What constitutes disent?

[Cbus]

A while back, I was accused of dissent (not on this board). This was back when there was talk of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I was told, although I never verified it, that the Bishops were in favor of this amendment.

While I do NOT support gay marriage or question the Church teaching on the matter, I was opposed to the amendment. My reason was that amendments to the constitution have always been used to grantee rights of individuals and certain groups. It has never been used to single out a group with the purpose of expressly denying them a right which is afforded to the majority. To do so would represent a huge paradigm shift in how the U.S. Constitution is used, which made me very uneasy. Such a practice could just as easily be used against the Church depending on the political party in power. I thought it was best not to go down that road at all.

Because I disagreed with this “amendment” which was never going to be seriously proposed in the first place, I was accused of dissenting with the Church.

My question is can you be guilty of dissent when you agree with Church teaching but disagree with the political strategy?

 

[vz71]

A while back, I was accused of dissent (not on this board). This was back when there was talk of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I was told, although I never verified it, that the Bishops were in favor of this amendment.

While I do NOT support gay marriage or question the Church teaching on the matter, I was opposed to the amendment. My reason was that amendments to the constitution have always been used to grantee rights of individuals and certain groups. It has never been used to single out a group with the purpose of expressly denying them a right which is afforded to the majority. To do so would represent a huge paradigm shift in how the U.S. Constitution is used, which made me very uneasy. Such a practice could just as easily be used against the Church depending on the political party in power. I thought it was best not to go down that road at all.

Because I disagreed with this “amendment” which was never going to be seriously proposed in the first place, I was accused of dissenting with the Church.

My question is can you be guilty of dissent when you agree with Church teaching but disagree with the political strategy?

It sounds like you have bought into a lie society is telling everyone.
That it is a denial of rights to anyone to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

It denies no one anything.

I do not know if you were truly guilty of dissention or not.
In a classic sense, one must be in disagreement with church teaching. It does not sound like you were.

but I could be wrong.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

A while back, I was accused of dissent (not on this board). This was back when there was talk of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I was told, although I never verified it, that the Bishops were in favor of this amendment.

While I do NOT support gay marriage or question the Church teaching on the matter, I was opposed to the amendment. My reason was that amendments to the constitution have always been used to grantee rights of individuals and certain groups. It has never been used to single out a group with the purpose of expressly denying them a right which is afforded to the majority. To do so would represent a huge paradigm shift in how the U.S. Constitution is used, which made me very uneasy. Such a practice could just as easily be used against the Church depending on the political party in power. I thought it was best not to go down that road at all.

Because I disagreed with this “amendment” which was never going to be seriously proposed in the first place, I was accused of dissenting with the Church.

My question is can you be guilty of dissent when you agree with Church teaching but disagree with the political strategy?

No.
But it depends on the concept of political strategy. Political Strategy cannot go against the 10 commandments. You cannot kill Obama simply because you want something done (very bad example but it was to strike the point).

 

[ssa_fellow]

The biggest problem in your logic is that that legislation doesn’t single out a group of people. It protects an institution and defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Now, when you think about it, this bill doesn’t only prevent gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people form marriage. It prevents polygamists from marriage. And of course bestiality people as well.

I’m just saying, the slippery slope is true on the decline of our society. First society became more promiscuous and adultery became more acceptable, then divorce, then contraception, then abortion. So, if gay marriage is legalized. When will pedophilia and bestiality be legalized?

The other problem is that marriage isn’t a right. Not in the eyes of the Church. Wouldn’t it be foolish for national governments to have a different definition of marriage, than the very institution which is responsible for marriage in the first place? [That being Christianity, and our Jewish forbears]

Lastly… the Bible says “should we do evil, that good may come? Of course not”. It doesn’t make sense to legalize gay marriage just because that might set a precedent to prevent the government from targeting the Church [which I don’t think it would do anyways]. Legalizing gay marriage targets the Church in itself, because it redefines a Sacrament.

 

[losh14]

I think that’s a really good question. It’s absolutely dissent if you disagree with the motivation behind an action (if you were to think, for example, that gay marriage is totally acceptable within light of Scripture and Magisterium, or at least ought to be), but I don’t think it’s necessarily dissent in a sinful or rebellious sense to disagree with the means by which the motivation is to be carried out.

For example, what would all of you think if I said that I opposed a DOMA-type Constitutional amendment because government has no business whatsoever regulating marriage, that it is a right to be reserved solely for the religious institutions, and it is these institutions that ought to define the terms of marriage? Or if I said that because marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, it’d be an inapproprite legal form to introduce regulations on marriage in the Constitution, that these should rather be perpetuated at the State level as provided by the 9th Amendment?

You may disagree with these, but are either of these arguments necessarily a form of dissent against the Episcopate?

 

[sw85]

A while back, I was accused of dissent (not on this board). This was back when there was talk of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I was told, although I never verified it, that the Bishops were in favor of this amendment.

While I do NOT support gay marriage or question the Church teaching on the matter, I was opposed to the amendment. My reason was that amendments to the constitution have always been used to grantee rights of individuals and certain groups. It has never been used to single out a group with the purpose of expressly denying them a right which is afforded to the majority. To do so would represent a huge paradigm shift in how the U.S. Constitution is used, which made me very uneasy. Such a practice could just as easily be used against the Church depending on the political party in power. I thought it was best not to go down that road at all.

Because I disagreed with this “amendment” which was never going to be seriously proposed in the first place, I was accused of dissenting with the Church.

My question is can you be guilty of dissent when you agree with Church teaching but disagree with the political strategy?

I think strategy falls under what might be termed prudential judgments, which we’re not required to give assent to.

That said, there is a general duty for submission of the intellect and will to such judgments. They shouldn’t be overturned lightly. The bishops are very likely smarter than you.

Finally, your logic, honestly, kind of stinks. (A) There’s no right to gay marriage, hence no right is being overturned by prohibiting it through constitutional amendment. (B) There’ve been plenty of amendments restricting people’s liberties, including the most recent one, restricting the authority of Congress to enact its own pay raises. Let’s not forget prohibition. Even if there weren’t, there’d be no reason to suppose we shouldn’t do it now. Trends don’t equal traditions, and even traditions don’t equal Tradition. (C) Our enemies are not going to refrain from persecuting us just because we refuse to adopt certain strategies, and they have never so refrained in the past. (D) Society should be explicitly ordered in such a way as to promote holiness, and an a priori commitment to the Constitution or democracy in general over the teachings of the Church is probably at least venially sinful. And so on.

 

[1ke]

It has never been used to single out a group with the purpose of expressly denying them a right which is afforded to the majority.

The problem stems from the fact that you have been misled into believeing gay “marriage” is a right. It is not.

My question is can you be guilty of dissent when you agree with Church teaching but disagree with the political strategy?

It depends.

Firstly, the Bishop’s position on gay “marriage” is not a political strategy, it is a moral truth. We cannot support laws that violate moral truths, and we should not work against laws that uphold that truth. But, yes, there certainly is lattitude in how one approaches matters.

If one were to vote for gay marriage laws, one would commit the sin of scandal. If one were to work against a law protecting traditional marriage, again I would also say this becomes the sin of scandal.

If one debates and plays devil’s advocate for purely rhetorical purposes, one has done nothing wrong.

 

[Cbus]

Again…I do not support gay marriage, but I don’t think you are seeing the bigger picture. If we go down this road, it’s more likely that it will come back an be used against us in the same manner.

How about an amendment that says all Catholic institutions must comply with all Federal laws without exemption?. For example, the ADA. That would mean the Church would have to provide a rice based Eucharist for those with wheat allergies. The same logic would apply. The amendment is not infringing on your right to practice your religion, it’s just saying that you have to provide an acceptable alternative to those with legitimate health issues. That’s just a very minor example. It could be much worse.

I just think that you all look at it like you are the only ones who would want to restrict what people do. That’s not the case. If you can’t see the fact that more people in this country would rather restrict what Catholics do than what gays do, you’re blind. Once we start pushing our ideals on others through laws and amendments, we lose our argument when people start passing laws and amendments that push their secular ideals on us.

 

[Cbus]

OK…similar question, but it still falls under the topic title.

If it were politically feasible, would you support codifying into federal law all of the moral teachings of the Church? If not all, which ones would you exclude and which would you include?

 

[OurBeloved]

OK…similar question, but it still falls under the topic title.

If it were politically feasible, would you support codifying into federal law all of the moral teachings of the Church? If not all, which ones would you exclude and which would you include?

This is a very good question.

I think all moral truths can indeed be legislated.

But some moral laws will not be possible to be enforced due to constraints by practical issues or moral laws themselves. For an example, ‘do not lust’. The state cannot read minds and even if it could, it would be a violation of moral law to do so (at least without consent). So it cannot enforce against ‘lusting’ directly. A state can ban contraception but it cannot enter the bed room and make sure that the couple isn’t wearing contraception.

So rather than start legislating all morals, the more accurate answer would be that Law, as far as it concerns moral truths, should always reflect moral law than contradict it. So when it comes to the legal issue of sale of condoms for an example, the state would be right to ban them.

This is not an issue I have put loads of thought in to so it is very possible that I am wrong

 

[losh14]

Again…I do not support gay marriage, but I don’t think you are seeing the bigger picture. If we go down this road, it’s more likely that it will come back an be used against us in the same manner.

How about an amendment that says all Catholic institutions must comply with all Federal laws without exemption?

Okay, I see your case now. I’d be astonished if this was attempted through the constitution - our present challenges are more in the grey area between US Code and the administrative license given to implement that code. For example, the mandated coverage of contraception under health insurance is something that had quietly been pushed by HHS since the early 2000’s, if not earlier, by sending complaint letters to non-compliant institutions (such as DePaul University in Chicago, which is Catholic), and if necessary taking them to court. There was, and is, no stated rule in the US Code that exempts only churches. Even in the most recent health reform bill. The small exemptons to that mandate are straight-up HHS. It’s this mission creep of the agencies - and the general power grab that they result in - that I fear more than a constitutional amendment.

In general I think you can disagree with how just not why and be safe. Even where the bishops are generally very intelligent men, they often rely upon the advice of others - and if you have a particular expertise feel free to offer it. Respectfully.

If you can’t see the fact that more people in this country would rather restrict what Catholics do than what gays do…

Agree.

Once we start pushing our ideals on others through laws and amendments, we lose our
argument when people start passing laws and amendments that push their secular ideals on us.

Disagree. As citizens we are part of the process of legislation as voters and as recipients of the effects of these laws. If everyone votes on the basis of their personal values, and my values align with the Catholic Church, then I am voting as the Church believes.

At some point we have to fight moral relativism in the political sphere. I dislike that pornography exists ubiquitously but there’s only so far I’m willing to fight it - fine, let it be a free speech issue, just keep it in the realm of profane so it’s not on when my kids are up and keep them from reading it in the library. Sure, that’s legislating morality, and every voter, senator and representative does it. Or, if they’re not voting or legislating according to what they believe, what IS their basis of voting?

To take a trite and obvious example, at some point we decided treason was so immoral it merited the death penalty - regardless of outcome. That certainly goes against the personal values of turncoats.

 

[losh14]

OK…similar question, but it still falls under the topic title.

Seconded.

If it were politically feasible, would you support codifying into federal law all of the moral teachings of the Church? If not all, which ones would you exclude and which would you include?

I’m glad you’re restricting to moral teaching, rather than Canon Law which only applies to Catholics so to have a national system of law based off Canon Law would be incompatible with the Constitution.

But if we only take the moral teachings and use the Constitional Republic as our base for grafting onto, I’d say only those that are implementable. It’s feasible to ban the sale of contraception - the use, though … I’d rather not have bedroom inspections. Abortion banned, certainly, and along with Catholic moral teaching would be a wide-ranging support structure to help women facing unwanted pregnancies, as well as moral censorship that would hopefully restrict the depravity we face in secular culture. Adultery may actually be prosecuted if Catholic moral teaching were codified into Federal law - it’s actually a crime in most states and is particularly punished in the military (10 years hard labor + dishonorable discharge), but again gathering evidence would be difficult.

Note that freedom of religion would remain necessarily - religious tolerance is called for in the Catechism.

 

[twoangels]

I think whoever accused you of dissent was completely confusing the issue. There are other ways to not support gay marriage than ammendments. Personally I don’t like the proposed ammendment of defining marriage as union between a man and a woman. That definition misses the definition and only makes the issue to appear to be too much about distaste for homosexual behavior. Yes, the behavior is immoral, but in regards to society, obsessing about gay marriage is like walking through a town that has been bombed and freaking out over someone wanting to kick over a pile of bricks and then surrounding those bricks and protecting them all while saying its really about not wanting to redefine marriage.

The reality is that in practice an increasing number of marriages between heterosexuals do not meet the definition of what a marriage is. Having children is seen as optional, and there are people who cohabitate and only legally marry when they find their partner is on their death bed and want inheritence rights. Marriage is not seen as a duty and responsbility. They do not see marriage as the foundational structure of responsible parenthood among biological parents, where biological parents are the prefences, where adoption primarily serves the orphane and not the covetous demands of people with fertility issues or homosexuals. We would not be talking about gay marriage if we had not already overromanticized the institution of marriage. Even when my husband and I took the focus test, we were told we were wrong in seeing the welfare of our children as a higher priority than each other. The reason marital relationships are important is because of children, and it is only because people have so few children that grown adults have such long periods of time of being empty nesters. Traditional marriage is about being responsible with heterosexual activity. It is our faith that teaches that homosexual activity is immoral. That we cannot legislate but we can defend marriage.

By focusing on homosexual issues, the dialogue goes in all the wrong directions. People argue past each other. The other side sees our claim that it is about protecting marriage as just smoke and mirrors to cover up our discomfort and disgust at homosexuals. And for some that I have seen and read, that is indeed their only reason for involvement.

Unforunately our society no matter what side of the fense you are on tends to be built up on soundbites.

“The packaging of intellectual positions and views is one of the most active enterprises of some of the best minds of our day . . . but the packaging is often done so effectively that the viewer, listener, or reader does not make up his own mind at all. Instead, he inserts a packaged opinion into his mind, somewhat like inserting a cassette into a cassette player. He then pushes a button and “plays back” the opinion whenever it seems appropriate to do so. He has performed acceptably without having had to think.” - Mortimer J. Adler from “How to Read a Book”

Being Catholic doesn’t mean being an unthinking person. Thinking doesn’t mean you’re dessenting. Certainly there is an objective truth that the Church teaches, much like accepting the reality of gravity and mathematical equations. But sometimes these truths get packaged in a way that sound nice and that everyone repeats without thinking everything through. They often struggle with deciphering between the Truth that the Church teaches and questions like how to politically stand up for what is right.

 

[sw85]

Again…I do not support gay marriage, but I don’t think you are seeing the bigger picture. If we go down this road, it’s more likely that it will come back an be used against us in the same manner.

How about an amendment that says all Catholic institutions must comply with all Federal laws without exemption?. For example, the ADA. That would mean the Church would have to provide a rice based Eucharist for those with wheat allergies. The same logic would apply. The amendment is not infringing on your right to practice your religion, it’s just saying that you have to provide an acceptable alternative to those with legitimate health issues. That’s just a very minor example. It could be much worse.

I just think that you all look at it like you are the only ones who would want to restrict what people do. That’s not the case. If you can’t see the fact that more people in this country would rather restrict what Catholics do than what gays do, you’re blind. Once we start pushing our ideals on others through laws and amendments, we lose our argument when people start passing laws and amendments that push their secular ideals on us.

The problem, as I said above, is that our enemies don’t hesitate to persecute us just because we are refraining from doing so. Nor has this ever been the case. Nor is there any reason whatsoever to believe that this will be the case going forward. I don’t know where you get this idea from, but our enemies are doing it right now with the whole HHS mandate nonsense, and it’s not in response to anything the Church has done.

They hate us and they’ll destroy us for any reason or none at all. So screw 'em, I say. They’re a bunch of infanticidal perverts and they don’t get to decide what is and isn’t respectable.

OK…similar question, but it still falls under the topic title.

If it were politically feasible, would you support codifying into federal law all of the moral teachings of the Church? If not all, which ones would you exclude and which would you include?

Not “all” of them, but certainly the ones relevant to the social order. For instance, if I were king, I wouldn’t outlaw masturbation or entertaining lustful thoughts, but I would outlaw contraception, pornography, adultery, and sodomy. Mainly, I suppose, I would be outlawing those sins which include a scandalous element and are therefore of interest to the state.

 

[vz71]

Again…I do not support gay marriage, but I don’t think you are seeing the bigger picture. If we go down this road, it’s more likely that it will come back an be used against us in the same manner.

The fallacy is that the law proposed does not take any rights away from anyone.
All it does is define what exactly marriage is.

Assuming this ammendment went into effect, there is no change in rights for anyone.

I am sure our gay activist friends would like us all to believe that we are denying them the right to get married, but that is not the case. They are as free to marry as I am.
They fall under the same restrictions and rules that everyone does.

 

[vz71]

If it were politically feasible, would you support codifying into federal law all of the moral teachings of the Church? If not all, which ones would you exclude and which would you include?

Yes, I would.

 

[livingwordunity]

While I do NOT support gay marriage or question the Church teaching on the matter, I was opposed to the amendment. My reason was that amendments to the constitution have always been used to grantee rights of individuals and certain groups. It has never been used to single out a group with the purpose of expressly denying them a right which is afforded to the majority.

Why do you believe anyone would have a right to redefine marriage when it’s a matter of natural law that goes back to the beginning of the human race? If the government decided to make a law saying that gravity no longer exists would that action taken by the government make it the truth? The survival of the human race depends on marriage as it’s been defined by God which is revealed by the design of our bodies. In short, God made us male and female for a reason.