Why are some doctrines political issues?

[DL82]

Why do people on this board believe that our politicians should out-law same sex marriage (remembering that civil marriage is not the same as the Sacrament of marriage) but not that they should outlaw masturbation or pre-marital sex?

Why would some Catholics never vote for a candidate that would allow embryonic stem-cell research but would be indifferent to voting for a candidate that would deprive minimum-wage workers of a fair and just wage?

In short, why should a secular state enforce doctrine as law, but only some moral doctrines, not all of them? Assuming that we accept democracy and don’t aim to create a Catholic theocracy, why not vote for the candidate that will give us the greatest freedom to practice our faith and not interfere with others living according to their moral values either? Witness and evangelism, and ultimately the working of the Holy Spirit, will save the souls of sinners, not legislation.

If even the Law of Moses, which came from God, could not save a single soul or make any man righteous in the sight of God, then what hope do we have of using the laws of man to save souls?

 

[geezerbob]

Why do we have laws against stealing, murder and other sins/crimes enumerated in the ten commandments? Go back a few years and you’ll find that there were also laws against fornication, sodomy and adultery, to name just a few. Only recently has society begun to divorce itself so completely from morality. Rather than trying to widen the rift, I think the more important question is to ask why we aren’t trying to bridge it.

 

[puzzleannie]

Why do people on this board believe that our politicians should out-law same sex marriage (remembering that civil marriage is not the same as the Sacrament of marriage) but not that they should outlaw masturbation or pre-marital sex?

?

all these things used to be violations of civil law as well, the last anti-sodomy law was just struck down in Texas in the last couple of years (good thing since this is a death penalty state), along with laws against adultery. Removing legal prohibition against an action does not change its morality or does not change the facts upon which the laws were based, that all of these threaten the stability of the family, which is the basis of ordered society.

the laws are intended to protect the rights and safety of the people, all the people, and when any special interest group is allowed to dictate law for everyone, even to those who are not directly affected, if the constitutional rights of any class are threatened, all are threatened, and if the family is threatened, the entire society is threatened, and there is going to be a problem. The analogy is slavery, property rights of a minority of the country who were slave-owners allowed to trump the superior human rights of individuals, slaves, free negroes, and anti-slavery sympathizers who protested the laws designed to protect the institution of slavery. Regardless of the beliefs of those on either side, and there were plenty of bible-thumpers to defend slavery, the institution itself damaged our society almost irreparably, not the least because of damage to families of both slave holders, and of slaves themselves. Roots is being re-broadcast this month, melodramatic story but makes this point very well.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Note that the laws against murder, theft and perjury also derive from doctrine. How soon do we drop them?

 

[Dale_M]

Hi DL82, you ask some interesting questions.

Why do people on this board believe that our politicians should out-law same sex marriage (remembering that civil marriage is not the same as the Sacrament of marriage) but not that they should outlaw masturbation or pre-marital sex?

As others have mentioned, at least here in the U.S., we have historically had laws regulating extra-marital sex (anti-adultery or common law marriages). Marriage was seen as important to the common good and needed to be defended. I think a case could be made for same-sex marriage as promoting the common good, but since that isn’t the focus of this thread I will not dwell on it.

Why would some Catholics never vote for a candidate that would allow embryonic stem-cell research but would be indifferent to voting for a candidate that would deprive minimum-wage workers of a fair and just wage?

Embryonic stem-cell research involves murder. It is a higher level offense and thus more important than the setting of minimum wages. But I agree with you that establishing liveable wages is an important task, and not to be ignored when engaging in public discussion, action, or voting.

In short, why should a secular state enforce doctrine as law, but only some moral doctrines, not all of them?

Ah, the meat of the issue.

Assuming that we accept democracy and don’t aim to create a Catholic theocracy, why not vote for the candidate that will give us the greatest freedom to practice our faith and not interfere with others living according to their moral values either?

Because some values are not of relative importance, but are absolute in their importance to humanity. The practical limitations of politics requires us to establish priorities as to what we will try to legislate.

Witness and evangelism, and ultimately the working of the Holy Spirit, will save the souls of sinners, not legislation.

Indeed! Unfortunately, there is still the need for laws to limit the actions of persons who have not been fully converted.

If even the Law of Moses, which came from God, could not save a single soul or make any man righteous in the sight of God, then what hope do we have of using the laws of man to save souls?

You are right, laws do not save souls. Laws work by preventing evil actions which might be committed by souls who are not fully in tune with God’s Will (which is almost all of us!)

Establishing a law does not excuse us from the need to evangelize others or from the need for each of us to constantly seek out God’s Will.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Why do people on this board believe that our politicians should out-law same sex marriage (remembering that civil marriage is not the same as the Sacrament of marriage) but not that they should outlaw masturbation or pre-marital sex?

Marriage is state sanctioned, sex is not.

Why would some Catholics never vote for a candidate that would allow embryonic stem-cell research but would be indifferent to voting for a candidate that would deprive minimum-wage workers of a fair and just wage?

Fair, just, and minimum are debatable.

In short, why should a secular state enforce doctrine as law, but only some moral doctrines, not all of them? Assuming that we accept democracy and don’t aim to create a Catholic theocracy, why not vote for the candidate that will give us the greatest freedom to practice our faith and not interfere with others living according to their moral values either? Witness and evangelism, and ultimately the working of the Holy Spirit, will save the souls of sinners, not legislation.

Just because some civil law mirrors doctrine it does not mean the doctrine has been adopted by the law unless specifically stated. As a Catholic we have the Church that defines our morality with reason guided by the Holy Spirit. Don’t vote for the lesser of any evil and stick to your good conscience. Write in your own name or vote nothing, but vote. There are often other subjects to be decided and a no vote still counts but only if you vote on the rest.

If even the Law of Moses, which came from God, could not save a single soul or make any man righteous in the sight of God, then what hope do we have of using the laws of man to save souls?

John 13: 34"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

Legislate love with fairness. Truth will win out if we just remian true and the more that know the truth will become the majority and vote similarly. Even in a multicultural society with laws that make distinct separation between the civil and religious- rightfully so at this point in time- it is only if the individual maintains their personal morality will society reflect that by the laws they enforce or loose upon themselves.

Obviously, America has let loose some of her morality at times and lately because at other times we may have held them too tight. By convincing others of our faith, and remaining true, reason will make its way into law.

 

[seekerz]

Our laws grew out of the Judaeo-Christian tradition.

For laws to be anything more than arbitrary, judge-dependent, changing-with-the-seasons rules they have to be based on an unchanging foundation.

The question should be which religion-based principles/values do we incorporate into secular laws and which don’t we? However, more and more the question is, which popular trends are going to become law and which ‘outmoded’ laws are going to become passe?

 

[JimG]

Because laws are passed to promote the common good.

In the past, marriage–in the traditional sense–was considered beneficial to the common good: It provided for the education and socialization of children–future taxpayers, future legislators. Society relied upon families to accomplish this task and rewarded the institution of marriage with some benefits.

I still think that the traditional family provides society with these benefits. It may in fact be essential to the survival of a society. But if the nation no longer values the traditional family, and wants the state to assume its duties, then I suppose that all sorts of varieties of unions or quasi-marriages might be approved.

 

[Brendan]

Why do we have laws against stealing, murder and other sins/crimes enumerated in the ten commandments? Go back a few years and you’ll find that there were also laws against fornication, sodomy and adultery, to name just a few. Only recently has society begun to divorce itself so completely from morality. Rather than trying to widen the rift, I think the more important question is to ask why we aren’t trying to bridge it.

Definition of ‘just wage’ are, at their core, a subjective one.

What exactly defines a ‘just wage’. Catholics should all agree that everyone should be justly compenstated for their work. but may licitly disagree on what that entails. How much per hour is ‘just’ and what happens when an employer cannot pay that amount and still make a ‘reasonable’ profit ( which is also a moral right AND a subjective judgement)

Embryonic Stem Cell research, as it stands today, kills the cell source. There is no debate about that at all. Objective truth.

The same is true for Abortion. It kills the target. No debate. No subjective judgements there at all.

And yes, it is the role of governments to enforce moral standards. We have laws against slavery. That is a moral judgement. Would it be better to leave that up to the individual? Each person may judge if they want to own a slave or not?

As far as gay ‘marriage’. That is a legal contract. Governments have the right to regulate legal contracts. For example, any contract to purchase a slave is void (not legally binding). Should we object to such restrictions?