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

[Rodrigo]

Dealing with the relations between morality and law is always a though call and that is why I think we should try to establish some gradation. Pope Leo’s words ( based on St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas ) brought by Member Fix are very clarifying, but still leave come room for discussion. For example, although it could be in the common good’s interest to outlaw homosexuality ( to preserve the sanctity of the family ), would it be good for the society at large to have a powerfull government with a “sticky” nose checking every single bedroom searching for criminals? I believe that the Framers of the American Constitution ( who, by the way were conservatives – nothing to do with the Republican Party of course- not libertarians ) decided to protect the right of privacy, establishing limits for the government action, despite sometimes protecting by the law heavens for the enemies of the common good.
In short, I think the government should rule by law some aspects of the morality, but first and foremost, we, the people, must have a way to avoid state excesses. Otherwise we would live in a totalitarian state like member Janus told. Don’t forget that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Hi to everybody, it is an honor to be discussing with you, folks.

 

[Bennie_P]

The question should be does the state have the right, the power and the responsibilty to regulate behavoir that does harm to society?

Things to consider.

Behaviors that spread disease - should the government regulate such actions that puts the rest of society at risk?

Do certain behavorials carry higher risk factors to transmit disease?

Should the state be concerned about promoting safer and healthier behaviors?

Do morality standards have a bases in promoting a healthy society? as opposed to a disodered and unhealthy society?

The answer to all the above questions is yes and the answer to your question is yes. The state is in existance to protect all of society> Just because a minority of society refuse to see or fail to see the harm their selfish wants and actions does upon society, they shouldn’t be free to demand the rest of society to accept their behavior as normal and the state should promote safe, healthy and moral behavior. Even if that behavior is conducted in the bedroom.

 

[Rodrigo]

Let me state my position in a clearer way:

 1- We should be extremely cautious in granting the State the power to choose what is the "healthier" way of life. Like the late economist Ludwig Von Mises once said, if we let the government to coerce us in leading what it sees as a healthy life, on what ground could we object if it decides one day to dictate what we should or should not read? After all, the government officials could well argue that they would be helping us achieving a healthier mental life. And what about the religious life? Don´t forget that Marx believed religion to be the "people's opium".

Only in rare occasions should the State have a say about a person’s health ( ex. vaccinations ), and even there, sometimes with controversy ( many doctors oppose state forced vaccination, for instance ). So I think this is not and should not be a health related question. It is a moral one.

 2- We can not take for granted that a powerful government, with the capacity of checking our most intimate relationships, will be a good one. Quite the contrary! This kind of power will be most likely exercised by those least prepared to do so. Those who enjoy meddling in other peoples lives and finding out third parties nasty behavior patterns and so on. Besides, being so powerful, what makes us think that it will not go off tracks? Lord Acton was right, and the power really tends to corrupt.

 3- Keeping our streets, parks and airwaves free of pornography, homosexuality, drugs, etc. is one thing. Keeping every home free of sin, is another quite different. This remembers me of a Hitchcock's tale I can't remember the name, but recall the issue. It was about a man who devised a special gadget for shortening the bad guys. Whoever was bad, would overnight become very short. The inventor was the first victim of his own invention. In short, there is nothing more sinful that trying to get rid of sin althogether. As our Lord Jesus Christ told us, his Kingdom is not from this earth. If we try to build a paradyse on earth, we will be reenacting the original sin, because we will be attempting to be like "gods".

 To live with sin, and among the sinful is the price we pay for being human. The war on sin ( and on the culture of death ) begins inside ourselves. We must lead sanctifying lives and outlaw the marketing of evil, for the sake of the common good. But we should bear in mind that the struggle between Liberty and Necessity is an enduring battle that will never end till the Time itself ends ( Apocalypse ). Until our new begining, we are still going to be a Beauty Ruined and every attempt to restore it by force will end up in more misery and a greater sin.

 

[Janus]

At what point in history did we stop treating offenses as torts and start treating them as crimes? That was surely a sorry point indeed. When things were torts, offenses were viewed in their proper perspective – you can not pursue prosecution against someone unless you can show harm. In the case of the things we are discussing, no one can show harm, and hence nothing illegal has been done. That is not to say that sin has not been done, only that the law has not been broken.

Fix, I see that you quoted Leo XIII. I have nothing but respect for the papacy, but it is still a good thing that the vicious anti-liberalism (in the classical sense) of Leo XIII has slowly faded to the background.

Furthermore, if you want to pursue this notion that so-called “crimes against society” should be punished by the government, then I assume you will broaden the scope to include all potentially destabilizing sins. Will we have a Department of Moderation, complete with officers enforcing food and drink mins/maxs all the time? How about a national exercise plan? Will we need permission from Big Brother before engaging in intercourse, lest some couple does something they shouldn’t do? Will permarital sex be illegal? Obviously birth control will be banned. Will you be monitoring latex factories to make sure they’re not supplying the black market with illegal condoms? Will tobacco still be allowed at all? If so, will there be quotas on how many cigars I can buy in a certain month? I assume also that private ownership of newspapers and media will be abolished, given that Pope Leo XIII was not a fan of free speech.

So how far would we go in a perfect “Catholic” theocracy? (I put quotes there because I believe that there is nothing Catholic about constantly looking for reasons to lock up your neighbor). Or, instead, we can create a society where people feel responsible for their own actions and behavior. Self-destructive persons would not be dealt with by the impersonal, bureaucratic arm of the state, but rather by individuals on a community level. The Church would regain for herself the primary role of caring for the poor, blessing marriages, counseling the sinners, etc. With people no longer working for half the year to pay off the debt they “owe” to the government (taxes), people would have more money (and/or time) to devote those in need. Now, the line of thinking goes: if I don’t do it, someone else (the state) will. But the state doesn’t do it; and when they try to, they fail.

 

[po18guy]

Private? Is that as opposed to being on national television? How many adults? Why is there age discrimination here? How about a 17 or 18 year old? 11 year old? How about murder? Suicide? cannibalism? Am I really certain they consented? What about drug use diminishing consent?

In every society except anarchy, the state sets the rules. And as long as those rules do not counter the rules of God, the Church accepts that.

The difference between today and 2,000 years ago is that WE are Caeser. Early Christians lived subject to his whims, and were taught to obey and endure. They had no influence over him, or the power he represented. However, God knows that we constitute our own government and thus, bear some responsibility for our laws and ordinances. We are already accountable to Him for both our public and private demeanor.

 

[Bennie_P]

At what point in history did we stop treating offenses as torts and start treating them as crimes? That was surely a sorry point indeed. When things were torts, offenses were viewed in their proper perspective – you can not pursue prosecution against someone unless you can show harm. In the case of the things we are discussing, no one can show harm, and hence nothing illegal has been done. That is not to say that sin has not been done, only that the law has not been broken.

Fix, I see that you quoted Leo XIII. I have nothing but respect for the papacy, but it is still a good thing that the vicious anti-liberalism (in the classical sense) of Leo XIII has slowly faded to the background.

Furthermore, if you want to pursue this notion that so-called “crimes against society” should be punished by the government, then I assume you will broaden the scope to include all potentially destabilizing sins. Will we have a Department of Moderation, complete with officers enforcing food and drink mins/maxs all the time? How about a national exercise plan? Will we need permission from Big Brother before engaging in intercourse, lest some couple does something they shouldn’t do? Will permarital sex be illegal? Obviously birth control will be banned. Will you be monitoring latex factories to make sure they’re not supplying the black market with illegal condoms? Will tobacco still be allowed at all? If so, will there be quotas on how many cigars I can buy in a certain month? I assume also that private ownership of newspapers and media will be abolished, given that Pope Leo XIII was not a fan of free speech.

So how far would we go in a perfect “Catholic” theocracy? (I put quotes there because I believe that there is nothing Catholic about constantly looking for reasons to lock up your neighbor). Or, instead, we can create a society where people feel responsible for their own actions and behavior. Self-destructive persons would not be dealt with by the impersonal, bureaucratic arm of the state, but rather by individuals on a community level. The Church would regain for herself the primary role of caring for the poor, blessing marriages, counseling the sinners, etc. With people no longer working for half the year to pay off the debt they “owe” to the government (taxes), people would have more money (and/or time) to devote those in need. Now, the line of thinking goes: if I don’t do it, someone else (the state) will. But the state doesn’t do it; and when they try to, they fail.

In many states and countries pre-martial sex is illegal and so is adultery. Birth control should be banned, it is a form eugenics and in many forms it is actually murdering babies by causing abortions. for sure abortion should be illegal. Tobacco will be outlawed, smoking seems to be the only sin that all can agree on to outlaw. That makes society look like it is lookng out for the health of society while it continues to element laws and standards on morality. by the way outside of purifiying the race, purifying the air was on Hitler’s must do list. Hitlers other great hatred was against smokers. Don’t you find it strange that as immorality seems to becoming normalized, such as in homosexual activity, society is cracking down on child pornography possession (as it should). but from what I understand 90 percent, maybe more, of the porn web sites on the internet will have some varible degree of child porn on it? By accident doing a google search on religion one can accidently open up a porn site, just think what can happen if you google “gay” love - “boy meets boy”, “girl meets girl”, oops, once you open it up it is on your toolbar history and possibly on your hard drive, it looks like you erased it, but:shrug: - your busted! Actually we as a society are a society of puritans, we just accept the wrong type of purity. You worry about a theocracy and the papacy, but we are all ready living 23 years past 1984, it came, it was true, but the Minister of Truth pulled the blinders over all of our eyes and is just waiting to make the final kill. Ole’

 

[Rodrigo]

Actually we as a society are a society of puritans, we just accept the wrong type of purity. You worry about a theocracy and the papacy, but we are all ready living 23 years past 1984, it came, it was true, but the Minister of Truth pulled the blinders over all of our eyes and is just waiting to make the final kill. Ole’

As Chesterton rightly believed, every inch of the universe is in a dispute between good and evil. And yes, we are accepting the wrong kind of purity and yes, the Minister of Truth rules. However, we must, as catholics, stand on the side of Truth. Even knowing evil is powerful these days, backed by a powerful media and a destructive pop culture, we would be feeding it by strengthening the Leviathan. On the book of Samuel 8 God warns the chosen people about the dangers of serving a King. We should know better. We should not try to find some “good Minister of Truth”. Instead, we should abolish the offices performing those functions. We should not enforce a puritan society, but a free one where men could pursue the Truth.
We are in a war against evil, and the modern Leviathan is no reliable allied. It did and will do more harm than good if left unleashed. Nowadays we live in nation-states resembling Empires, extremely centralized, constituted by atomized individuals lacking real and true morality standards. The Carholic Church was the most important institution mankind has ever had ( middle ages ). After the fall of Frederick II ( and the weakening of the Sacred Roman Empire ) the monarchs started to corrode the Church’s power and the modern Leviathan began to grow. Reformation and Revolutions soon followed. Modernity and the Culture of Death are the latest chapter. If we desire to restore morality, faith and to beat evil, we should limit the government power, streghtening the Church and all sorts of community based policies. To let a sneacking state official to break into our homes because there may be a “sinner” ( according to some bureaucratic standard ) inside is the most horrendous thing mankind could allow. The Leviathan would definitely win. The Church would lose.

 

[Janus]

As Chesterton rightly believed, every inch of the universe is in a dispute between good and evil. And yes, we are accepting the wrong kind of purity and yes, the Minister of Truth rules. However, we must, as catholics, stand on the side of Truth. Even knowing evil is powerful these days, backed by a powerful media and a destructive pop culture, we would be feeding it by strengthening the Leviathan. On the book of Samuel 8 God warns the chosen people about the dangers of serving a King. We should know better. We should not try to find some “good Minister of Truth”. Instead, we should abolish the offices performing those functions. We should not enforce a puritan society, but a free one where men could pursue the Truth.
We are in a war against evil, and the modern Leviathan is no reliable allied. It did and will do more harm than good if left unleashed. Nowadays we live in nation-states resembling Empires, extremely centralized, constituted by atomized individuals lacking real and true morality standards. The Carholic Church was the most important institution mankind has ever had ( middle ages ). After the fall of Frederick II ( and the weakening of the Sacred Roman Empire ) the monarchs started to corrode the Church’s power and the modern Leviathan began to grow. Reformation and Revolutions soon followed. Modernity and the Culture of Death are the latest chapter. If we desire to restore morality, faith and to beat evil, we should limit the government power, streghtening the Church and all sorts of community based policies. To let a sneacking state official to break into our homes because there may be a “sinner” ( according to some bureaucratic standard ) inside is the most horrendous thing mankind could allow. The Leviathan would definitely win. The Church would lose.

Amen. We need to realize that tendency of the State is to stand against the Church, dividing loyalties wherever it can. Just looking at a sacrament such as marriage, the instinct among people is to turn to the state for permission first, only then looking to the Church for pre-Cana classes and the like. How sad.

 

[cynic]

Why must something be illegal for it to generally be considered immoral? Adultery is still regarded as abhorrent, even in todays society, but isn’t illegal. The generally acceptance of homosexuality as ‘ok’, with the gay rights movement, preceeded the law change. Not having something illegal doesn’t mean that society accepts such behaviour. Pornography and abortion should be illegal, but what goes on between two consenting adults in private is between the individual and their maker.

 

[fix]

You worry about a theocracy and the papacy, but we are all ready living 23 years past 1984, it came, it was true, but the Minister of Truth pulled the blinders over all of our eyes and is just waiting to make the final kill. Ole’

That is basically my point. We already have the state, and all of society, imposing their immorality on all of us now. Where did we get the idea there is some right to do wrong simply because the other person consents and no one else can see it?

And why do we think their is no link between such acts and the rest of society?

 

[Janus]

That is basically my point. We already have the state, and all of society, imposing their immorality on all of us now. Where did we get the idea there is some right to do wrong simply because the other person consents and no one else can see it?

And why do we think their is no link between such acts and the rest of society?

Because before the growth of the state, offenses were treated as torts. You couldn’t bring charges against someone unless you could show damage they had done to you. That should still be the case today. Unfortunately, the state grew and assumed too much power, and they treat society as if they own it. What justifies their rule over me? My private property is my sovereign domain and I do not consent to be ruled over by the state. No amount of Straussian “noble lies” or Lockean social-contract theorizing can actually justify the state’s power. Force is their only justification.

 

[Bennie_P]

Why must something be illegal for it to generally be considered immoral? Adultery is still regarded as abhorrent, even in todays society, but isn’t illegal. The generally acceptance of homosexuality as ‘ok’, with the gay rights movement, preceeded the law change. Not having something illegal doesn’t mean that society accepts such behaviour. Pornography and abortion should be illegal, but what goes on between two consenting adults in private is between the individual and their maker.

Maybe if people where aware of the laws in their home states they would be more apt to obey them, though they are not enforced and strict enforcment need not be the norm, just having them makes people think.

According to a report in the Washington Post, a man in Luray, Virginia recently pled guilty to adultery, a crime for which the maximum penalty is a $250 fine. Ironically, it wasn’t his wife who complained; it was apparently his lover. (He reportedly has reconciled with his wife.)
This case is a potent reminder–particularly for the man charged–that adultery is in fact a crime in more than twenty states. Though the laws are seldom enforced, their existence still affects the way people behave. writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20031216.html

Acceptance of Homosexxuality as being Ok in America is split 50/50 on the issue, The tide began changing toward acceptance after the Courts ruled against sodemy laws as being unconstintional. Laws do matter how people think. Even when they are not enfroced regularly .galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1651&pg=1

 

[fix]

Because before the growth of the state, offenses were treated as torts. You couldn’t bring charges against someone unless you could show damage they had done to you. That should still be the case today. Unfortunately, the state grew and assumed too much power, and they treat society as if they own it. What justifies their rule over me? My private property is my sovereign domain and I do not consent to be ruled over by the state. No amount of Straussian “noble lies” or Lockean social-contract theorizing can actually justify the state’s power. Force is their only justification.

2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts:43 "Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."44
and:

Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the “subjectivity” of society through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility. Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism…

Centesimus annus

 

[Greg27]

The question as framed can be stated as this:

1. Does the political state have jurisdiction in making positive laws concerning what people do in their bedrooms?

To clarify, I think this question has one hidden assumption not stated: it concerns sexual activity. Basically since a person could do anything in their bedroom from watching television to using a computer to painting the walls, I will confine my response to sexual activity.

Clearly the Church officially teaches many kinds of sexual conduct (masturbation, fornication, adultery, homosexual sex, contracepted sex, etc) are morally wrong. Also many countries in the world, or states in those countries, also have positive laws in effect which make certain forms of sexual activity a criminal offence, some of which overlap with what the CC itself forbids.

The question to me, is if laws are made to make certain forms of sexual conduct in private illegal, we run into some difficult problems. What about those who are not members of the Catholic Church, who belong to another religion or no religion at all? Is Catholic moral theology to be legislated into secular civil law and made binding on all? Does the Islamic advocate of Sharia then have a right to claim the state should legislate Islamic religious law into positive civil law, which would include things such as banning the consumption of alchohol (a grave sin in Islam but not Catholicism) and of pork? How does the state choose which religious law to enforce? Asides from the complex political and legal questions, how would such laws be enforced? Should police and the government be given the power to monitor the activity of couples in their bedrooms, including their most intimate ones? Should the church itself directly monitor practicing Catholics in their bedrooms, to ensure that their sexual conduct in the marital bed is not varying from that laid down by the Magesterium? To whom would such observers be accountable? Human nature being frail and weak as it is, how can we assume the people who observe are not themselves prey to sexual weaknesses of various kinds?

Clearly some forms of sexual activity (rape, child molestation, child pornography) are deeply damaging in any form to both the victim and the person who inflicts them, and are rightly illegal in all circumstances. Other forms of sexual behaviour are pathologically unhealthy from a psychological viewpoint. Others are forbidden on the grounds of social, ethical or religious taboos. However, I think as a community in deciding what forms of sexual activity are morally wrong, as we live in pluralistic democracies where not everyone shares the same views on personal ethics and religious belief, (if we consider the US and the West at least) we need rational debate on this matter in which a variety of different perspectives are heard, and then legislators in each country (as elected by their peoples) can legislate into positive law the forms of sexual behaviour which are permissable and those which are not. Ethicists, secular and religious, also need to look carefully at sex and various forms of sexual conduct, and consider on what grounds we can consider sexual behaviour (expressed in private or in public) as morally wrong or harmful, or harmless, taking into account the data from medicine, physiology, psychology and other areas relevant to the issues being debated.

Clearly a practicing Catholic is obligated to follow the ethical guidelines, including for those of sexual activity and its appropriate forms, as decided by the Church. But in my view I think trying to legislate Catholic moral theology into law is very problematic, and it is better to allow people to follow their informed conscience in this matter (if they are Catholics) and non-Catholics should not be compelled by the force of law to follow Catholic religious and moral teachings. To do this undermines the separation of church and state which gives all religious groups (including Catholics) their freedom of religious belief and practice and also the right to exercise moral conscience in ethical decisions.

So my answer would be: Yes, the state does have business making laws which absolutely forbid certain sexual behaviours which strongly harm the parties involved in a very grave way (rape, child abuse), and in other forms as well, but only provided they are made through the usual democratic process which includes careful analysis, hearing to a range of viewpoints, and rational debate.

 

[po18guy]

Big difference between freedom and license. Many of the behaviors described fall into the area of license. Father Corapi teaches rather compellingly on the subject. What does scripture say? What form of sexual activity is praised and what forms are condemned? We are too heavily influenced by this world, which is the territory of the evil one. “Freedom” sounds great, huh? Like the freedom to choose to eat the fruit in the garden. Both Adam and Eve were exercising their God-given freedom. But, at what cost?

 

[pprimeau1976]

I don’t agree that all sexual sins mentioned above in Greg27’s post should be of concern to the state governments. First and foremost because of the obvious infringement of rights.

However, the state does have a right to be concerned about the sexual behavior of it’s citizens. For example, if a government provides health care services, and social security to senior citizens, it needs to make sure that there is population growth that can sustain these benefits in the future. The government can’t make someone have a kid, but they can provide incentives for having children - especially through taxes. Also, the government can tax contraceptives.

 

[Bennie_P]

The question as framed can be stated as this:

1. Does the political state have jurisdiction in making positive laws concerning what people do in their bedrooms?

To clarify, I think this question has one hidden assumption not stated: it concerns sexual activity. Basically since a person could do anything in their bedroom from watching television to using a computer to painting the walls, I will confine my response to sexual activity.

Clearly the Church officially teaches many kinds of sexual conduct (masturbation, fornication, adultery, homosexual sex, contracepted sex, etc) are morally wrong. Also many countries in the world, or states in those countries, also have positive laws in effect which make certain forms of sexual activity a criminal offence, some of which overlap with what the CC itself forbids.

Clearly some forms of sexual activity (rape, child molestation, child pornography) are deeply damaging in any form to both the victim and the person who inflicts them, and are rightly illegal in all circumstances. Other forms of sexual behaviour are pathologically unhealthy from a psychological viewpoint. Others are forbidden on the grounds of social, ethical or religious taboos. However, I think as a community in deciding what forms of sexual activity are morally wrong, as we live in pluralistic democracies where not everyone shares the same views on personal ethics and religious belief, (if we consider the US and the West at least) we need rational debate on this matter in which a variety of different perspectives are heard, and then legislators in each country (as elected by their peoples) can legislate into positive law the forms of sexual behaviour which are permissable and those which are not. Ethicists, secular and religious, also need to look carefully at sex and various forms of sexual conduct, and consider on what grounds we can consider sexual behaviour (expressed in private or in public) as morally wrong or harmful, or harmless, taking into account the data from medicine, physiology, psychology and other areas relevant to the issues being debated.

Clearly a practicing Catholic is obligated to follow the ethical guidelines, including for those of sexual activity and its appropriate forms, as decided by the Church. But in my view I think trying to legislate Catholic moral theology into law is very problematic, and it is better to allow people to follow their informed conscience in this matter (if they are Catholics) and non-Catholics should not be compelled by the force of law to follow Catholic religious and moral teachings. To do this undermines the separation of church and state which gives all religious groups (including Catholics) their freedom of religious belief and practice and also the right to exercise moral conscience in ethical decisions.

So my answer would be: Yes, the state does have business making laws which absolutely forbid certain sexual behaviours which strongly harm the parties involved in a very grave way (rape, child abuse), and in other forms as well, but only provided they are made through the usual democratic process which includes careful analysis, hearing to a range of viewpoints, and rational debate.

Morality in America from it s beginning didn’t have to do with the teachings of the “Catholic” church but were based on Judea-Christian ideas of morality in general. The idea of freedom of religion in the begining had nothing to do the rejection of morality based on Judea-Christian norms, but goverment control of religion - keeping this in mind, why as a society are we to throw away the ideas of sexual morality and laws governing what should be considered normal, because a few reject Judea-Christian based ideas on morality? In essence are we not allowing a minority dictate their lack of morality, thus their “religion” to govern the majority?

I think the problem here is the majority is afraid to set standards, which any of us may fail at keeping at one time, or another, in order not to be considered intolerant. But this “tolerance” is really us as a society being bullied by an intolerant minority to a lower standard of community moral conduct, accountablity and personal responsibilty. To me that seems we are willing to accept a dictatorship based on the selfish wants of a few over the good of the whole.

PS I know you are not American, but that is where my world view is based and only place I have a political say and vote.

 

[fix]

Clearly the Church officially teaches many kinds of sexual conduct (masturbation, fornication, adultery, homosexual sex, contracepted sex, etc) are morally wrong. Also many countries in the world, or states in those countries, also have positive laws in effect which make certain forms of sexual activity a criminal offence, some of which overlap with what the CC itself forbids.

The “official” teaching is not like some government body conjuring up rules. The Church transmits the truth. She is not the inventor of the truth.

What about those who are not members of the Catholic Church, who belong to another religion or no religion at all? Is Catholic moral theology to be legislated into secular civil law and made binding on all?

But, it is not about legislating Canon law. It is about the natural moral law that every person knows through the use of reason.

 

[Janus]

Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts:43 "Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."44
and:

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.

 

[Greg27]

The “official” teaching is not like some government body conjuring up rules. The Church transmits the truth. She is not the inventor of the truth.

But, it is not about legislating Canon law. It is about the natural moral law that every person knows through the use of reason.

The Church claims infallibility for its moral teachings, and as to the truth of that claim in itself, that is not really something that could be discussed here without moving way off topic.

The problem I mentioned in my post was some people don’t agree with these propositions:

1. What the Christian religion teaches in moral and ethical matters is true and the only system of ethics and normative moral laws possible
2. That a natural law discoverable by reason exists.

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. In addition to this, many atheists would deny a God exists and ‘laws’ which are claimed to be given by this Being are in fact human inventions, while agnostics would claim we can’t know God or his will. And again, 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.

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).