Outlawing Various Sexual Sins

[Credo in Deum]

 

I voted yes, because I believe a country which abides by God's law is a country that promotes:

 

1) True progress.  Sinners becoming saints.

2) True charity.  God's commandments are ones which promote genuine love of our neighbor by loving His Image in them.

3) Common sense.

4) Snack packs.  They have nothing to do with this, I just wanted to say I like them a lot.  Mmmmm, tapioca!

 

[Winchester]

 

 

I voted yes, because I believe a country which punishes some sins through acts of violence

I fixed it for ya, Adolf.

[Credo in Deum]

I fixed it for ya, Adolf.

Thank you, faithful little Goebbels.

[Credo in Deum]

Double Post:

 

Why do so many people think the request to have things outlawed = the request to also introduce a violent punishment for the offenders?  

[Perigrina]

I think that snack packs should be outlawed.

[Perigrina]

Double Post:

 

Why do so many people think the request to have things outlawed = the request to also introduce a violent punishment for the offenders?  

 

Because it is easier to argue with you if they set up a straw man version of your position.
 

[Nihil Obstat]

Double Post:

 

Why do so many people think the request to have things outlawed = the request to also introduce a violent punishment for the offenders?  

I am interested in where you are going with this. In what way will a law, for example one which bans adultery, be enforced non-violently?

[Credo in Deum]

I am interested in where you are going with this. In what way will a law, for example one which bans adultery, be enforced non-violently?

 

I'm still thinking of how the laws would be enforced.  Maybe through warnings, mandatory marriage counseling/workshops, fines,  etc.  

[Winchester]

Double Post:

 

Why do so many people think the request to have things outlawed = the request to also introduce a violent punishment for the offenders?  

Because there is not a single law backed by anything but force.

 

Read what they do to people who gamble without permission. Or sell raw milk. We think that because we don't have our heads up our asses. The government has no compunction about using ridiculous levels of violence to enforce the pettiest of laws.

 

 

 

 

I'm still thinking of how the laws would be enforced.  Maybe through warnings, mandatory marriage counseling/workshops, fines,  etc.  

 

"Mandatory". So how do you plan on making it mandatory? What happens when people tell the "authorities" to go screw themselves?

Edited May 20, 2014 by Winchester

[KnightofChrist]

Who does 'arrest' the 'bad guys', like murders in a anarchist society?

[Nihil Obstat]

In what ways would society change in order to accommodate a law banning masturbation? Cameras in every bedroom and bathroom? Would the Federal Adultery Prevention Police bust down some poor sap's door while he is in the middle of doing the deer? Or would they just bill him, like a $50 fine per event? And he could go fight it in sex court, right beside traffic court, swearing that he was just trying to clean it off. :P
Thomas Aquinas has something to say on the topic.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm

I answer that, Human government is derived from the Divine government, and should imitate it. Now although God is all-powerful and supremely good, nevertheless He allows certain evils to take place in the universe, which He might prevent, lest, without them, greater goods might be forfeited, or greater evils ensue. Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred: thus Augustine says (De Ordine ii, 4): "If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust." Hence, though unbelievers sin in their rites, they may be tolerated, either on account of some good that ensues therefrom, or because of some evil avoided. Thus from the fact that the Jews observe their rites, which, of old, foreshadowed the truth of the faith which we hold, there follows this good--that our very enemies bear witness to our faith, and that our faith is represented in a figure, so to speak. For this reason they are tolerated in the observance of their rites.

On the other hand, the rites of other unbelievers, which are neither truthful nor profitable are by no means to be tolerated, except perchance in order to avoid an evil, e.g. the scandal or disturbance that might ensue, or some hindrance to the salvation of those who if they were unmolested might gradually be converted to the faith. For this reason the Church, at times, has tolerated the rites even of heretics and pagans, when unbelievers were very numerous.
 

[Winchester]

Who does 'arrest' the 'bad guys', like murders in a anarchist society?

 

muhroads

[Winchester]

In what ways would society change in order to accommodate a law banning masturbation? Cameras in every bedroom and bathroom? Would the Federal Adultery Prevention Police 

[Nihil Obstat]

In what ways would society change in order to accommodate a law banning masturbation? Cameras in every bedroom and bathroom? Would the Federal Adultery Prevention Police bust down some poor sap's door while he is in the middle of doing the deer? Or would they just bill him, like a $50 fine per event? And he could go fight it in sex court, right beside traffic court, swearing that he was just trying to clean it off. :P

Lol, whoops. That should say "doing the deed." Heh.

[Credo in Deum]

 

Because there is not a single law backed by anything but force.

 

 

Right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/02/17-ridiculous-laws-still_n_481379.html

 

So when has force been used to enforce these?  When would it ever be used?  There are tons of active ridiculous laws that cannot be realistically enforced.  The last one you've probably violated multiple times. 

 

 

 

"Mandatory". So how do you plan on making it mandatory? What happens when people tell the "authorities" to go screw themselves?

 

More fines my good man, more fines!

 

In what ways would society change in order to accommodate a law banning masturbation? Cameras in every bedroom and bathroom? Would the Federal Adultery Prevention Police bust down some poor sap's door while he is in the middle of doing the deer? Or would they just bill him, like a $50 fine per event? And he could go fight it in sex court, right beside traffic court, swearing that he was just trying to clean it off. :P

Yes, we could have agents and badges and little rape whistles.  It would at least create more jobs.  :P  Plus the shame of appearing in sex court would probably increase the chances of them not fighting the fine and actually paying up. 

 

FAP Police to the rescue! 

 

 

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Typically those lists of 'wacky laws' are a fun mixture of varying degrees of "completely made up". Probably fairly in keeping with the rest of what passes as journalism at the Huffington Post.

[Credo in Deum]

Typically those lists of 'wacky laws' are a fun mixture of varying degrees of "completely made up". Probably fairly in keeping with the rest of what passes as journalism at the Huffington Post.

 

Well there is always The Onion as our last beacon of truth.   

 

I've been to a Ninja parade! They are real, Nihil!

[Norseman82]

First, Tab gets the "Kindergarten Cop" award of the day. 

 

Making laws that are not practical to enforce only brings contempt upon the law.  It would be far more useful to use popular culture to sway society toward opinions that are more in line with Catholic teaching.  Almost all media currently give the message that fornication, masturbation and homosexual behaviour are perfectly normal and acceptable.  Furthermore anyone who objects them has something very wrong with him and may rightfully be suppressed.

 

 

I am interested in where you are going with this. In what way will a law, for example one which bans adultery, be enforced non-violently?

 

 

I'm still thinking of how the laws would be enforced.  Maybe through warnings, mandatory marriage counseling/workshops, fines,  etc.  

 

There have been laws in the past against these things, and some may still be on the books in some places. 

 

As far as enforcement, yes, it would be impractical to station police in every bedroom, but there are other ways that these laws could be applied.  For example, in divorce proceedings, if one spouse cheated on the other, the spouse who was cheated upon would be loooked upon more favorably for custody and alimony/property division matters, or it could serve as a defense or mitigating circumstance if someone came home and found thier spouse committing adultery with someone else and got violent with the adulterer violating his/her spouse.  Additionally, regarding masturbation, there are laws against public indecency (if anyone remembers Pee-Wee Herman and George Michael). 

 

Ultimately, though, it would serve as a statment of society's values. 

[Norseman82]

We need to act better and stop tearing people down. We need to help build each other up. Im not walking around telling Catholics that what I think is the right way. Not at all. I am just admitting to my feelings here as a means to understand how to cope with them. 

 

This is the stuff that our Papa is trying to fight against, this judgmental attitude.

 

Sometimes it is necessary to tear something down before you build it back up....

[BarbTherese]

CrossCuT, on 20 May 2014 - 08:24 AM, said: "This is the stuff that our Papa is trying to fight against, this judgmental attitude."

 

 

Well said indeed.

 

The Pharisees in the times of Jesus had many rules and regulations that imposed quite serious moral burdens on the people and they refused to budge on all these rules i.e. obey or be condemned and were looking at the letter of the law rather than living out the spirit of the law.  They proclaimed that they were keeping the letter of the law and were therefore saved and spoke against any who did not keep that precise letter of the law.  They could see splinters in the eyes of others, but not the log in their own.  The obvious question then is to me "Why is it a splinter in the eye of others, yet a log in their own?"  Their spiritual position was one of pride, while the spiritual position of the publican in the parable was one of humble admission of failure and request for Mercy - and the publican in fact could see his true position before God, while the Pharisee could not and was spiritually blind not only to his own spiritual position, but to that of others too.  And humility will always reveal Truth, being the "foundation of all virtue" (St Albert).

 

The letter of the law can only tell us all without exemption that we are indeed all failures, all sinners, and this comes into the light outstandingly in the Sermon on The Mount.  Every single last one of us is a sinner and who is to state that my sin is less serious than my brothers - only God indeed.  Our sole and only hope is to own up to our failures and beg of The Lord His Loving Mercy, which is guaranteed and so we journey on in active Hope that The Lord will never fail us and our misery.

 

  The light then to shine and be shining is not on our own misery nor that of others, but rather on the Love and Mercy of Our Lord.  This is what Pope Francis, to me seems to be doing.  He is deflecting off the letter of the law, all our myriad of laws, and shining a bright light on the Love and Mercy of The Lord.  This, to me, is the new evangelization.  "Judge not, that you may not be judged".  This type of evangelizing is new because in the past we have often quite literally thrown the letter of the law into the faces of those around us condemning them proclaiming our own righteousness, rather than speaking to them of the Love and Mercy of The Lord which is the road to true freedom and the road that we ideally take and as very miserable indeed sinners that we are and every single day and shoulder to shoulder with all our brothers and sisters.

 

Pope Benedict said that it is only the sins IN The Church that we have to fear.  If the world around us is failing somehow in our estimation, then we have our own consciences to examine, not that of the world around us for it is absolutely impossible for us to do so.  It is the domain of God alone.  If the world around us is failing it is solely because we are failing first.  And if the world is failing quite seriously, then it is because we have failed quite seriously first.  Remove the log in my own eye and the splinter in my brother's eye will simply quite literally dissolve and disappear before my own very eyes.

 

 

"The only danger the church can and should fear is the sin of her members," the pope said.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1104798.htm