--- Ethical Debates

I am waiting for a lawsuit to be brought forward, to require any state that recognizes homosexual marriages to also recognize inter-sexual polygamous marriages. I cannot think of a reason to deny inter-sexual (that is, any combination of any number of males and females) in polygamous marriage, once homosexual marriages are allowed to be legal. Once Judeo-Christian morality is abandoned, and the natural law is denied, and justice is defined as the pc opinion and judgment of the individuals currently on the bench, then what argument can be brought against polygamy?

Though the sexual revolution of the 1960s was almost as half century ago, some Catholic commentators are now finding that our culture is suddenly rife with sexual immorality. Many of the practices these commentators decry have been with us for some time now, and yet the Church has not chosen to address these as if they portend the end of Western civilization. These include the widespread practice of artificial contraception by Catholic couples and the cohabitation of heterosexual couples prior to marriage.

Evolutionary consciousness brings to human awareness the transformational dynamic of rational “trimorphism”, the three-step processes of communication, consciousness and conscience. From this “process of rationality” (the design of intelligence) we come to understand moral valuation and other social dynamics that parallel and deepen the implications of communication, consciousness and conscience.

Several forum topics I've entered into have led to this same question: Where do you draw the line between moral and immoral conduct in various areas - and why there, instead of at some other point in human behavior?

Granted, in my case, the issue is easy at least for the major issues of our times: I stand with the Church. For some other contributors to this forum, however, since several have expressed moral opinions in clear opposition to the teachings on the Church, I wonder where you draw the line. Here are three examples:

Jesus taught us that killing is wrong. There are no exceptions in His teachings on this issue. Jesus even expanded the Mosaic teaching to include hating another as being guilty of this sin. In alignment with Jesus' teachings, the Vatican has declared that abortion, capital punishment and euthenasia are sins.

However, at the same time, the Vatican is silent on the topic of killing another human being in military combat. Why are they silent and why have they been silent for so many decades? If killing is truly a sin as Jesus taught, then why has the Vatican not issued the same edicts for Catholics on military combat as they have on abortion, euthenasia and capital punishment? Why is a combat military career an acceptable profession for a Catholic, but these other activities are not?

Card. Ratzinger / Pope Benedict wrote of moral relativism as the central problem for the Church today. I wonder how many among us in this forum are moral relativists.

Do you believe that moral truth is absolute and unchanging, or is moral truth in fact determined by the personal subject?

If you believe that moral truth is absolute and unchanging, do you accept the magisterium of the Church as the authorized spokesman of that truth, to the extent that such truth has been revealed to mankind?

Really Protecting Innocent Life - not just symbolically

Direct abortion is intrinsically evil and can never be morally justified and is not a matter of prudential judgment.

In solidarity with all catholics, we can unequivocally hold to the church's moral teachings and earnestly embrace its culture of life ethic, similarly measuring the moral weight of competing values, sharing the same ends and goals, even while, at the same time, recognizing a legitimate diversity of opinion regarding the ways and means and strategies for most effectively realizing the very same values, ends and goals. That is why the proportionate reason matter is a prudential one involving contingent and conjectural elements, which are rather complex realities.

With all the discussion about healthcare that will go on in the near future I want to encourage that our leadership [if such a thing exists] to always reject the idea that there is a distinction between physical and mental health. Most 'mental' illnesses are treated as physical illnesses by doctors who treat physical deficiencies in the brain using physical medication. I'm not a doctor but I can see the progress that has occurred in treatment over the years. We no longer have warehouses of people suffering from 'mental' ilness. Much of this is due to physical medications supplementing the physical deficiencies of the body. Progress is still being made.

Creedal Reform
With talk about liturgy reform, is there also the possibility of creedal reform? The Nicaean Creed of the Roman Catholic Church was pulled together at the Council of Nicaea held in Nicaea (present-day Iznik in Turkey) in 325 A.D. This first ecumenical council was convoked by and under the power and authority of the Roman Emperor Constantine I. The people of the Catholic Church who say this creed are hampered by the archaic language which can imply erroneous beliefs, even though 1700 years ago in the Latin language, something entirely different may have been on the male minds that created this dogma. Two important changes have taken place in our language and beliefs. We no longer must believe that God is a male person, and we no longer assume that the English word "man" means both men and women.