W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
You’re right, that’s not rational at all. Its a good thing I never said that. I said they are both moral evils. Which they clearly are.
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
Let’s look at Thomas More in light of the OP. Thomas is a fascinating person. There is a lot about him that is not known by the general Catholic population or even the Anglican population, not because it’s a state secret or a Church secret. It’s the usual thing. The lay faithful are rarely interested in the hidden lives of our saints. We seem to be attached to the externals.
Let’s begin with a little known fact. Thomas More was a professed member of the Franciscan Brothers of Penance, today known as the Secular Franciscan Order. He was professed under the pre-Vatican II rule and constitutions. This is important for a number of reasons.
- The rule said that it was immoral for a layman to make oaths to a monarch or to pledge allegiance to a nation.
- The rule said that the laity had a moral duty to obey the pope as much as the clergy and vowed religious do.
- The rule said that the members of the secular order had a moral obligation to obey Francis on all the above.
Thomas was obedient to the Church first, then to the state. But that is only part of what we can learn from his life.
Thomas did vocally denounce the oath. However, his Franciscan superior told him to be silent. The superior feared that Thomas would put his family and the entire Franciscans community in danger. It was the superior’s hope that if the oath was met with silence, rather than open hostility, Henry VIII would blow off the silence. Unfortunately, Henry wanted Thomas by his side, because Thomas was trusted and Henry was not. He allowed others the benefit of silence, but not Thomas. However, once his trial was over, Thomas did vocalize his moral conviction on the oath. He went to his death proclaiming that the State did not have the right to usurp the Church and the moral law.
He and John Fisher worked behind Henry’s back to sabotage Henry’s annulment trial, because they knew that it was a sham. It was a case of the state wanting to change moral law to suit its ends. Fisher and More teach us that the State may not do this and that the citizen has the right to sabotage the state’s efforts. What the citizen may not do is endanger the the lives of the innocent. Whatever, he can do legally, clandestinely and under the radar, that will not do harm to the innocent, is allowed, as long as it’s moral. You can’t steal from the King do impoverish him so that he can’t take his case to court. That’s a “NO no.”
Thomas answerers the question of tolerance of unjust and immoral laws in his famous work, Utopia. Which by the way, is not a Socialist treatise as some people say. The story comes out of the common life lived by the Third Order Franciscans of the time. But that’s material for another thread. In Utopia, More uses allegory to show us that we must imitate the Passive Will of God.
God condemns evil. At times God intervenes in human history for the good. However, he does not do harm when he intervenes. Shooting the US Congress to stop them from enacting evil laws is not what God has in mind. That would be doing harm to avoid an evil. Using the means that are available to us in order to stop evil laws is a moral duty. More shows us how God uses the means available to him to stop evil, without doing harm to man’s dignity and freedom.
Bl. John Paul II spoke about this in Evangelium Vitae.
**Democracy cannot be idolized to the point of making it a substitute for morality or a panacea for immorality. Fundamentally, democracy is a “system” and as such is a means and not an end. Its “moral” value is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other form of human behavior, must be subject: in other words, its morality depends on the morality of the ends which it pursues and of the means which it employs. **
Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law.
Bl. John Paul is echoing what More had said more than 500 years ago and Aquinas before him. This is not new to Christendom. We do not owe allegiance to the corruption of law. When the secular state corrupts the exercise of law, we have the right to rebel and to use whatever legal and moral means are at our disposal to stop the state, just as God who intervenes in human affairs for our good, without doing harm to our nature and our dignity.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
jmcrae
Guest
The whole question is premised on the assumption that people of faith aren’t actually members of society. That, somehow, there is “society” and then there is “people of faith” and they are two different sets of people.
This is incorrect. People of faith have just as much right to “interfere with” the laws of the country they live in as anyone else.
We didn’t get laws favouring homosexual marriage by some kind of automatic process - individual members of society worked within the justice system, and campaigned (ie: “interfered with society’s laws” as they stood at that time) to make the change.
Church members have just as much right to try to get the laws back the same as they were before.
Or are we now going to say that if you have certain religious beliefs, you aren’t allowed to participate fully as a citizen of your own country? (Where did we hear that one, once before?)
J
JRKH
Guest
JR,Let’s look at Thomas More in light of the OP. Thomas is a fascinating person. There is a lot about him that is not known by the general Catholic population or even the Anglican population, not because it’s a state secret or a Church secret. It’s the usual thing. The lay faithful are rarely interested in the hidden lives of our saints. We seem to be attached to the externals.
Let’s begin with a little known fact. Thomas More was a professed member of the Franciscan Brothers of Penance, today known as the Secular Franciscan Order. He was professed under the pre-Vatican II rule and constitutions. This is important for a number of reasons.
After completing your formation you solemnly promise to obey the rule. This has not changed. Parts of the rule were changed by Paul VI in 1978, just before he died. But More lived long before this. He was bound by this rule under several penalties: a) dismissal from the Franciscan Order, b) grave sin of disobedience to St. Francis and c) excommunication for supporting a king that was in conflict with the Church.
- The rule said that it was immoral for a layman to make oaths to a monarch or to pledge allegiance to a nation.
- The rule said that the laity had a moral duty to obey the pope as much as the clergy and vowed religious do.
- The rule said that the members of the secular order had a moral obligation to obey Francis on all the above.
Thomas was obedient to the Church first, then to the state. But that is only part of what we can learn from his life.
Thomas did vocally denounce the oath. However, his Franciscan superior told him to be silent. The superior feared that Thomas would put his family and the entire Franciscans community in danger. It was the superior’s hope that if the oath was met with silence, rather than open hostility, Henry VIII would blow off the silence. Unfortunately, Henry wanted Thomas by his side, because Thomas was trusted and Henry was not. He allowed others the benefit of silence, but not Thomas. However, once his trial was over, Thomas did vocalize his moral conviction on the oath. He went to his death proclaiming that the State did not have the right to usurp the Church and the moral law.
He and John Fisher worked behind Henry’s back to sabotage Henry’s annulment trial, because they knew that it was a sham. It was a case of the state wanting to change moral law to suit its ends. Fisher and More teach us that the State may not do this and that the citizen has the right to sabotage the state’s efforts. What the citizen may not do is endanger the the lives of the innocent. Whatever, he can do legally, clandestinely and under the radar, that will not do harm to the innocent, is allowed, as long as it’s moral. You can’t steal from the King do impoverish him so that he can’t take his case to court. That’s a “NO no.”
Thomas answerers the question of tolerance of unjust and immoral laws in his famous work, Utopia. Which by the way, is not a Socialist treatise as some people say. The story comes out of the common life lived by the Third Order Franciscans of the time. But that’s material for another thread. In Utopia, More uses allegory to show us that we must imitate the Passive Will of God.
God condemns evil. At times God intervenes in human history for the good. However, he does not do harm when he intervenes. Shooting the US Congress to stop them from enacting evil laws is not what God has in mind. That would be doing harm to avoid an evil. Using the means that are available to us in order to stop evil laws is a moral duty. More shows us how God uses the means available to him to stop evil, without doing harm to man’s dignity and freedom.
Bl. John Paul II spoke about this in Evangelium Vitae.
**Democracy cannot be idolized to the point of making it a substitute for morality or a panacea for immorality. Fundamentally, democracy is a “system” and as such is a means and not an end. Its “moral” value is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other form of human behavior, must be subject: in other words, its morality depends on the morality of the ends which it pursues and of the means which it employs. **
Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law.
Bl. John Paul is echoing what More had said more than 500 years ago and Aquinas before him. This is not new to Christendom. We do not owe allegiance to the corruption of law. When the secular state corrupts the exercise of law, we have the right to rebel and to use whatever legal and moral means are at our disposal to stop the state, just as God who intervenes in human affairs for our good, without doing harm to our nature and our dignity.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Thanks for the info on St Thomas More.
But you really didn’t address the main part of my post.
In your post you used terms like “Cannot tolerate” and “right to rebel” these are words which can carry very radical connotations. Surely you are not saying that armed relbellion of some sort is justified by the Church.
So just what does “cannot tolerate” mean? If we cannot overthrow the government in some radical fashon order to change the law, then it seems we must, by default, tolerate the immoral law until such time as we can legally change it.
Would you agree with this?
Peace
James
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
…
We do not owe allegiance to the corruption of law. When the secular state corrupts the exercise of law, we have the right to rebel and to use whatever legal and moral means are at our disposal to stop the state, just as God who intervenes in human affairs for our good, without doing harm to our nature and our dignity.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Excellent posts, Br. JR and jmcrae, with the lifted parts worth repeating.
The gay crowd and their supporters, in particular, repeat this unwarranted mantra that gays and gay couples are being discriminated by the rest of society who do not want to go along with their push for same-sex marriage and adoption of children / same-sex parenting, to normalize what has never been normal in human history, through the enactment of positive or secular laws, contrary to natural and divine laws. Man-made laws (which positive and secular laws are) do not necessarily confer inherent rights. Hence, interference so they don’t reach such objectives is the moral thing to do.
,
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
The whole question is premised on the assumption that people of faith aren’t actually members of society. That, somehow, there is “society” and then there is “people of faith” and they are two different sets of people.
This is incorrect. People of faith have just as much right to “interfere with” the laws of the country they live in as anyone else.
We didn’t get laws favouring homosexual marriage by some kind of automatic process - individual members of society worked within the justice system, and campaigned (ie: “interfered with society’s laws” as they stood at that time) to make the change.
Church members have just as much right to try to get the laws back the same as they were before.
Or are we now going to say that if you have certain religious beliefs, you aren’t allowed to participate fully as a citizen of your own country? (Where did we hear that one, once before?)
K
Kardinal
Guest
This is an excellent point. The way I’ve put it before is…Church members have just as much right to try to get the laws back the same as they were before.
Or are we now going to say that if you have certain religious beliefs, you aren’t allowed to participate fully as a citizen of your own country? (Where did we hear that one, once before?)
“Why are my views forced to sit out because they are informed by my faith, whereas yours are welcome, because they are informed by your LACK of faith? Why is it imposing my faith on others for my views to be represented, whereas it is not imposing your LACK of faith on others for your views to be represented?”
Religious freedom means everyone gets to represent their religion in the arena of ideas.
C
Christopher68
Guest
Yet one is illegal and one is not. And that is as it should be. You don’t have a right to not be offended.
J
JReducation
Guest
I don’t want anyone to go in a shoot the Congress. But as I explained above, we can certainly the examples of John Fisher and Thomas More. They did everything that was moral and legal to sabotage Henry’s plans.
To not tolerate = our mothers.
“This is not acceptable and it has to change, NOW!”Right to rebel = right to disobey.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
The fact that a moral evil is legal, is the point of conversation. Moral evil should not be legal. Abortion is a legal moral evil. Prostitution is a legal moral evil. Slavery was a legal moral evil. My argument is simple.
Premise1 A moral evil cannot be a right derived from G-d, by definition.
Premise2 Society recognizes a duty to prevent moral evil, in that we already do so.
Premise3 Blasphemy is a moral evil.
Conclusion Blasphemy should also be illegal
If you do not care for the conclusion than you can show how my argument leads to a logical contradiction, or a logical absurdity. Thus disproving my deduction. If you cannot, then it seems that you should agree as well that Blasphemy is a moral evil. In that way it is no different than any moral evil that we already outlaw.
K
Kardinal
Guest
I believe the secular order is enjoined to prevent and work against those things which are opposed to the Natural law. Does blasphemy violate the Natural Law?
M
Mintaka
Guest
There is a difference between moral evils which affect the person (in this case, God), and moral evils which affect the person and the state. Non-violent, non-theft moral wrongs against a person are usually called “torts”. Civil suits take care of these, if the person wronged cares to sue.
Blasphemy is pretty much the same as libel or slander. Since God clearly does not choose to sue in civil court or to exercise His jurisdiction in most such cases (leaving them aside until He judges all their acts at once), far be it from us to presume to sue for Him.
Blasphemy is pretty much the same as libel or slander. Since God clearly does not choose to sue in civil court or to exercise His jurisdiction in most such cases (leaving them aside until He judges all their acts at once), far be it from us to presume to sue for Him.
C
Christopher68
Guest
By your reasoning, anything that is a ‘moral evil’ should be illegal?? So if you were in charge, you would outlaw all forms of contraception? And you would make masturbation illegal as well?
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
Don’t present red herrings. Present a logical argument. Where is my logic wrong? Does it represent a logical contradiction, or a logical absurdity? If you think so than demonstrate the fault.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
There is no nature apart from G-d so there is no Law apart from His.
C
Christopher68
Guest
There is no red herring whatsoever. You stated that ‘moral evils’ should be illegal. I presented two examples of what you might interpret as moral evils, and asked your opinion as to whether or not you thought they should be illegal. Why are you uncomfortable with presenting your opinion on this?
Your various posts on this thread make me question whether or not you understand the nature of ‘rights’ in a pluralistic society. Individuals have have the right to exercise sovereignty over their own lives and actions, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others. In the previous examples you gave above, one of the examples clearly infringes on the rights of others, while one clearly does not.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
I presented my argument. The appropriate way to argue against a deductive argument is to attack the premise’s or conclusion for entailing a logical fault. Be it a logical contradiction, or a reduction to a logical absurdity, ala David Lewis’ Modal Realism. You didn’t do these things. You presented information not germane to the queation of the validity of the premise’ or conclusion. This is exactly what a red herring is. Wiki defines
The items of significance, are the premise and conclusions. You have indeed introduced a Red Herring into the argument because my opinion on those matters has no bearing on the validity of the items of significance.
I’m not. I haven’t addressed them for the reasons stated above. Why are you uncomfortable attacking the premise of my argument?
Premise1 A moral evil cannot be a right derived from G-d, by definition.
Premise2 Society recognizes a duty to prevent moral evil, in that we already do so.
Premise3 Blasphemy is a moral evil.
Conclusion Blasphemy should also be illegal
So one cannot have a right to blaspheme.
T
tomarin
Guest
The Church has a responsibility and duty to uphold the moral order of the larger society of which it is a part. To many people today gay marriage (an oxymoron if ever there was one) or abortion are not moral issues but we see them as deepy fraught with morality. So I guess what you’re asking is are we right to see these issues in which the Church is liable to “interfere” as moral issues?
K
Kardinal
Guest
You are welcome to present your argument in whatever fashion you see fit. But this is not a logic class, my friend. If your objective is to convince anyone that your argument should be adopted as a matter of personal or public policy, it will not be accomplished through pure logic, nor are we constrained by your arbitrary rules about how to address your argument.
If you wish to have a useful productive dialogue in which both parties can learn and teach effectively, I would suggest, my brother, that you perhaps come out from behind your logical syllogism and engage your interlocutor in such productive dialogue. If your only objective is to present a logical syllogism and then defend it, I don’t think you’ll find many who are interested in such discussion.
K
Kardinal
Guest
Conclusion, based on your original syllogism: All moral evils should be illegal.
Premise 1: Masturbation is a moral evil.
Premise 2: The use of artificial contraception is a moral evil.
Premise 3: To worship any God but the Roman Catholic God is a moral evil.
Conclusion: Therefore masturbation, the use of artificial contraception, and the worship of any God but the Roman Catholic God should be illegal.
Do you agree with the conclusion, Petey?
- Status