Outlawing Various Sexual Sins

[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

 

 

[Winchester]

 

 

 

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. 

 

 

There are laws that aren't enforced, but do you not comprehend that the legal recourse to force exists and may be employed? And that if some citizen has the temerity to resist that force, he will then be subject to felony resisting arrest? How do you not get that? "Oh, they won't enforce that" is little comfort to anyone who's bothered to read up on the many "crimes" over which the state is more than willing to commit insane levels of violence. They hunt innocent people like animals for the "crime" of getting work without permission.

 

 

I am impressed that you spent years researching the primary sources required to determine that no force has ever been used to enforce the tons of ridiculous laws. That were, by the by, passed at the expense of taxpayers.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Winchester

[Perigrina]

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).

 

Jesus told the Pharisees not to place unreasonable burdens on the people, but He told the people "Do as they say not as they do."  Jesus never told people that they should ignore the rules.

 

Those of us in the position of making rules should consider whether they are burdensome.  The rest of us are not excused from accepting and obeying Church teaching.

[Credo in Deum]

There are laws that aren't enforced.

 

 

I am impressed 

[BarbTherese]

Catholics are "not excused from accepting and obeying Church teaching" on Faith and Morals.  I did not mean that Catholics CAN ignore the teachings of The Church on Faith and Morals.  I did mean to state that if a Catholic does indeed keep the teachings of The Church on Faith and Morals that they are therefore saved and can be self-righteous about it.  We might be able to have moral assurance of salvation, but no one has absolute assurance.

 

I saw my spiritual director yesterday (priest religious) and he asked me what I thought about the saints writings, some of them, and that they were terrible sinners etc. etc.  I replied "They were spot on".  If one in the slightest apprehends the Glory of God, His Perfect Goodness, Love and Mercy of The Lord, we then apprehend something of the unimaginable distance between the self and our failings and The Unfathomable Glory and Goodness of God and one is nothing but a miserable sinner in comparison no matter how holy their life.  We are all without exemption sinners.  And what makes my sin my failings less serious than another's? What right have I to be self-righteous?   Every last one of us since the beginning of time will need to go before The Throne of God in desperate need of His Love and Mercy.

 

In fact with The Mass, The Blessed Eucharist and The Sacraments, the guaranteed Grace of God, we have exceeded by far what is necessary to make us great saints and without sin and failings and yet we are not, not one of us.

 

As Pope Benedict said, it is indeed only the sins of Catholics IN The Church that we have to fear.

Edited May 22, 2014 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

Lost my edit facility - timed out.

 

In relation to what I stated "As Pope Benedict said, it is indeed only the sins of Catholics IN The Church that we have to fear".  The Church is The Beloved Bride of Christ and is The Body of Christ on earth - and The Church is Her members.

[Perigrina]

Catholics are "not excused from accepting and obeying Church teaching" on Faith and Morals.  I did not mean that Catholics CAN ignore the teachings of The Church on Faith and Morals.  I did mean to state that if a Catholic does indeed keep the teachings of The Church on Faith and Morals that they are therefore saved and can be self-righteous about it.  We might be able to have moral assurance of salvation, but no one has absolute assurance.

 

You are right, of course, that we should avoid being self-righteous, but I often encounter people who cannot tell the difference between caring about orthodoxy and self-righteousness.  Countless times, my statements about Church teaching have been met with accusations that I am self-righteous or judgmental.  

 

Orthodoxy and orthopraxy are important. Yes, I believe that.  I do not know how so many people get from me saying that to concluding that I think that I am better than anyone else.  Or conclude that I believe that I have earned salvation by accepting and obeying Church teaching.

 

I know that I am a sinner.  I know that I deserve to be in hell. I know that I have absolutely no chance of salvation other than through the grace of God.  And when the subject comes up, I do not have a problem saying so.   However, I do not see why I have to say it every single time I talk about Church teaching and our obligations to it. 

 

I do realize that you did not accuse me of being self-righteous, but it has happened to me enough that I am a bit sensitive about it.  I have never told a person he was going to hell or that I was going to heaven or that I am morally superior.  I have never said these things and I have never thought these things.   They are not implied when I say that Catholics have an obligation to accept and obey Church teaching.

[BarbTherese]

Jesus told the Pharisees not to place unreasonable burdens on the people, but He told the people "Do as they say not as they do."  Jesus never told people that they should ignore the rules.

 

Those of us in the position of making rules should consider whether they are burdensome.  The rest of us are not excused from accepting and obeying Church teaching.

 

"The scribesand the Pharisees have sitten in the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say and do not. For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and laythem on men'sshoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them. And all their works they do for to be seen of men. For they make their phylacteries broad, and enlarge their fringes. And they love the first places at feasts, and the first chairs in the synagogues. And salutations in the market place, and to be called by men, Rabbi"

 

As St Paul says "All authority comes from God" and Jesus is putting this into practise in telling the people to observe the laws of the Pharisees.  Jesus is also advising the people to be obedient to rightful authority and obedience is a prime virtue.  The Pharisees however were making harsh laws for the ordinary people without sighting that God is a God of Love and Mercy not a demanding and judgemental God. Some of these harsh laws were exempted to the Pharisees and this still happens today at times.   Not only this, they wanted to be seen by others as someone important and given the honors of an important person.  They were proud and spiritually blind.

 

Therefore, Jesus is advising the people not to seek social honors and the first place - rather to be content with their humble and nondescript position in society, because God and His Kingdom sees the humble and nondescript in an entirely different light to society turning that social light right off as highlighting what is false "the first shall be last and the last first".  This teaching is further highlighted in Luke Ch14 :

 

"But when thou art invited, go, sit down in the lowest place; that when he who invited thee, cometh, he may say to thee: Friend, go up higher. Then shalt thou have glory before them that sit at table with thee.11] Because every one that exalteth himself, shall be humbled; and he that humbleth himself, shall be exalted."

[BarbTherese]

You are right, of course, that we should avoid being self-righteous, but I often encounter people who cannot tell the difference between caring about orthodoxy and self-righteousness.  Countless times, my statements about Church teaching have been met with accusations that I am self-righteous or judgmental.  

 

Orthodoxy and orthopraxy are important. Yes, I believe that.  I do not know how so many people get from me saying that to concluding that I think that I am better than anyone else.  Or conclude that I believe that I have earned salvation by accepting and obeying Church teaching.

 

I know that I am a sinner.  I know that I deserve to be in hell. I know that I have absolutely no chance of salvation other than through the grace of God.  And when the subject comes up, I do not have a problem saying so.   However, I do not see why I have to say it every single time I talk about Church teaching and our obligations to it. 

 

I do realize that you did not accuse me of being self-righteous, but it has happened to me enough that I am a bit sensitive about it.  I have never told a person he was going to hell or that I was going to heaven or that I am morally superior.  I have never said these things and I have never thought these things.   They are not implied when I say that Catholics have an obligation to accept and obey Church teaching.

 

Oh dear, please forgive me.  I do try very hard to speak to points raised or a subject flowing from a point or points raised alone and not to or about the person posting.  To be honest, it never entered my head even in the slightest, even in a remote temptation, to accuse you or think of you as self righteous.  My very real apologies if that is how it came across.

 

There is a quotation often attributed to St Augustine "In essentials unity, in non essentials liberty - and in all things Love".  There is another quotation I have read somewhere "Truth without Love can only ever be half the truth".  None of that is directed at you personally in any way, Peregrina.  The quotations are merely standards I do try to observe for myself.

 

I know that I am a sinner.  I know that I deserve to be in hell. I know that I have absolutely no chance of salvation other than through the grace of God.  And when the subject comes up, I do not have a problem saying so.   However, I do not see why I have to say it every single time I talk about Church teaching and our obligations to it

 

. 
Personally, I do not think one has to say it every time (it is a non essential) - but it is essential that it is the disposition of the heart and mind.  As I read posts at times, this disposition of heart and mind is not stated in a post, but the tone of the post does seem to indicate it as a disposition of the heart and mind of the one posting.  I do tend towards that if it is one's inner spiritual dimension, it most often will come across in the tone of the post rather than perhaps than in the words of the post.  Very often indeed, to my mind, it comes across most loudest of all when not stated in the words, but in the tone of a post.  Just my tuppence and my own conclusions not directed at anyone in particular at all.

 

I was talking as stated with my SD yesterday and I was explaining to him that I am in my element, in my comfort zone, when I am sitting at a keyboard.  Most often, this is the time I can not only state to communicate with another, but I am sorting out my own thinking for myself too and am preaching to myself and probably most of all on some subject.  Sitting at a keyboard for some reason, my memory is at it's sharpest and most accurate - but never infallible, far from that, nor is ever my logic and reasoning and I am very well aware of this.

[Perigrina]

To some extent, it is subjective whether a law is harsh or burdensome.  I can remember thinking in my childhood that my parents were imposing harsh and burdensome rules on me, yet, now that I am a parent, I can see how these were rules for my own good.  It seems to me that most rules of the Church are for the good of individual souls or for the common good.  This applies to the rules about sexual morality mentioned in this thread.

 

Imagine that somebody complained about how harsh and burdensome he found the users' manual for his car.  He did not like the rule about having to keep filling it with fuel as he ran out.  It very well may be genuinely difficult to afford fuel for ones car, but that does not make it a harsh rule.  It is what is needed to make the car work properly.  

 

Rules about sexual morality make our lives work properly, no matter how difficult we find them.  And since Barbara Therese has been rightly exhorting us all to humility, I will mention that it is an act of humility to obey teachings that we find difficult. 

[Perigrina]

Oh dear, please forgive me.  I do try very hard to speak to points raised or a subject flowing from a point or points raised alone and not to or about the person posting.  To be honest, it never entered my head even in the slightest, even in a remote temptation, to accuse you or think of you as self righteous.  My very real apologies if that is how it came across.

 

There is nothing to forgive.  You said nothing wrong.  I am just over-sensitive on the subject because of past interactions with others.