Polygamy

[Norseman82]

The 10 commandments cannot be amended by a 2/3 vote of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures......

[God Conquers]

I just wanted to point out that this argument is highly ridiculous...

How is one group supposed to impose "morality" upon another?

Even laws can not do this. Morality is ridiculously subjective (although its veracity is absolutely objective in application). You can not legislate or force someone to believe something is wrong.

If someone beleives polygamy is morally acceptable you can not stop them from believing so, nor can you absolutely prevent them from doing so.

[Aloysius]

[quote][b]CCC 2243 [/b]
Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.[/quote]

Catholics should demand that their state support morality. Period. There's no principle that says we need to just live with it when the state does something immoral. We should do everything in our power to bring the state's laws closer to Catholic morality.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]If someone beleives polygamy is morally acceptable you can not stop them from believing so, nor can you absolutely prevent them from doing so. [/quote]

I'm not talking about changing people's morals. If I were, THEN it'd be ridiculous. What I'm talking about is morals of the majority and at least some minority being recognized by law.

[quote]Catholics should demand that their state support morality. Period.[/quote]

And if armed resistance is not viable, then they must "smell of elderberries it up" (or whatever wording you want to use... I knew I shouldn't've used that phrase!) and you can add to that they should try to change the majority (or demand that the majority change if you want to use stronger words). I still say the second one can be verified unless you take military action. (or leave the country.. in which case Catholics aren't in the minority anymore to begin with)

[God Conquers]

see my post in "armed resistance".

I still don't quite follow this argument.... you canlegislate "morality" all you want (and this is a good thing) but that will not change people's hearts (which is better)

[Guest JeffCR07]

Dairygirl, your proposition is fundamentally flawed, because it does not adequately address the issue of Truth. Allow me to illustrate the problem from the Catholic Perspective:

1.) Moral Truth should always be strived for and supported

2.) It is wrong to work contrary to the Moral Truth

3.) The teachings of the Church define the Moral Truth

4.) Freedom is good only insofar as it does not lead to evil

5.) Evil should never be supported, whether through action or the lack thereof

These being true, the following is true: If a government supports the teachings of the Catholic Church, it is in the right. If a government supports a "morality" that works contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, it is in the wrong (as is that "morality"). A "morality" that works contrary to the Moral Truth of the Catholic Church should not be tolerated. And (finally) an individual using his or her own free will to support an evil (the "morality" stated above) does not have a "right" to that freedom, nor should it be allowed.

In simple terms, an individual does not have a "right" to go to Hell, nor do they have a "right" to do evil, they only have the capability of doing those things.



Your "proposition" hinges on the difference between the teachings of the Magisterium and Holy Father and the Moral Truth. This difference does not exist, for they are one and the same. As such, the logic of such a proposition fails, for ultimately what is being said above can be simplified (albeit bluntly) into "The Magisterium defines the Moral Truth, and it is materially wrong to go against it."

I know that as a protestant (I think?) you do not accept this, but you must understand that, from a catholic perspective, there is not an inherent contradiction in chastizing those who support falsity and at the same time seeking freedom for the Truth.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]I still don't quite follow this argument[/quote]

Bob believes in polygamy and is in the minority. Ralph, a RC, does not believe in it and is in the majority. Ralph and his fellow majority legislate that polygamy should not be recognized by the law because it would be immoral to do so. Although Bob is still a polygamist, he is upset that the majority won't recognize his marital status by law.

Then there's Frank who does not believe in polygamy and is thus in the majority but thinks Bob's marriage should be recognized by law. Why you may ask? Because he thinks considering other's morals is the moral thing to do, even if that means simply by legal declartions. (which can have other implications such as taxes etc but let's not get distracted)

Edited July 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

The Catholic Church has always taught that laws should coincide with true Christian Morality.

meaning polygamy should not be legal. meaning gay marriage should not be legal. meaning abortion should not be legal.

[Guest JeffCR07]

dairygirl, please read my response, it deals (implicitly) with the fundamental issues of the debate that make numbers (minority/majority) irrelevant to the discussion

[ironmonk]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jul 22 2004, 03:05 PM'] Those are nice euphemisms but it sounds like you are verifying the statements. You can add to them, but the point still remains that they must smell of elderberries it up in order to be fair and that allowing for others morals is immoral according to the Catholic Church. [/quote]
dairy,

There is only one Moral Law.

There are varying levels of ethics, but only one morality.

People can lack morals. Lack of morals can never be accepted, only tolerated.

God Bless.

[conservativecatholic]

Ironmonk: I absolutely agree! The lives of millions are at stake. If Pro-Lifers do not get their act together soon, millions and possibly a billion babies will be murdered in the next 20 years. [b]JOIN THE ABORTION ROSARY MARCHES![/b] It truly works! Did you know that an abortion clinic here in Houston planted rose bushes outside the gates to muffle the Catholic Rosary recitations? Guess what! The roses keep on dying. Our Loving Father does not want beautiful flowers to bloom on evil soil! I have witnessed many mothers turn away from the abortion clinic's doors because of the Catholics reciting the Rosary! Everyone can help!

May God Bless through The Immaculate Heart of Mary!
-conservativecatholic

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]dairygirl, please read my response, it deals (implicitly) with the fundamental issues of the debate that make numbers (minority/majority) irrelevant to the discussion[/quote]

Actually, your's is one of the posts that I don't think really addressed by post. Maybe you explained why the Catholic Church thinks it is immoral to engage in polygamy, but you did not address allowing for minorities morals. I'm not a polygamist, but I think considering others morals is moral. My monogomy has nothing to do with my consideration of others. That's how I read your post; maybe to you you were explaining why the Catholic Church can never allow for the minorities moral in a society (rememer I'm not talking about within the Catholic Church) , but I don't see how explained or proved that considering others morals is immoral. You're proof doesn't work when applied to me so I don't know. I must be a walking contradiction. But even if so I need it explained better. (if you have to be explicit and use little words ) It's actually probably just a value judgement difference.

Edited July 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[conservativecatholic]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jul 22 2004, 02:12 PM']
Actually, your's is one of the posts that I don't think really addressed by post. Maybe you explained why the Catholic Church thinks it is immoral to engage in polygamy, but you did not address allowing for minorities morals. I'm not a polygamist, but I think considering others morals is moral. My monogomy has nothing to do with my consideration of others. That's how I read your post; maybe to you you were explaining why the Catholic Church can never allow for the minorities moral in a society (rememer I'm not talking about within the Catholic Church) , but I don't see how explained or proved that considering others morals is immoral. You're proof doesn't work when applied to me so I don't know. I must be a walking contradiction. But even if so I need it explained better. (if you have to be explicit and use little words ) It's actually probably just a value judgement difference. [/quote]
Sorry. I ment to post that on the abortion thread. Woops!

[Cure of Ars]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jul 22 2004, 12:47 PM'] Thanks for the input. But, I'm not asking about whether polygamous marriage is moral or not; for the sake of effectiveness, let's say I'm against polygamy. What I am asking is whether or not it is moral according to the Catholic Church to allow for other's morals in a society. (I did not say democracy because we'll get side tracked debating what a democracy is instead of my point.)

Personally I think allowing others the freedom to choose their own morals is the moral thing to do. Can I get someone to verify these statements; if they need adjustment, then adjust them, but I want a clear answer on this:

"According to the Catholic Church, in social matters, allowing some minorities some freedom to choose morals, in cases such as polygamy, is immoral."

"Since the Catholic Church don't allow for other's morals when they are in the minority, RC's must smell of elderberries it up when they are in the minority in order to be fair." [/quote]
The following should answer your question;

[quote]Saint Thomas rejected absolutist government and cautioned that the law should not try to prescribe every virtue or forbid every vice.  The purpose of the human law is to promote the “common good”, [137] and the law should “lead men to virtue, not suddenly but gradually” [138] Otherwise, the law would be unenforceable, and the law itself would be “despised” and “greater evils” would result. [139]

Aquinas, here as elsewhere, writes from a realistic view of human nature.  The human law is enacted for human beings, “the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue.  Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft, and suchlike.” [140]

“Human law”, says Saint Thomas, “…does not lay upon the multitude of imperfect men the burdens of those who are already virtuous, viz., that they should abstain from all evil.  Otherwise, these imperfect ones, being unable to bear such precepts, would break out into yet greater evils; thus it is written….(Matt. Ix. 17) that if new wine, ie, precepts of a perfect life, is put into old bottles, ie into imperfect men, the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, i.e., the precepts are despised, and those men, from contempt, break out into evil worse still. “ 141  The human law therefore “’allows and leaves unpunished many things that are punished by Divine Providence.’” [42]  To believe it possible to know a universally valid truth”, said John Paul II, “is in no way to encourage intolerance; on the contrary, it is the essential condition for sincere and authentic dialogue between persons.” [143]

Contrary to Kelsen’s position, which is dominant today, Aquinas’ view of natural law in context offers a reasonable premise for limited government.  “Philosophical relativism”, by contrast, can offer no limits on the content of decisions made through the political process.  [/quote] (50 Questions on the Natural Law by Charles Rice)

I can give the foot notes if you want them. If this does not answer your question let me know.

[Guest JeffCR07]

dairygirl, then allow me to clarify, I suppose I was not clear enough in what I was trying to say.

If one is considering the issue (as catholics do) by acknowledging the objective truth, then the question is not "who is in the majority" but rather "is truth being upheld?" Catholic's know the Church to be the Moral Truth and so if someone has a "morality" that runs contrary to that Truth they cannot be allowed to assert it over the truth.

Let me specifically address your example from the catholic standpoint.

Case 1.) Polygamy is not legal (ie, polygamists are in the minority). This senario is in harmony with the Moral Truth (which comes to fullness in the Catholic Church) and so is correct. If an individual personally believes that polygamy is legal, such a thing can be tolerated, though that individual has no right to attempt to assert polygamy over monogamy, nor do they have the right to actively participate in that illegal act.

Case 2.) Polygamy is legal (ie polygamists are in the majority). This senario is [i]not[/i] in harmony with the Moral Truth (which comes to fullness in the Catholic Church) and so is not correct. Because polygamy is intrinsically disordered against the Moral Truth, it (along with the law allowing it) is evil. Because it is evil, it should never be tolerated and the only correct course of action is to go about attempting to change the law (in the proper manner) so that it will be in accord with the Moral Truth.

Thus "minority" and "majority" does not matter, because if it did, that would imply a subjective Truth that ceases to be a truth. It is not a "catholic double standard" but rather a plea to Reason and Objective Truth.

I humbly apologize if I did not make myself clear in the previous post.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff