Legally Banning Sin

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty

[Resurrexi]

They should most definetly be made illegal.

[Fidei Defensor]

There is a point at which you need to say "regardless of whether or not people believe the same as I do, it is still a sin." And thus, yes, sin should be made illegal.

Anything less would be hypocracy. To say that it is a sin, yet be for allowing others to do it.

[Hirsap]

Personally, I am not entirely sure either way. However, IN PRINCIPLE I see nothing wrong with this concept.

It really depends on the situation. It is to my understanding that the State has every right to impose God's Law upon the people. However, the State has the right to decide not to do this if in doing so one would create anarchy, or something else hampering the common good ( the hampering of which would become the greater evil).
For instance, a country with 99% Catholic population, this would be practical.

Also the question about what type of thing you are forbidding comes into question as well. Is it practical, for example, to constantly work out who has committed fornication, in every situation?

That's my 2cents. correct me if im wrong, PLEASE! I could well be wrong on something

[ruso]

Which would be the it condemns for whom does not come to mass on Sunday?.

Edited April 25, 2006 by ruso

[Hirsap]

[quote name='ruso' post='959673' date='Apr 25 2006, 12:07 PM']
Which would be the sorrow for whom does not come to mass on Sunday?.
[/quote]

Mass on Sunday is not of [b]natural law[/b], rather it (in itself) is a [/b]Church Law[b]. The question of Mass attendance only binds Catholics anyway (to my understanding). Although Mass on Sunday is a way in which the Church ensures the [i]application[/i] of the natural law, which is that we need a day of rest, dedicated to God.

[Maria]

It would be a rather insane thing to do right now.

[dairygirl4u2c]

aiding vs. allowing

I'm beginning to understand that allowing gay marriages if you are against homosexual acts and such is tantamount to aiding in the sin. It's a proactive aiding stance by passing the law.

But I still don't understand how passing laws when one could just not pass anything is the right thing to do. I suppose you are passively allowing the sin, and are sort of "aiding" in the sin. I couldn't really call that aiding though, rather than allowing. I still can't really understand this part.

[ruso]

We can never impose our point of view, by no means.
God made us free and we cannot judge the life of the others.
For this way we might end up by forcing the others to follow God of the way that we believe correctly.

[goldenchild17]

Sin should be outlawed. It has been made so with some sin(murder, many kinds of violence, stealing) why not extend this to more acts against God? What makes one sin more worthy of a ban than another? Although one could bring in the argument that these are acts that hurt another person. Although, in reality, what sin doesn't another person?

[Birgitta Noel]

How come I'm the only one that knows 1+1=3? And you all claim to be Catholics!

[goldenchild17]

I always was bad at math , you could be right.

[N/A Gone]

dp

Edited April 25, 2006 by Revprodeji

[N/A Gone]

I have an issue with our desire to make the politics of our time regulate our faith and impose it on others. This is a false theopolicitical view(*woot-woot cavernaugh) this is a role of the church that should not be put on a secular state. If the state starts regulating morality at this level what is stoping them from regulating catholicism? Or even basic christianity? Id rather work within the eccesiology of our own faith and teach the leaders to speak morals to the people and allow the people to make their soul move for the truth. Rather than let a state govern it

[MC IMaGiNaZUN]

I voted this, because if i was dictator of the world, i would imprison all pornographers. I would destroy all the pornography, and i would get all the pornography models, make a therapy center for them, and they would be locked away until they are emotionally and psychologically adequate to enter the real world.

SHALOM

[MichaelFilo]

beaver dam, I'd hate for you to be dictator of the world. It's not because I hate porno, but it's really freaking hard to punish someone for something they don't neccessarily believe is wrong, or at least have reasoned an excuse for their actions.

At any rate the natural law is written in men's hearts. That sodomy is wrong is hardly something that is imposing on anyone, as even the person who has these attractions understands it is not within accord with the rest of humanity. Murder is another one of those things. Natural law includes much less than you think. The natural conclusions of some of those things of natural law are, while a natural conclusion of it, not neccessarily natural law itself. For instance, we know that adultery is wrong, anyone could tell breaking the marriage bond is wrong, but to say that that also somehow includes having sex before marriage isn't neccessarily true. Of course, it is a natural conclusion that if breaking the marriage bond by means of sex outside of the marriage is wrong, then surely sex outside of marriage before marriage has much the same effect.. etc.

I could be dead wrong, but it sort of seems that way.

God bless,
Mikey

[Socrates]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' post='960849' date='Apr 25 2006, 04:35 PM']
beaver dam, I'd hate for you to be dictator of the world. It's not because I hate porno, but it's really freaking hard to punish someone for something they don't neccessarily believe is wrong, or at least have reasoned an excuse for their actions.
[/quote]

I'm sure plenty of murderers, thieves, and rapists don't neccessarily believe their crimes are wrong, or at least have reasoned an excuse for their actions.

Law cannot become subjective on the personal beliefs of the perp.

[MichaelFilo]

Of course, but can you throw someone in jail for something that is legal? I mean, can one throw a marijuana smoker in Amsterdam in jail? Jail is a punishment for things against the civil law, and it would seem that if one became a dictator, then to put someone in jail for something that was legal before the laws changed is, to say the least, retarded.

God bless,
Mikey

[Theoketos]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='959631' date='Apr 24 2006, 08:49 PM']
They should most definetly be made illegal.
[/quote]

Your position is contrary to the Natural and the opinion of St. Thomas the Angelic Doctor. The government has no business in my interior life, nor in Ecclesial matters.

[dairygirl4u2c]

What's the CC's official stance? Is there one?

So of course we ban murderers etc; they are bring the innocent into their sin and harm. I'm referring moreso to the opposite sort. I did say all sins against the natural law, mind you, for those who are voting to keep that in mind.