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

  • Thread starter Thread starter GandalfTheWhite
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GandalfTheWhite

Guest
Discuss please! 🙂 What’s the Catholic undestanding of this sentence?

Pax Christi,
~G
 
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.
 
If two jihadists meet in a private bedroom to finalize construction of a bomb, and work out details to set it off in a public place… well, yes, it is the state’s business. Just one of a zillion possible scenarios that bely that statement.

Implicit is something of a sexual nature, though.

I would agree that if two consenting adults want to get together and do whatever sexual weirdness they want with one another, generally speaking, it is none of the STATE’s business. Although I suppose there may be some extreme things that could be beyond reason that I can’t (and don’t really want to) imagine.

There may be other parties whose business it is, however. The families of these hypothetical people may be affected by their actions, for example. If these people are in business relationship (boss/employee?), that relationship, and therefore everyone else involved in that business relationship may be affected by what they are doing.

If one party has a sexually transmitted disease, and the other is unwitting, then what they are doing may be a crime against society, perpetuating and epidemic.

My point is, there are many, many “ifs.” To think that what someone does doesn’t affect others is naive. We don’t live in vacuums.

Is it the business of the “state?” Sometimes. Yes.
 
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?
 
Are you talking about apples, or oranges?

The question in the title is about the state. Clearly the state is (or should be) extremely limited in legislating bedroom sexual activity.

The Church, however, does indeed have an inherent interest in persuading its members that they must abstain from sexual sin.
 
If they are only having sexual intimacy the government should stay out of the bedroom. In fact everyone should stay out of others’ bedrooms. The individual’s consicence has to be moved to confess it otherwise it is noone’s business.
 
goofyjim said:
If they are only having sexual intimacy the government should stay out of the bedroom. In fact everyone should stay out of others’ bedrooms. The individual’s consicence has to be moved to confess it otherwise it is noone’s business.
Click to expand...
Is that what the Church teaches and has always tought or is this your opinion?
 
GandalfTheWhite said:
…or a husband cheats on her wife. …
Click to expand...
IMO, If the State is going to insist that it approve/license marriage, then it should also accept responsibility for enforcing the agreement between spouses. If that agreement includes monogamy the State should enforce it.
 
GandalfTheWhite said:
Is that what the Church teaches and has always tought or is this your opinion?
Click to expand...
Why don’t you tell us what you think?

I do not believe that the Church has officially commented on the statement “What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state.” as that seems to be a governmental issue and the Church acknowledges the States right to set laws in its own governance and encourages those laws to uphold a moral framework.

The Church is against immorality even when it is between consenting adults and done in a private bedroom.
 
goofyjim said:
If they are only having sexual intimacy the government should stay out of the bedroom. In fact everyone should stay out of others’ bedrooms. The individual’s consicence has to be moved to confess it otherwise it is noone’s business.
Click to expand...
That would be opinion. The conscience has to be an informed conscience. 🙂

Isn’t what happens in the bedroom God’s business? As mainusch pointed out, “The Church, however, does indeed have an inherent interest in persuading its members that they must abstain from sexual sin.”

(Sorry, I don’t know how to double-quote)
 
ByzCath said:
Why don’t you tell us what you think?

I do not believe that the Church has officially commented on the statement “What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state.” as that seems to be a governmental issue and the Church acknowledges the States right to set laws in its own governance and encourages those laws to uphold a moral framework.

The Church is against immorality even when it is between consenting adults and done in a private bedroom.
Click to expand...
I agree. When sodomy laws were struck down in some states a year or two ago, I didn’t see any statements from the Church about those laws. Obviously, sodomy is a sin, but I think the Church is neutral on whether or not a state makes the sin illegal.
 
In cheating on a spouse, there is a civil (as well as an eternal) contract being broken, unless the seculars have suceeded in redefining marriage to the point where even fidelity is optional. Much is being made lately of the "civil’ nature of marriage. Much of it is being made by the “Government stay out of the bedroom” crowd. These broken contracts often have civil costs associated with them; Court resources, difficulties for children, administering child support payments, chasing deadbeats, medical costs associated with resultant STD’s. It’s fairly well documented in human history that this sort of thing can provoke violent, even fatal reactions. No adult can claim to be unaware of that possible effect.

As somene said, nothing happens in a vacuum. I’m not sure that marital infidelity should be criminal, but the state, as an institution created by men to ensure an ordered society, has some interests at stake.
 
ByzCath said:
Why don’t you tell us what you think?
Click to expand...
Well, I’ve always held the view that we are free to sin and that our behaviour is our choice and we are going to pay for it when we die. Today I was asked that question and I started rethinking that. Does my opinion reflect the spirit of secularism and modernism that’s present all around me or am I correct? The same argument is passed by those who call themselves “pro-choice”. They say that they are against abortion but believe that people should have the choice. I’m thinking whether my ideas don’t at least to some extend reflect the same kind of thinking. After all, should all that is against God be made illegal? So basically I’m split and so I’m trying to find out! I really want to avoid modernism! 🙂
I do not believe that the Church has officially commented on the statement “What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state.” as that seems to be a governmental issue and the Church acknowledges the States right to set laws in its own governance and encourages those laws to uphold a moral framework.
Click to expand...
I agree. So I should re-phrase the question this way: According to the Church which of the following is preferred (or should be encouraged) - a state in which fornication is illegal or a state which has no laws against it (most of Western society as far as I know).
The Church is against immorality even when it is between consenting adults and done in a private bedroom.
Click to expand...
I understand that 🙂

Pax Christi,
~G
 
GandalfTheWhite said:
Discuss please! 🙂 What’s the Catholic undestanding of this sentence?

Pax Christi,
~G
Click to expand...
I would think that the Catholic understanding is that an immoral act doesn’t get less immoral because it is kept private. (Scandal can add to the problem but avoiding scandal doesn’t mean that you’re avoiding sin.)

As for what the State does? The Church has always given Caesar large leeway to handle Caesar’s business as long as Caesar’s laws do not go against natural law.

So while the Church IMHO wouldn’t object to a civil law proscribing homosexual acts (for example) between two adults in private, I also think that She wouldn’t object to a lack of such law. (Since the lack of such a civil law doesn’t change its standing with regards to natural law)

In countries with a common law tradition at least, one spouse may not be compelled to testify against the other conversations. This implies a partial right of privacy between certain categories of intimate relations. AFAIK the Church has never objected to that. It is similar to the privileged nature of conversations between patient/doctor, lawyer/client, or priest/confessor. I don’t know if this is an outright endorsement of a right to privacy.
However CCC 1907 says First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as “the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion.”

and
2498 “Civil authorities have particular responsibilities in this field because of the common good. . . . It is for the civil authority . . . to defend and safeguard a true and just freedom of information.” By promulgating laws and overseeing their application, public authorities should ensure that “public morality and social progress are not gravely endangered” through misuse of the media. Civil authorities should punish any violation of the rights of individuals to their reputation and privacy. They should give timely and reliable reports concerning the general good or respond to the well-founded concerns of the people. Nothing can justify recourse to disinformation for manipulating public opinion through the media. Interventions by public authority should avoid injuring the freedom of individuals or groups.

Now a law that explicitly states that any sexual conduct between two consenting adults (regardless of their relationship) is problematic.

If I understand the legal principal correctly there would be no need for such a statue (at least in the US) since case law has already established it.
 
Only, as previously stated, there are no victims. Incest is one of the exceptions, because of the child that might be conceived. A spouse of an adulterer is capable of initiating divorce action. A product of an incestuous union cannot, and it is in the interest of the state to prosecute those who commit incest to prevent such children from being conceived because of the high incidence of genetic problems.
 
Jerusha said:
Only, as previously stated, there are no victims. Incest is one of the exceptions, because of the child that might be conceived. A spouse of an adulterer is capable of initiating divorce action. A product of an incestuous union cannot, and it is in the interest of the state to prosecute those who commit incest to prevent such children from being conceived because of the high incidence of genetic problems.
Click to expand...
What is victimless? Adultery can destroy a marriage which can lead to poverty and the state having to care for children.

I am not saying every single vice needs to be illegal if that creates greater problems, but I am saying the notion that consent makes things acceptable is incorrect.
 
Adultery CAN lead to divorce. Each situation is different. Ever hear of forgiveness? Divorce, well handled, rarely leads to the state having to care for children. When that is the case, you will find that the parents are so troubled that that would have happened anyway.
 
Jerusha said:
Adultery CAN lead to divorce. Each situation is different. Ever hear of forgiveness? Divorce, well handled, rarely leads to the state having to care for children. When that is the case, you will find that the parents are so troubled that that would have happened anyway.
Click to expand...
So, adultery has no societal effects?
 
Does alcohol have any societal effects? Look what prohibition did. And, yes, the two are related. There has to be a line.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top