Why is Social Justice Less Important Than...

[vern_humphrey]

katherine2:

Ask my friend Brad about that. When I raised that issue he posted that I was raising a red herring because no Catholic would ever call for such a thing. Never have my right wing friends rallied so quickly to prove me correct. Thank you all.

The Fallacy of Two Alternatives again!

Katherine, do you think sex out of wedlock is wrong? If you do, are you calling to have it criminalized?

Do you think smoking is wrong? If you do, are you calling to have it criminalized?

You work very hard to justify your support for pro-abortion politicians. Wouldn’t it be easier to turn all that energy into pro-life channels?

 

[Brendan]

katherine2:

Ask my friend Brad about that. When I raised that issue he posted that I was raising a red herring because no Catholic would ever call for such a thing. Never have my right wing friends rallied so quickly to prove me correct. Thank you all.

Katherine,

When are you going to answer my question on if Prostitution should be legal or not?

 

[Brad]

katherine2:

Ask my friend Brad about that. When I raised that issue he posted that I was raising a red herring because no Catholic would ever call for such a thing. Never have my right wing friends rallied so quickly to prove me correct. Thank you all.

It remains a red herring because the issue at hand is not criminalizing sodomy, it is whether to change the definition of marriage. These are 2 entirely separate issues.

When I raised my objection to your changing of the topic, it was prior to anyone suggesting criminalization for sodomy - hindsight is great when it can be used to win an argument against the “evil right wingers”. However, my point remains that you are still using “fear and smear” tactics - making sodomy illegal is not on the table of Congressional review at this time and you know this as much as I do.

If you want my opinion, homosexual acts are gravely sinful, lead to physical damage and severe spiritual damage. Anyone addicted to this depravity or under the influence of a persuasive propositioner should be psychologically and spiritually assisted by people of good conscience. Should these acts be illegal? I’m not really in favor of such legislation. I think more solid enforcement of laws against pornography and rape (especially involving children), prostitution, willing transfer of disease etc., along with proper school education (i.e. abstinence before marriage) would be a better way to generally prevent harm to society without overburdening criminal defense departments with very specific immoral acts which could lead to excessive goverment intrusion into families and abuse of such priviledge.

To Fix and Brendan’s points - they have a right to their opinion in matters of civil law although I am unconvinced they have a general attitude of “throw them all in jail” just because they think the acts should be illegal. Most illegal acts are not punishable by being thrown in jail.

However, as I said, this is not the argument. You have thrown “fear and smear” at us in an effort to say that being against the re-definition of marriage is akin to wanting to throw anyone in jail that does not agree with the moral code of Catholicism. This is an attempt to paint orothodox believers in the faith as uncaring and unsympathetic (contrary to Gospel imperatives), at minimum put us on the defensive, and at best case keep us quiet. Why would you want to do that as a follower of the Catholic Faith that has appropriately shown us the sacramental nature of marriage in it’s compatibility of spouses and possibility of bearing new life and new souls for all of eternity? Marriage is the most basic foundation of society and the first covenant instituted by God in a series of covenants that culminate in the New Covenant that frees us the gates of eternal damnation in our sin.

Your pulling of the fire alarm in the crowded theatre of good-willed Christ followers is comparable to me shouting that affirmative action should be eliminated because, if it is not, soon all white people will no longer be allowed in colleges or given government jobs. Rather than pull the fire alarm when in severe doubt, I suggest a better act of charity would be to volunteer for the local fire deparment.

 

[Brad]

goravens:

There are no easy answers in this, except to pray that people’s hearts will be changed and to work for justice and life for all people.

I agree. This is exactly the answer because we can never define the line of justice that defines how much tax money to take from John is ok to give to Mary. There are too many questions. How big is John’s family? Did he just experience a natural disaster? Does anyone in his family have medical problems? Did Mary lose all her money in a casino? Is Mary looking for a job? How many kids does Mary have?

The line of justice can never be defined. This is why personal, faith-based programs that have an incentive to understand, evaluate, and provide for needs, without an incentive to be disengenious or to cheat the system (in general) - work the best.
Christians will be held accountable for not helping the Marys of the world in need. Jesus said so. It is something we need to do. But Jesus never said to take the 50% of the paycheck of the man in the church that owns a big business and forcibly give it to the poor against his will - Christ said He would be the judge of what this man does and doesn’t do. And - Christ said that the suffering of Mary is not without merit if it is united to Him - Mary’s eternal life is more important than her physical well-being. Thus, all works for the good of God’s kingdom. There will always be suffering amongst us - as Christians, we do all that we can to help those in need.

On the other hand, abortion is murder - black and white - no doubt about it. This can be illegal because it is unequivocally morally wrong not matter what the circumstances of the mother and father. The mother and father may have dire circumstances but they have no more right to abort than they do to rob a bank.

 

[Brendan]

To Fix and Brendan’s points - they have a right to their opinion in matters of civil law although I am unconvinced they have a general attitude of “throw them all in jail” just because they think the acts should be illegal. Most illegal acts are not punishable by being thrown in jail.

Pretty much.

Sodomy should be treated like Prostitution. In each case, there is a moral issue involved.

In each case, both a civil deterent ( arrest) and Christian treatment of the underlying root cause of the disorder are required.

Does that mean I believe that sodomists should be thrown in prison? No, treat them like prostitution johns. Arrest them, book 'em and fine 'em for immoral behavior.

Then turn them over to a charity\social worker to help them see the damage they are doing to themselves and to society.

 

[Trelow]

Brendan:

Pretty much.

Sodomy should be treated like Prostitution. In each case, there is a moral issue involved.

In each case, both a civil deterent ( arrest) and Christian treatment of the underlying root cause of the disorder are required.

Does that mean I believe that sodomists should be thrown in prison? No, treat them like prostitution johns. Arrest them, book 'em and fine 'em for immoral behavior.

Then turn them over to a charity\social worker to help them see the damage they are doing to themselves and to society.

Heck it would be like Disneyland for them all to be in jail together.

 

[Brad]

Brendan:

Pretty much.

Sodomy should be treated like Prostitution. In each case, there is a moral issue involved.

In each case, both a civil deterent ( arrest) and Christian treatment of the underlying root cause of the disorder are required.

Does that mean I believe that sodomists should be thrown in prison? No, treat them like prostitution johns. Arrest them, book 'em and fine 'em for immoral behavior.

Then turn them over to a charity\social worker to help them see the damage they are doing to themselves and to society.

I’d have no problem with that - however, you’d have to extend this to fornication, adultery etc. The burden of proof and number of cases would be overwhelming - I’d still lean towards punishing the “negative consequences” and not enabling. For example, if we didn’t hand out condomns, abortion was appropriately illegal, passing an STD to someone else is illegal, and parents of 18 and under were held financially responsible for pregnancies and/or STDs - you would see a dramatic decrease in teenage fornication.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Trelow:

Heck it would be like Disneyland for them all to be in jail together.

Ummm, if you put female prostitutes and gay men in a jail cell together, they would be pretty bored.

 

[Trelow]

Scott_Lafrance:

Ummm, if you put female prostitutes and gay men in a jail cell together, they would be pretty bored.

Aye, but all those gay men wouldn’t enjoy each others company?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Trelow:

Aye, but all those gay men wouldn’t enjoy each others company?

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_2_16.gif

 

[katherine2]

Brendan:

Katherine,

When are you going to answer my question on if Prostitution should be legal or not?

I don’t accept your premise (nor ddoes the law) that prositution is consentual sex. The offer of payment makes it non-consentual.

 

[katherine2]

Brad:

It remains a red herring because the issue at hand is not criminalizing sodomy, it is whether to change the definition of marriage. These are 2 entirely separate issues.

Well, if its a red herring, why yoru unqualfied response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by katherine2
*
I can disagree with the right wing that people should be put in jail or have their mean of livilihood taken away from them cause of the evil of homosexuality and still be a faithful Catholic.*

Perhaps. But is lying ok for Catholics? Who is suggesting that people that engage in homosexual acts should have their livelihood taken away or be put in jail? Not any Catholics I know.

If your point is that you didn’t know Fix and Brendan before their posts, I understand. But now you know.

And explain what you mean by change the definition of marriage. The Sacramental definition of marriage? Now its my turn. I know of no Catholics who are suggesting that (let’s see if I have have the same bad experience you had!!).

The civil definition of marriage? I don’t personally support legalizing gay marriage but as a Catholic I also don’t accept the status quo of civil marriage to be something that matches by Catholic view of marriage. So, given that we already have a civil insitution that is not a reflection of Catholic marriage, the discussion of what form it takes pertains to prudential judgement rather than an affirmation of Catholic teaching. Hence, my relcutance to write out of the Church anyoen who disagrees with me. I still oppose gay civil marriage.

When I raised my objection to your changing of the topic, it was prior to anyone suggesting criminalization for sodomy - hindsight is great when it can be used to win an argument against the “evil right wingers”. However, my point remains that you are still using “fear and smear” tactics - making sodomy illegal is not on the table of Congressional review at this time and you know this as much as I do.

Well, thank you for the substanial retreat. Legalizing gay marriage is not on the table of Congressional review either. No bill to do so has been even introduced.

To Fix and Brendan’s points - they have a right to their opinion in matters of civil law although I am unconvinced they have a general attitude of “throw them all in jail” just because they think the acts should be illegal. Most illegal acts are not punishable by being thrown in jail.

The sodomy laws on the books until the Texas decision did allow for jail sentences. We have no legal history of sodomy being a civil offense without the option of jail time.

However, as I said, this is not the argument. You have thrown “fear and smear” at us in an effort to say that being against the re-definition of marriage is akin to wanting to throw anyone in jail that does not agree with the moral code of Catholicism.

I support the moral code of Catholicism. Keeping civil marriage laws as they are do not match the moral code of Catholicisim.

This is an attempt to paint orothodox believers in the faith as uncaring and unsympathetic (contrary to Gospel imperatives),

There are those who see themselves as orthodox believers in the faith who are uncaring and unsympathetic and who act contrary to Gospel imperatives.

… at minimum put us on the defensive, and at best case keep us quiet.

I would like to see you add some nunace, depth and further reflection to certain propositions you have advanced.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Brad:

I’d have no problem with that - however, you’d have to extend this to fornication, adultery etc. The burden of proof and number of cases would be overwhelming - I’d still lean towards punishing the “negative consequences” and not enabling. For example, if we didn’t hand out condomns, abortion was appropriately illegal, passing an STD to someone else is illegal, and parents of 18 and under were held financially responsible for pregnancies and/or STDs - you would see a dramatic decrease in teenage fornication.

Having been in places like Vietnam, Korea, and Sinapore, where prostitution is legal, I have to say I have no idea what to do about it. Legalizing it doesn’t solve any problems – STDs among troops are more comnmon in Korea, for example, than any other place where Americans are stationed.

And clearly prostitution is slavery. No one who ever pulled Courtesy Patrol in Ton Du Chon could deny that.

But outlawing it doesn’t seem to work, either.

 

[Trelow]

katherine2:

I don’t accept your premise (nor ddoes the law) that prositution is consentual sex. The offer of payment makes it non-consentual.

So basically: consenting to sex for money from someone who is consenting to money for sex is nonconsensual?

 

[katherine2]

(some more)

Why would you want to do that as a follower of the Catholic Faith that has appropriately shown us the sacramental nature of marriage in it’s compatibility of spouses and possibility of bearing new life and new souls for all of eternity? Marriage is the most basic foundation of society and the first covenant instituted by God in a series of covenants that culminate in the New Covenant that frees us the gates of eternal damnation in our sin.

I’m willing to compare my experience in a wonderful sacramental marriage and Catholic family life with yours. Don’t lecture me on marriage.

Your pulling of the fire alarm in the crowded theatre of good-willed Christ followers …

I’m not willing to accept that those who want laws to put people in jail for being homosexuals are good-willed Christ followers while those who note that defending marriage as a dissolvable relationship between opposite sex partners is not defending Catholic marriage are not good-willed Christ followers.
If your point is that simplistic responses are more holy than noting the complexity of issues, I have to disagree with you.

 

[katherine2]

Trelow:

So basically: consenting to sex for money from someone who is consenting to money for sex is nonconsensual?

That has been the universal understanding in our legal system. Just as consenting to sex in nonconsensual when one of the parties is too young to legally give consent. Youth (or money) become an impediment to true and authentic consent.

 

[Trelow]

(some more) I’m not willing to accept that those who want laws to put people in jail for being homosexuals

Not for having the attraction, but for committing acts that are and atrocity against God,

Feelings can’t be illegal, but actions can.
Just because you feel something doesn’t mean you have to act on it!

DISCERNMENT. Somebody please teach the left.

 

[4_marks]

As Catholics we are called to be both Pro Life people and Pro Peace people. Social justice is absolutely important and we should all strive for it.

The problem is that the balance is not often struck. Some Catholics are strongly opposed to abortion, euthanasia, and destroying fertilized embryos to harvest stem cells, but have little difficulty supporting capital punishment, weapons proliferation, discrimination against others for religious, racial, gender or sexual preference, and pre-emptive war. Others oppose these things, but ignore Vatican directives on human life and the dignity and purpose of sexuality.

We are called to be people of integrity. In fact, the very word Catholic not only means “universal,” but also connotes integrity…wholeness…fullness.

 

[Trelow]

katherine2:

That has been the universal understanding in our legal system. Just as consenting to sex in nonconsensual when one of the parties is too young to legally give consent. Youth (or money) become an impediment to true and authentic consent.

Yea and I reneged the post.

But if you do something then obviously you consented to do it. Maybe not complete will, but enough to accept some responsibility.

 

[Brendan]

katherine2:

I don’t accept your premise (nor ddoes the law) that prositution is consentual sex. The offer of payment makes it non-consentual.

It’s a legal regulation of immoral acts, which is what regulation of sodomy is.

And besisded. It IS consentual sex. Both parties consent to sex, but their reasons for consent differ.

It’s still Fornication, but it’s consentual sex.

That has been the universal understanding in our legal system. Just as consenting to sex in nonconsensual when one of the parties is too young to legally give consent. Youth (or money) become an impediment to true and authentic consent.

Not true. Nevada has legal prostitution. The prostitutes there give legal consent. In addition, in most every state I am aware of, johns are not charged with rape, which they should be according to your logic.

You are refering to Moral Consent. Our legal system operates under Legal Consent. Legal consent is when both parties agree to an action or contract.

Youth is an impediment to any contract, as the law does not recognize that a youth may fully consider the ramifications of the agreement. But such an impediment does not exist for legally competent (not insane or metally diminished) adults.

Prostitution is illegal as a immoral act, not for lack of consent.