortal sin. You know as well as I do that it requires full knowledge; are you going to contend that the vast majority of people who commit these kinds of sins have full knowledge and full commitment of the will? I really doubt it and you and I have no right to make that judgment. And honestly, neither does the Church or civil government. The Church defines the sin and rightly so; God makes the judgment.

From the old CE:

Gravity

While every mortal sin averts us from our true last end, all mortal sins are not equally grave, as is clear from Scripture (John 19:11; Matthew 11:22; Luke 6), and also from reason. Sins are specifically distinguished by their objects, which do not all equally avert man from his last end. Then again, since sin is not a pure privation, but a mixed one, all sins do not equally destroy the order of reason. Spiritual sins, other things being equal, are graver than carnal sins. (St. Thomas, “De malo”, Q. ii, a. 9; I-II.73.5).

The catechism does not specifically spell it out one way or another, however to this point…

There is something certainly immoral and wrong about singling out homosexual activity if you’re not also going to prosecute people for masturbation, viewing pornography, committing adultery or fornicating. I based that on this:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. **Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. **

Sodomy laws specifically target homosexuals.

That is not proof sodomy laws are unjust at all. Society certainly has an obligation to protect public morals. Unequals need to be treated unequally as a matter of justice. Some acts are so contrary to nature and public morals they ought to be prohibited.

And again I ask you to address my questions. Would you favor prosecuting a married Catholic couple who engaged in totally licit oral stimulation that ended in unintentional climax?

No. Why is that equal to homosexual acts?

That’s technically sodomy but there’s no sin present, much less mortal sin. Or are you going to just lock up people based on whether you think they committed mortal sin?

It is not about mortal sin culpability. It is about public order and public morals.

 

[The_Bucket]

Making homosexual acts a crime serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever. It does not stop people from having same-sex attraction, does not stop the activity and supporting it only bolsters the opinion that the Church basically hates homosexuals. Obviously the Church does not, but the opinions expressed in this thread reek of bigotry given that you’re A-OK with singling out homosexuals for temporal punishment but won’t go after married couples engaging in the same physical acts.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Says who? Not the Church. Even Aquinas pointed out the differences in gravity of sexual sins. The impact on society between the two certainly are different.

Do you think so called private sins have no impact on society? The more it is taught such things are normal the more we have agitation to alter society’s understanding of right and wrong.

That is a reduction view of morality and certainly not part of the Catholic tradition.

It is not simply a sectarian matter. It is a matter of the natural moral law.

Indeed, there can in fact be a wide difference in the gravity of sins, for example in terms of social effects adultery is far more harmful than gay sex.

 

[fix]

Making homosexual acts a crime serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever.

That is your erroneous belief.

It does not stop people from having same-sex attraction, does not stop the activity and supporting it only bolsters the opinion that the Church basically hates homosexuals. Obviously the Church does not, but the opinions expressed in this thread reek of bigotry given that you’re A-OK with singling out homosexuals for temporal punishment but won’t go after married couples engaging in the same physical acts.

You obviously do not see the gay agenda as a threat to our culture nor does it seem you think deviant acts are a sin or bad for society.

All the centuries we had sodomy laws were bad by your understanding, yet the state of things we have today is good. Interesting.

 

[fix]

Indeed, there can in fact be a wide difference in the gravity of sins, for example in terms of social effects adultery is far more harmful than gay sex.

Adultery is still illegal in places and was for decades. The problem is you see this issue through the lens of homosexual apologists and post modern faux equality. You, and the other poster, think this American notion of sameness is justice but it is not. Unequal issues need to be treated unequally. That is true justice.

 

[Boy_Wonder]

If you want to talk about criminalizing other unnatural acts that is fine with me. This thread is about sodomy which was illegal for centuries and should be today.

If God forbids it, that should be enough for us.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I see that Dominionism is ripe in this thread.

I personally don’t believe that it is the government’s job to enforce morality. To begin with it’s impossible, since there are so many different views on what is and isn’t moral. I suppose you could argue against sodomy on the basis of health risks, but there are many things that are legal (and will remain so) and yet are also unhealthy. I think if anything, though, it would probably just promote hatred for Christianity, especially with the growing amount of irreligious people in the world.

 

[The_Bucket]

You obviously do not see the gay agenda as a threat to our culture nor does it seem you think deviant acts are a sin or bad for society.

All the centuries we had sodomy laws were bad by your understanding, yet the state of things we have today is good. Interesting.

Thanks for the unfounded assumptions and uncharitable tone. It’s really Christ-like.

Homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal as human beings. For that matter, murderers and saints are also equal in dignity as human beings and loved equally by God. Where they end up at the end of their lives is dependent on how much love they have for God, not how much God loves them. Because God loves them the same.

I don’t see how I’ve defended homosexual acts. I have not. I have repeatedly said that they are gravely sinful and if they are committed with full knowledge and full consent of the will constitute mortal sins. There is no denying that whatsoever.

The current state of affairs have tilted too far in favor of affirming sinful lifestyles be they homosexual or heterosexual. We certainly have progressed in no longer condemning people for their sinful behavior; the fact that homosexuals are at least less often the subject of physical, verbal and mental abuse does constitute great progress. Where we have gone too far is saying that the way to love everyone is to affirm everything everyone does. That’s fallacious. We absolutely should defend traditional marriage and reiterate that sexual intimacy is for the marital relationship and no other relationship.

But we need not go so far as to advocate for people who violate those laws of God to be thrown in prison! I find it absolutely astonishing that I am being castigated by alleged Christians because I think that laws that criminalize sexual acts between consenting adults is unfair and not something that Christ would defend. He refused to condemn a woman caught in adultery. He refused to carry out any punishment against her in fact! So should we. And then we should follow His instruction and say the same thing He said: “Now go and sin no more.” Our objective should be to instruct the ignorant and to admonish the sinner. Not to throw the sinner into prison.

 

[The_Bucket]

If God forbids it, that should be enough for us.

Right. So let’s start locking up everyone who takes God’s name in vain or doesn’t show up to Church on Sundays. Oh, they’re Seventh Day Adventists? Too bad! This is a Catholic land and you’ll go to Mass on Sundays and like it! They’re Hindus and thus only go to temple services when they please? That’s a shame; they don’t worship the one true God and so they must be imprisoned.

You’re kidding me, right?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Adultery is still illegal in places and was for decades. The problem is you see this issue through the lens of homosexual apologists and post modern faux equality. You, and the other poster, think this American notion of sameness is justice but it is not. Unequal issues need to be treated unequally. That is true justice.

I am saying different issues need to be treated differently and adultery causes far more damage to society, especially children.