What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state

[Orionthehunter]

My central point really is in a pluralistic democratic system, diverse viewpoints need to be heard and if one religion tries to dominate all levels of society and life, and make its theology law, then we have a theocracy, like that of Iran or Saudi Arabia. Given the records of theocracy in the past in terms of their violent intolerance and persecutions of ‘heretics’ as well as religions minorities, I am not sure if that is the sort of governance I want. The Vatican should limit its power to governance of the Church and keep itself separate from temporal and political matters (in the sense the church tries to wield secular as well as religious power).

I agree that the “Church” shouldn’t govern. I don’t support a theocracy because it is a distraction from its primary mission- Leading souls to Truth and Salvation. However, this doesn’t preclude the “church” from governing. As a citizen, I have every right and responsibility to advocate for being governed by the government I desire. The fact that the basis for my positions is grounded in my faith is irrelevent. Just as it is irrelevant that an atheist’s positions are grounded in his/her world view.

Furthermore, the idea that when the Church provides Teaching to the church on moral positions that may result in grass roots activiism is outside the “limit” of proper Church activity is BS.

There are FIVE rights enumerated in the 1st Amendment (freedom of speech, religion and press plus assembly and petition). I am a member of a professional association, was on the board of a social justice entity, and a Catholic. I freely associate with these groups that alert me to public policy initiatives of interest to any of these groups. If moved to advocate on behalf of positions they recommend, I am fully within my rights. Furthermore, they are within their rights to educate me of these issues, including the Catholic Church.

If in the “pluralistic democratic system”, certain public policy positions of the Catholic Church become institutionalized in law, it is not a theocracy but the adoption of these positions by the body politic. The blatant attempt to marginalize Catholics or members of other religious entities by demeaning their positions as a “theocratization” of our government is to be admonished.

Frankly, I’m sick and tired of the argument that my Catholic positions and associated rights are inferior to those positions I take in concert with my professional association or public interest group. And, those who advocate they are inferior are practicing a form of bigotry.

 

[fix]

That paragraph in the CCC does not mention what makes an authority legitimate or not. It simply says we are to honor those who have received authority from God.

When I advocate radical decentralization of power, I’m not advocating a society without law. This is always the misunderstanding. The tendency in any society is for civil law to develop in a voluntary setting from the bottom up. Whenever this tendency is disrupted, it is someone or some institution claiming power (that they are not entitled to) over other men’s lives. A society without the Leviathan is not one without law. Rather, with radical decentralization, people will realistically be able to choose the type of society they live in, allowing for the creation of law that adequately reflects society’s needs.

Not sure what you are getting at here?

The Church values the democratic system inasmuch as it ensures the participation of citizens in making political choices, guarantees to the governed the possibility both of electing and holding accountable those who govern them, and of replacing them through peaceful means when appropriate.93 Thus she cannot encourage the formation of narrow ruling groups which usurp the power of the State for individual interests or for ideological ends…

Nor does the Church close her eyes to the danger of fanaticism or fundamentalism among those who, in the name of an ideology which purports to be scientific or religious, claim the right to impose on others their own concept of what is true and good.* Christian truth *is not of this kind. Since it is not an ideology, the Christian faith does not presume to imprison changing socio-political realities in a rigid schema, and it recognizes that human life is realized in history in conditions that are diverse and imperfect. Furthermore, in constantly reaffirming the transcendent dignity of the person, the Church’s method is always that of respect for freedom.94

But freedom attains its full development only by accepting the truth. In a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation and man is exposed to the violence of passion and to manipulation, both open and hidden. The Christian upholds freedom and serves it, constantly offering to others the truth which he has known (cf. Jn 8:31-32), in accordance with the missionary nature of his vocation. While paying heed to every fragment of truth which he encounters in the life experience and in the culture of individuals and of nations, he will not fail to affirm in dialogue with others all that his faith and the correct use of reason have enabled him to understand.95…
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...f_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html
Centesimus annus

 

[fix]

in terms of various religions co-existing in society, and indeed several different denominations of the same religion co-existing together, we come across the question of which religion’s morality do we legislate into law and which should have preference. No doubt Muslims might get irate as would atheists if Catholic moral theology was simply passed on into law by a Catholic politician, Prime Minister or President, as Catholic monarchs did back in older ages.

Again, it is not about so called Catholic morality. All men can grasp the basic natural law.

My central point really is in a pluralistic democratic system, diverse viewpoints need to be heard and if one religion tries to dominate all levels of society and life, and make its theology law, then we have a theocracy, like that of Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Who has called for a theocracy?

The Vatican should limit its power to governance of the Church and keep itself separate from temporal and political matters (in the sense the church tries to wield secular as well as religious power).

Who has said the Vatican wants to govern the USA?

 

[RyanL]

Several schools of philosophy and Jurisprudence which have some very intricate and well thought out systems of morality and ethics exist, and have existed, in the world which make no appeal to a lawgiving God or appeal to divine revelation.

Hopefully this is not too off-topic…

Having studied several schools of philosophy and jurisprudence, I can say with some confidence that, contrary to this assertion, most are not very well thought out. They do exist, but they are typically either (1) logically self-contradictory or (2) ultimately not at all ethical (in the sense in which they cannot prevent what would otherwise be considered ghastly atrocities).

Inasmuch as a particular school mirrors the Natural Law ethos, it is correct. Inasmuch as the particular school departs from that basis, it is ultimately rubbish and should be rejected as such. This is not to say there aren’t good people who believe these things, but rather the people are good despite believing these things.

Whether or not people “agree” with the propositions you listed isn’t the point – for any given proposition, you can always find someone who won’t “agree”. The question is: is the particular model being proposed morally and logically supportable, internally consistent, experientially verified (on a societal level) and individually equitable? When the answer to any of these parts is “no” we should be exceedingly hesitant to embrace the model.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Holly3278]

I totally agree with the statement that is the subject of this thread. The government has no business in what goes on between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedroom/hotel room/ whatever else is a private place.

 

[Pier]

I totally agree with the statement that is the subject of this thread. The government has no business in what goes on between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedroom/hotel room/ whatever else is a private place.

And it shouldn’t be collecting taxes to support organizations & research that have anything at all to do with sterilization (birth control) abortion, embryonic stem cell studies, euthanasia, and gay marriage…

All private matters that have been supported by tax $$$.

 

[goofyjim]

And it shouldn’t be collecting taxes to support organizations & research that have anything at all to do with sterilization (birth control) abortion, embryonic stem cell studies, euthanasia, and gay marriage…

All private matters that have been supported by tax $$$.

Maybe it shouldn’t be collecting taxes at all. Even to support religious causes.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy, more in some places than others, but especially in the bedroom. but, on the other hand, the government has a fundamental duty to detect, prevent or punish crime.

assuming a proper showing of facts before a court (i.e., probable cause that a crime is being committed), the government could obtain a search warrant and then would have a legitimate right to install cameras, mics or other intrusive devices, or peep into anyone’s bedroom.

a lot of factors go into this balancing of private vs. public interests, and the formula is complex, as any primer on fourth amendment law demonstrates. some minor offenses will never justify this level of intrusion (e.g., smoking a joint), other serious crimes might.

so the answer to the thread question is: what goes on between consenting adults might or might not be the business of the state, which might or might not be able to act on it.

 

[Genesis315]

To clarify, the question exludes any extreme cases. So for example two young adults have pre-marital sex or a husband cheats on her wife. What is the authentic Catholic teaching on this matter? Should state its hands of their bussiness or should the state make such things illegal? To what extend can a sin be legal?

Any sin can be made illegal. But the state does not have to make every sin illegal. Necessity and common good often mandate that the state tolerate certain sins for the sake of peace and order. It would be ridiculous to have a cop walk around with you wherever you go to nab you if you commit some sin. Likewise, in a pluralistic society outlawing certain sins may result in civil war so they are tolerated.

There is no general teaching on which sins can and cannot be tolerated. There is teaching on some specific sins which cannot be: murder and abortion come to mind as well as various other affronts to human dignity enumerated by the Second Vatican Council and papal social teaching.) Likewise, there is teaching on what sins the state cannot sanction as official institutions–things like sodomy, racisim, and atheistic communism come to mind here.

But the rest is up to the judgment of the state. Most states Catholic and non-Catholic outlawed illicit sexual behaviors in private until very, very recently. So I don’t see a problem according to Catholic teaching with outlawing private sexual acts, but likewise, I think this could be something that can be tolerated without sin.