The unnaturalness of 'unnatural'

[Laurie_Gibson]

Catholic: Contraception is wrong because it is unnatural.
Questioner: But living in a house is not natural - after all our ancient ancestors did not do this.
Catholic Yes but that is not the sense I had in mind. By unnatural I mean that a natural purpose of mankind is frustrated.
Questioner So a celibate is frustrating his reproductive purpose and is doing wrong.
Catholic No because he is not frustrating the aim of the reproductive act he is simply refraining from it.
Questioner But a person using contraception may already have a family or intend one in the future so he is not frustrating the purpose of sex all the time.
Catholic True but it is wrong to have sex in such a way as to frustrate its purpose ever. Once would be too many!
Questioner But what about people who use NFP or who cannot have children, surely they are doing this.
Catholic No the act is still ‘open to conception’ even though in fact it cannot occur in these circumstances.

Comments
To an outsider the question that leaps to mind re all this is ‘Why?’. There is some plausibility in the claim that ‘naturally’ humans have the need/function to reproduce and so we should unless there are strong reasons why against. [Perhaps priests have such a reason]. But from it we may only conclude that people ought to have families. None of the rather odd restrictions above follow at all.

If I give you a spade to dig your garden I might be just as annoyed if you refused to use it as if you used it as a shovel. I cannot see why God would not be just as angry at couples who use NFP to remain childless or people who decide not to marry as he is supposed to be at those who use artificial contraception.

Similarly if God wants us to have children the distinction between NFP and artificial means seems arbitrary - both aim at ends which God does not wish.

I also cannot see why God has arranged matters so that many people have families too large for them to cope with. He has given us above all Reason so why can we not use that to invent and employ means to restrict families to manageable size so that our function is fulfilled better?

The whole Catholic notion of ‘unnatural’ seems odd and arbitrary. Of course a Catholic can define it however they wish - it is a free country after all. However if they give it such a very odd meaning the question arises, discussed on another thread - ‘Just why does something being unnatural in this rather odd sense make it wrong?’

 

[phoooiee]

I can only answer this question according to my own experience. The answer is that when I do things this way, I become a better person than I ever thought possible.

“For that cannot be loved that is altogether unknown.
But when what is known, in however small a measure, is also loved, by
the same love, one is led on to a better and fuller knowledge. If, then, you
grow in the love that the Holy Spirit spreads abroad in your hearts, He
will teach you all truth.So shall the result be, that not from outward
teachers will you learn those things but you will be taught by God, so
that the very things that you have learned and believed by means of
lessons and sermons supplied from without your minds themselves
may have the power to perceive.”

St. Augustine.

 

[1ke]

Contraception is wrong because it is unnatural.

This is not why contraception is wrong.

The whole Catholic notion of ‘unnatural’ seems odd and arbitrary.

Well the notion of unnatural is odd and arbitrary, but it’s not Catholic. This is not the foundation of the Church’s teaching that contraception is intrinsically evil.

 

[manualman]

Off the rails on the very first line.

Why not actually READ Humanae Vitae? It’s online and not THAT long.

Contraception is wrong because it makes a lie out of the lovemaking act between man and wife. Sex is supposed to be an expression of self-giving love so great that (when God chooses to give the gift) new life can come from it. Using contraception changes it from that to mere gratification under the mindset that consciously refuses God from giving the gift of new life.

NFP isn’t OK because it is “natural.” It is OK because instead of grabbing for the gratification, the couple actually has to give it up when there is a serious reason not to get pregnant and the woman is fertile. They never turn the sex into a lie.

 

[kdcampbe]

Most often what is meant by “unnatural” is that it goes against the nature of the being or act. In this case, it is being used to say that contraception is against the purpose or end of the marital act.

As for NFP, this is something my fiancee and I have debated quite a bit lately. According to humanae vitae(1), the regulation of the number and spacing of children is a legitimate, holy and necessary component to responsible parenthood. However, that regulation must be done using good means. There are two means recognized by the Church as good. Total abstinence (lets face it, not many people want to do that), and NFP.

NFP is not always good. Many fellow Catholics might disagree, but read the documents, NFP is not catholic birth control. The couple using NFP must seriously consider why the do not want to have children at that time. If the reason is a selfish reason (such as “we want to save money for that new sports car” or “a child would seriously change our lifestyle”) then using NFP is just as sinful as artificial contraception. In these cases, the couple either needs to re-evaluate their wants in life, or abstain until they are open to children.

Now if a couple simply wants to space the children out so they don’t have more infants than they can handle, or they want to limit the number of children so as to spend adequate time with each of them, then this is a valid application of NFP.

As for families being too large, this is a perfect example of where NFP can truly help. As you said, we have reason to help us come up with means to restrict the family size when necessary, but they must be moral means. One could easily restrict family size by infanticide, but that is clearly not a moral means.

In conclusion, using artificial contraception is wrong because it fundamentally changes the nature of the marital act. Removing its procreative dimension. NFP can be used in the same way, but to do so is wrong. NFP must be used in a loving way, not a selfish way.

footnotes
1 - vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[DPMartin]

This is not why contraception is wrong.

Well the notion of unnatural is odd and arbitrary, but it’s not Catholic. This is not the foundation of the Church’s teaching that contraception is intrinsically evil.

Are you saying that to deliberately prevent an undesired result of a natural and a acceptable activity between one and their spouse, is evil?

 

[1ke]

Are you saying that to deliberately prevent an undesired result of a natural and a acceptable activity between one and their spouse, is evil?

Yes. Contraception is intrinsically evil. It is grave matter, and if done with full knowledge and free will it is a mortal sin.

However, it is not I who make this assertion on my own, it is the Church’s doctrinal teaching:

CCC 2370: every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil

 

[DPMartin]

Yes. Contraception is intrinsically evil. It is grave matter, and if done with full knowledge and free will it is a mortal sin.

However, it is not I who make this assertion on my own, it is the Church’s doctrinal teaching:

CCC 2370: every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil

1ke
thanks for the reply

Since there is no method by, or means by, specified in order to do this, or accomplish. Then this must mean all methods incorporated.

Hence the vow of celibacy, by one who can procreate, is a means a method to accomplish the same result. Heck, it’s unnatural. (Note also a deliberate act) In this there is no exceptions are there? So what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[1ke]

Since there is no method by, or means by, specified in order to do this, or accomplish. Then this must mean all methods incorporated.

Yes, there is specificity here. Read again what the Church teaches. Any action that renders an act of intercourse sterile is contraception and therefore intrinsically evil.

There must be an act of intercourse in order to take an action that renders it disordered. Not having intercourse is in no way disordered. I’m not having intercourse right now.

There is no requirement to *have *intercourse.

There is only the requirement that when we *do *have intercourse it must be ordered properly-- this includes being inside the context of marriage, without alteration (contraception), a completed, vaginal act.

Hence the vow of celibacy, by one who can procreate, is a means a method to accomplish the same result.

You confuse meeans and ends. They are different things, morally.

The means of abstaining are not disordered. The means of contraception are. The end may indeed be the same, intended or not. Just as robbing a bank and holding down a job are both means of obtaining money, the end of which is to buy food for the family. Two different means, one moral and one not.

Heck, it’s unnatural.

As has already been stated, “unnatural” is not the Church’s foundation upon which she bases her teaching.

And, it is not “unnatural” if one is unmarried. The sexual faculties cannot be used outside marriage.

(Note also a deliberate act)

It’s not an act.

You misunderstand Church teaching.

It states that each **act of intercourse **must be per se ordered to procreation and no action may be taken to render that act of intercourse sterile.

If there is no intercourse, there is no disordered act.

( In this there is no exceptions are there? So what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Again, you do not understand Church teaching or are purposely misrepresenting it.

 

[DPMartin]

Yes, there is specificity here. Read again what the Church teaches. Any action that renders an act of intercourse sterile is contraception and therefore intrinsically evil.

There must be an act of intercourse in order to take an action that renders it disordered. Not having intercourse is in no way disordered. I’m not having intercourse right now.

There is no requirement to *have *intercourse.

There is only the requirement that when we *do *have intercourse it must be ordered properly-- this includes being inside the context of marriage, without alteration (contraception), a completed, vaginal act.

You confuse meeans and ends. They are different things, morally.

The means of abstaining are not disordered. The means of contraception are. The end may indeed be the same, intended or not. Just as robbing a bank and holding down a job are both means of obtaining money, the end of which is to buy food for the family. Two different means, one moral and one not.

As has already been stated, “unnatural” is not the Church’s foundation upon which she bases her teaching.

And, it is not “unnatural” if one is unmarried. The sexual faculties cannot be used outside marriage.

It’s not an act.

You misunderstand Church teaching.

It states that each **act of intercourse **must be per se ordered to procreation and no action may be taken to render that act of intercourse sterile.

If there is no intercourse, there is no disordered act.

Again, you do not understand Church teaching or are purposely misrepresenting it.

1ke
thanks for the reply

You may be correct about what the catechism says. And my view of what it says.

But what seems to be incorrect is those who do not bare children do not support, feed, house, and cloth children, nor are responsible to society and the law for what they might do. nor do they contend with anything that may happen between them and a spouse that could not only trash their lives and all they have worked for, so on and so forth and so on, have no expertise on what ought to be, in that which they do not participate, nor have any experience in being responsible for it.

To burden with guilt, to constantly condemn and blame, in that which they have no clue, as I understand it is intrinsically evil, and hypocritical.

I mean people who vow not to participate in the bedroom have the arrogance to tell others what ought to happen in the bedroom.

They can’t uprightly, and honestly manage the errors in their own’s sexual appetites. And now they say what the result of a married couples activities are supposed to be in the bedroom?

When priests maintain marriages work two jobs successfully and rase children support them and be responsible at the least finically then maybe there opinion on such matters might have some weight, or merit. Otherwise they are just words on paper.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

When priests maintain marriages work two jobs successfully and rase children support them and be responsible at the least finically then maybe there opinion on such matters might have some weight, or merit. Otherwise they are just words on paper.

With all due respect this seems rather arrogant to me. First of all, there ARE Priests with children. I met a Priest with seven children. He supported the Church’s teaching. The Eastern Catholic Churches have married Priests.

Priests need to be responsible for an entire body of faith and must be totally devoted to God in absolutely everything, basically; that is quite a large responsibility that you seem to be dismissing out of hand.

I don’t mean to sound judgemental but I do disagree with you on this.

 

[1ke]

But what seems to be incorrect is those who do not bare children do not support, feed, house, and cloth children, nor are responsible to society and the law for what they might do. nor do they contend with anything that may happen between them and a spouse that could not only trash their lives and all they have worked for, so on and so forth and so on, have no expertise on what ought to be, in that which they do not participate, nor have any experience in being responsible for it.

To burden with guilt, to constantly condemn and blame, in that which they have no clue, as I understand it is intrinsically evil, and hypocritical.

No one burdens anyone or condemns or blames anyone. I don’t know where you are getting that.

I mean people who vow not to participate in the bedroom have the arrogance to tell others what ought to happen in the bedroom.

The moral law comes from God. You seem to think that the Church, and by the Church you seem to mean priests and bishops, arbitrarily “made up” rules. These are not rules. This is the eternal law of God. It’s not changeable. The Church teaches what is, she does not create it.

The moral law is the reality of who God is, who we are, and what God made us for.

They can’t uprightly, and honestly manage the errors in their own’s sexual appetites.

By they, I suppose you mean priests. This is a flaw in logic. The sins one person commits are not relevant with respect to the moral law and other people’s sins. All sins are wrong to commit. Person A committing the sin of adultery does not make Person B committing the sin of theft OK.

And now they say what the result of a married couples activities are supposed to be in the bedroom?

God ordained the moral law, not priests, or bishops, or anyone else. You are confused in thinking these are some type of arbitrary rules.

When priests maintain marriages work two jobs successfully and rase children support them and be responsible at the least finically then maybe there opinion on such matters might have some weight, or merit. Otherwise they are just words on paper.

Another flaw in logic.

A person does not have to have experience in something to teach or give advice on it. If that were so, a male gynocologist would be untrustworthy in matters of child birth. But it is not so. A male doctor is trained in medicine. He does not have to be pregnant to diagnose and treat a pregnant woman. A male priest teaches God’s law. He does not have to be married to teach God’s law on marriage.

Moreover, the Church does NOT teach that a couple must have any specific number of children or that they must have more children than they can afford or bear, or if the woman’s health is in trouble that she may not avoid pregnancy. The opposite is true, in fact. The Church teaches that for just reasons a couple may indeed space or avoid children for a time or indefinitely. A couple may use moral means to do so. They may not use immoral means-- contraception-- which is against God’s law.

 

[Luke_K]

According to St. Thomas, the natural law is “nothing else than the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law.”

My perception in the other thread was that you were looking for an argument for the immorality of gay sex in purely secular logic. Arguing on the basis of natural law with an atheist isn’t going to get anywhere, because of a fundamental conundrum: The Catholic believes that a world without God and His laws is not natural, in the sense that it is absurd to even talk about. It isn’t real. There would be no world or reality to talk about if God did not exist.

When you ask a Catholic to explain the immorality of something in purely secular terms (which really means on the level of whatever value judgments the atheist holds), it’s like asking a physicist to explain why a ball rolls down a ramp without using the concept of gravity, because you don’t believe in gravity. Given a sufficiently skeptical atheist, you can’t prove anything is immoral. It just depends on how many value judgments the theist and the atheist agree on.

I don’t believe I presented my argument in the other thread on the basis of contraceptive sex being unnatural. I based it on the principle of non-contradiction; that we shouldn’t use our bodies in a way that is designed for a specific purpose while simultaneously using our body to act against that purpose. Is it a perfect argument? Maybe not, but I feel it’s worthwhile.

 

[DPMartin]

Thank all for your responses

I certainly don’t mean to disrespect the Church nor any one here, but my concern is this constantly finding sin in sinners of which only the self-righteous see, when God the Father sees us through His Perfect Son. How can the church be effective in God’s Mercy to the world if it seeks out sin in sinners. Sinners recognize God’s Mercy in His Righteousness. But the self-righteous seek out sin in sinners.

The image or what the world sees in the Catholic Church are people that have one stone in one hand for all who are not Catholic and another stone in the other hand for any sinners they might find that are Catholic. Superiority of one over another is of the imaginations of men, the true parity is that all mankind are the sons and daughters of man. The only difference is to serve in God’s revelation to men that Jesus Christ is Lord, Savior, the Word of God, the very Son of God. Which requires God’s Mercy in His Righteousness. Even an atheist knows he is not in the Presence of God and the same does not see the Presence of God’s Mercy in His Righteousness in the Church or he would want to know it.

The world is already in the condition it is in, it has been since Adam and Eve. No matter how much sin is found, the result is the same.

To adorn yourself in that which others would judge just to prove to yourself or others that others judge and hate, is to what value? To adorn yourself in what is acceptable and pleasing to others that they may accept you or admire you, is to what value? But what is true beauty in God’s eyes? Isn’t it to put on Christ as Apostle Paul has taught. Is not beauty proclaimed in the OT the Holiness of the Lord?

What is it that the world wants to see in the Church, what is it that God wants the world to see in the Church? What is it that the world needs to see in the Church.

Isn’t one of the rules:

Mt:18:20: For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Isn’t Jesus, the Word of God, the rule?

Isn’t God’s Word the true sustenance of the Life God gives? Then what is it that is to be fed to the People of God, and to the world? Shouldn’t it be the Word of God in His Presence?

again thanks

 

[1ke]

I certainly don’t mean to disrespect the Church nor any one here, but my concern is this constantly finding sin in sinners of which only the self-righteous see, when God the Father sees us through His Perfect Son. How can the church be effective in God’s Mercy to the world if it seeks out sin in sinners. Sinners recognize God’s Mercy in His Righteousness. But the self-righteous seek out sin in sinners.

Sounds like you’ve been infected with a heaping dose of protestant theology. The idea that Christ “covers over” or “overlooks” our sins is a heresy.

The Church exists to draw sinners to Christ. Not to *approve *of their sin, but to *transform *them through the saving power of Christ. Christ did not embrace sin. He embraced the sinners and then told them to SIN NO MORE. How can people know what is right and what is wrong if the Church does not teach them in the name of Christ?

The Church teaches us how to keep the commandments of God, how to be sanctified, and how to live in holiness. Christ, through the Church, gives us the Sacraments to strengthen us and help us to grow in holiness and virtue. He gives us the sacrament of Reconciliation when we fail. He gives us every opportunity to do as he commanded; “keep my commandments.”

I don’t get your comments on seeking out sin in sinners. No one is doing that.

The image or what the world sees in the Catholic Church are people that have one stone in one hand for all who are not Catholic and another stone in the other hand for any sinners they might find that are Catholic.

No, what the Church has is the truth and a loving hand of God outstretched to everyone, hoping they will receive the saving power of Christ through the Sacraments.

Why you believe that teaching people the truth is self-righteous is beyond me.

Superiority of one over another is of the imaginations of men, the true parity is that all mankind are the sons and daughters of man. The only difference is to serve in God’s revelation to men that Jesus Christ is Lord, Savior, the Word of God, the very Son of God. Which requires God’s Mercy in His Righteousness. Even an atheist knows he is not in the Presence of God and the same does not see the Presence of God’s Mercy in His Righteousness in the Church or he would want to know it.

Huh?

The world is already in the condition it is in, it has been since Adam and Eve. No matter how much sin is found, the result is the same.

To adorn yourself in that which others would judge just to prove to yourself or others that others judge and hate, is to what value? To adorn yourself in what is acceptable and pleasing to others that they may accept you or admire you, is to what value? But what is true beauty in God’s eyes? Isn’t it to put on Christ as Apostle Paul has taught. Is not beauty proclaimed in the OT the Holiness of the Lord?.

One cannot put on holiness when one is committing offenses against God. And, so, the Church proclaims the truth about God’s law so that we can conform ourselves to it.

What is it that the world wants to see in the Church, what is it that God wants the world to see in the Church? What is it that the world needs to see in the Church.

Isn’t one of the rules:

Mt:18:20: For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Isn’t Jesus, the Word of God, the rule?

Isn’t God’s Word the true sustenance of the Life God gives? Then what is it that is to be fed to the People of God, and to the world? Shouldn’t it be the Word of God in His Presence?

again thanks

I’m sorry, I’m not following what any of this has to do with the fact that contraception contravenes the moral law of God and is an offense against God.

 

[DPMartin]

Sounds like you’ve been infected with a heaping dose of protestant theology. The idea that Christ “covers over” or “overlooks” our sins is a heresy.

The Church exists to draw sinners to Christ. Not to *approve *of their sin, but to *transform *them through the saving power of Christ. Christ did not embrace sin. He embraced the sinners and then told them to SIN NO MORE. How can people know what is right and what is wrong if the Church does not teach them in the name of Christ?

The Church teaches us how to keep the commandments of God, how to be sanctified, and how to live in holiness. Christ, through the Church, gives us the Sacraments to strengthen us and help us to grow in holiness and virtue. He gives us the sacrament of Reconciliation when we fail. He gives us every opportunity to do as he commanded; “keep my commandments.”

I don’t get your comments on seeking out sin in sinners. No one is doing that.

No, what the Church has is the truth and a loving hand of God outstretched to everyone, hoping they will receive the saving power of Christ through the Sacraments.

Why you believe that teaching people the truth is self-righteous is beyond me.

Huh?

One cannot put on holiness when one is committing offenses against God. And, so, the Church proclaims the truth about God’s law so that we can conform ourselves to it.

I’m sorry, I’m not following what any of this has to do with the fact that contraception contravenes the moral law of God and is an offense against God.

You’re a Catholic and you have never heard of the Blood of Christ, for shame my friend. And in case you don’t know, Catholicism is not against this.

Rom:3:25: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Rom:5:9: Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Eph:1:7: In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Eph:2:13: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

---

The only fact is, that it is the Church that declares that contraception contravenes the moral law of God and is an offense against God. (Besides what law is that, that is of God you say, I must of missed that one in the Bible, or even in the Torah)

though again I am sure you won’t get it:

God in Jesus Christ has restored us to the place that Adam and Eve were before they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In His Grace and Peace with Him in His Presence. Those who seek the eternal Life of God that is available to them eat of the Tree of Life. Those who seek to judge what is good and what is evil eat at the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Hence the “threshing floor”. And like dogs return to their vomit. And like dogs seek to dominate one another. Consider, man was given dominion on the earth or in it. But like the one who deceived Adam and Eve, they seek dominion over the ones who it has been given dominion by eating at the tree of knowledge of good and evil to judge what is good and evil when all that God has made He declared Good, Very Good…

What happened was God made an agreement with man, in the garden, and the agreement must be kept. Which is God’s concern that His Commandments are fulfilled in man. But what is good and evil when God has declared that all He made is Good, is man’s concern and contrary to being in God’s Presence.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Reply to Luke

This thread has not dealt with the topic I proposed. But such is life.

My point - please read my original post - is that the Catholic concept of ‘unnatural’ just seems rather wierd, or odd when you consider it. I try to explain why. And I had hoped that someone might take it up.

On the other matter you raise>
I don’t believe I presented my argument in the other thread on the basis of contraceptive sex being unnatural. I based it on the principle of non-contradiction; that we shouldn’t use our bodies in a way that is designed for a specific purpose while simultaneously using our body to act against that purpose. Is it a perfect argument? Maybe not, but I feel it’s worthwhile

This is an interesting try but on consideration doesn’t it just say in a metaphorical way that contraceptive sex frustrates the biological purpose of sex? This is not news really! And the question is ‘why is this frustration wrong?’.

Best wishes,

Laurie

 

[1ke]

This thread has not dealt with the topic I proposed. But such is life.

Certainly it has. In the first 10 posts.

My point - please read my original post - is that the Catholic concept of ‘unnatural’ just seems rather wierd, or odd when you consider it. I try to explain why. And I had hoped that someone might take it up.

To which I responded, in post #2, that the Church’s teaching regarding the immorality of contraception is not based on it being ‘unnatural.’

To have a discussion about ‘unnaturalness’ when that is not what the Church teaches is pointless. The Church doesn’t teach that contraception is wrong for this reason, so what is the point of trying to explain why such a concept is ‘weird’?

And the question is ‘why is this frustration wrong?’.

God created the sexual faculties and ordered them in a particular way. To use the sexual faculties in a way other than the way in which God ordained that they be used is to sin against God’s commands.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hello Ike,

If you read my original post, the whole point is that the Catholic concept of ‘unnatural’ is a very particular one. My claim is that it is also a very odd and strange one too.

You must not frustrate the purpose of sex by using a condom but you can by remaining celibate.
You must not use a condom to control the size of your family but you can frustrate the purpose of sex by using NFP
You can have sex to express love even when there is no chance of a child, for example when the woman is past child bearing age, but a gay couple, who obviously cannot conceive either, are not allowed to use sex to express their love.

This just seems plain ‘daft’! Of course you can say ‘well that is what God says’ but that makes God to be silly. I would prefer to think that God, if he exists, is not so arbitrary.

Regards

Laurie

 

[DPMartin]

If you read my original post, the whole point is that the Catholic concept of ‘unnatural’ is a very particular one. My claim is that it is also a very odd and strange one too.

You must not frustrate the purpose of sex by using a condom but you can by remaining celibate.
You must not use a condom to control the size of your family but you can frustrate the purpose of sex by using NFP
You can have sex to express love even when there is no chance of a child, for example when the woman is past child bearing age, but a gay couple, who obviously cannot conceive either, are not allowed to use sex to express their love.

This just seems plain ‘daft’! Of course you can say ‘well that is what God says’ but that makes God to be silly. I would prefer to think that God, if he exists, is not so arbitrary.

Regards

Laurie

Laurie Gibson

There is no doubt that Catholic Church has managed to find wrong in just about every human activity. But on the other hand, what is respected is the understanding (whether it might be carried to far in some areas, or not) is the Christian comes into agreement with God through Jesus and it is the desire of the Christian to be pleasing unto his God with in the agreement. But those who have not come into agreement with the Almighty through His Son the Given agreement to mankind, from God, see no reason, nor understand why there should be any respect to what the Lord God has said, nor see any obligation to. Therefore follow their own choices (rather than God’s Choice for them in Christ), in accordance to that which is ether given to them, or seek out, or at their hand to do.

It’s kinda like this, the one with the power, (God) makes the Peace with Him, and the conditions thereof to be at Peace with God.