What if lots of people break a law?

[mmhmm72222]

I have a serious yet complex ethical concern with regards to a particular part of "Catholic Law". However, the concern is one that can be generalized to other faiths and even Criminal Law. What do you do if a law governing a population is being broken by a large percentage of the population? Let me jump right in. Statistical studies claim that many people masturbate, few Catholics go to confession, and many Catholics go to mass. However, the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" suggests that masturbation is generally a mortal sin and that one should not receive the Eucharist (Christ the bread of life) if they have not yet confessed all of their mortal sins. In other words, if you masturbate, then you have to go to confession before you may receive the Eucharist at mass. When I go to mass, it appears as if just about everyone receives the Eucharist. Either Catholics masturbate a lot less than the general population or Catholics at large are breaking the rules. It appears to me that at least 25% of this population is breaking the rule. To me, it's a very serious concern to have a law which is broken regularly by a large percent of the population that it governs. Also, I believe that the rule is not only justifiable, but perhaps it should not be removed or ignored. Now to my questions: What do you do if a law governing a population is being broken by a large percentage of the population? Do you reform the law? Do you confront the population? Do you pretend like it's not happening? Do some people deserve to be exempt?

__________________
Mike

*edit*

 

[McBell]

um...
Why can't god take care of it?
I mean, it is HIS law, right?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Well if you make a majority of the population criminals, the minority become criminals themselves.

 

[McBell]

*edit*

verse please.

 

[FirewithFire]

Vayikra (Leviticus) 11:7
החזיר,ת שיש לו פרסה מחולקת, לא מעלה הגירה, הוא טמא הן לכם. אסור לך לאכול את הבשר שלהם או לגעת בם פגרים, הם טמאים הם לכם

"And the pig, which has a divided hoof, does not chew its cud, is unclean to you . You should not eat their meat or touch their carcasses, they are unclean to you"


God says they are not clean for people. He is not commanding like a dictator but instructing like a father.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Vayikra (Leviticus) 11:7
החזיר,ת שיש לו פרסה מחולקת, לא מעלה הגירה, הוא טמא הן לכם. אסור לך לאכול את הבשר שלהם או לגעת בם פגרים, הם טמאים הם לכם

"And the pig, which has a divided hoof, does not chew its cud, is unclean to you . You should not eat their meat or touch their carcasses, they are unclean to you"


God says they are not clean for people. He is not commanding like a dictator but instructing like a father.

Actually, undercooked chicken is as risky as undercooked pork, if not moreso.

IMO, the reason for the prohibition on pork is cultural: pigs can't graze, so they're incompatible with a nomadic lifestyle. To a group of nomads, pigs would serve as a distinction between their culture and the others that surround them. IOW, it's about cultural chauvinism: "our way of life is the way of life that God likes best."

 

[LuisDantas]

Generally speaking, laws are largely unrelated to moral issues or even to proper behavior, despite a common misconception to the contrary.

What laws truly, demonstrably are is a statement of boundaries and policy. They say what the authorities that sustain them consider desirable and what they do not, as well as which consequences are to be expected from compliance and defiance. They are political tools, not moral ones, except perhaps in very specific circunstances.

So what does it mean and imply if most people break a law? That the law isn't being well accepted, of course. That suggests disharmony of perception - or, even more seriously, of intent - between the authorities and the people. That disharmony should therefore be acknowledged and dealt with, since otherwise the trust and legitimacy of the authority will be endangered.


Now, coming back to your masturbation and mass example, what can we say?

In my opinion, we can say that

1. There is a real problem of lack of trust and transparency among members of the Church.

2. At first glance, that problem isn't being acknowledged, much less dealt with to any significant extent.

3. Quite frankly, he notion that masturbation is a mortal sin should indeed be revised, regardless of how often it is done. I thought it was revised already, even.

4. If the rule is justifiable, then the rational should be divulged and explained. That is the only legitimate way of keeping it.

5. If the rule is questionable or outright obsolete, then too the reasons should be told and widely explained. Understanding is a sore need for actual religious growth, after all. Far, far more so than simple "obedience".

6. Yes. The law should be reformed, and enforced. And people should be confronted, and accomodated for, and made exempt. Whatever makes more sense at each situation. Attempting to produce more general, "blanket" answers is quite counter-productive.

 

[McBell]

Vayikra (Leviticus) 11:7
החזיר,ת שיש לו פרסה מחולקת, לא מעלה הגירה, הוא טמא הן לכם. אסור לך לאכול את הבשר שלהם או לגעת בם פגרים, הם טמאים הם לכם

"And the pig, which has a divided hoof, does not chew its cud, is unclean to you . You should not eat their meat or touch their carcasses, they are unclean to you"


God says they are not clean for people. He is not commanding like a dictator but instructing like a father.

I am asking for the verse that confirms your claim that the reason god said to not eat pork is because if it is under cooked it will make you sick.

So far you have not presented one.

 

[jonman122]

I am asking for the verse that confirms your claim that the reason god said to not eat pork is because if it is under cooked it will make you sick.

So far you have not presented one.

Unclean to you could be interpreted as making someone sick, I'm not sure if they would've had a good idea of what sickness was back then so a good description for something that would be almost guaranteed to infect you could be "unclean," although I'm relying on that translation of the text for this assumption.

However I do think it was more because they were nomadic and that isn't how pigs work exactly, regardless of what the bible says on the matter.

 

[allright]

*edit*

Your either joking or you've lost your mind

 

[McBell]

Unclean to you could be interpreted as making someone sick, I'm not sure if they would've had a good idea of what sickness was back then so a good description for something that would be almost guaranteed to infect you could be "unclean," although I'm relying on that translation of the text for this assumption.

However I do think it was more because they were nomadic and that isn't how pigs work exactly, regardless of what the bible says on the matter.

To my knowledge, God does not specify why he deems pigs unclean.
Thus the reason I asked for the verse.

The whole "undercooked pork can make you sick" is nothing more than current day theists trying to justify gods command to not eat pork.

and as 9-10s_Penguin pointed out, he did not see fit to warn them about undercooked chicken.

 

[jonman122]

To my knowledge, God does not specify why he deems pigs unclean.
Thus the reason I asked for the verse.

The whole "undercooked pork can make you sick" is nothing more than current day theists trying to justify gods command to not eat pork.

and as 9-10s_Penguin pointed out, he did not see fit to warn them about undercooked chicken.

Wikipedia has a whole article about this apparently, of which I had no idea about until just now. There is a huge list of animals on this list but yes, chicken doesn't seem to be one of them.

Unclean animal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, the owl and pelican both qualify for positions as unclean animals. It was probably a cultural/taboo thing, I don't know many people that eat the foods listed, but it sounds like they made an arbitrary set of rules: "According to the Torah, mammals that both chew their cud (ruminate) and have cloven hooves, such as cattle, goats and sheep, are kosher; while those that have only one of the two characteristics are impure and cannot be consumed." :and then based their eating habits off of this.

It doesn't have much to do with sickness, I'm just saying the word itself, Unclean, can imply sickness.

 

[ChristineES]

It's not the problem of those who keep breaking the law so much as it is the ones who overlook said law. If whoever is in charge keeps ignoring a law, then others will see that it is ignored and say "it must not be wrong, then, since no one is saying anything". Making an example of one person has been proven ineffective, as well. I don't know the solution to the party.

 

[dantech]

*edit*

So when God says: "Do not Kill", he only says it because it will make the person's family sad? it is not sinful?

Where did you get this theory from?

 

[dantech]

Vayikra (Leviticus) 11:7
החזיר,ת שיש לו פרסה מחולקת, לא מעלה הגירה, הוא טמא הן לכם. אסור לך לאכול את הבשר שלהם או לגעת בם פגרים, הם טמאים הם לכם

"And the pig, which has a divided hoof, does not chew its cud, is unclean to you . You should not eat their meat or touch their carcasses, they are unclean to you"


God says they are not clean for people. He is not commanding like a dictator but instructing like a father.

Your verse is wrongly translated by the way.

the word אסור does not mean "You should not eat" as you showed in the translation. It actually means "It is forbidden", as anyone with the most basic knowledge in Hebrew can tell you.

 

[Thief]

I have a serious yet complex ethical concern with regards to a particular part of "Catholic Law". However, the concern is one that can be generalized to other faiths and even Criminal Law. What do you do if a law governing a population is being broken by a large percentage of the population? Let me jump right in. Statistical studies claim that many people masturbate, few Catholics go to confession, and many Catholics go to mass. However, the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" suggests that masturbation is generally a mortal sin and that one should not receive the Eucharist (Christ the bread of life) if they have not yet confessed all of their mortal sins. In other words, if you masturbate, then you have to go to confession before you may receive the Eucharist at mass. When I go to mass, it appears as if just about everyone receives the Eucharist. Either Catholics masturbate a lot less than the general population or Catholics at large are breaking the rules. It appears to me that at least 25% of this population is breaking the rule. To me, it's a very serious concern to have a law which is broken regularly by a large percent of the population that it governs. Also, I believe that the rule is not only justifiable, but perhaps it should not be removed or ignored. Now to my questions: What do you do if a law governing a population is being broken by a large percentage of the population? Do you reform the law? Do you confront the population? Do you pretend like it's not happening? Do some people deserve to be exempt?

__________________
Mike

*edit*

Yo! Mike!...I see this is your first post.
Welcome to the forum.

I was brought up in strict roman orthodox Catholicism.
Almost became a priest for cause of it.

When it comes to sin of personal nature....let your fellowman worry over it.
Whatever was done in secret will be made known .....later on.

As to your questions....
Every rule ever made has been broken.
The rule was made in response to the problem.
You can be sure the problem will persist and the rule made will be broken.
As if rules were made to be broken.

I lean to worry those things I can control.
If you do so as well....you will find yourself very busy.

God will forgive whatever he can.
The angels will take care of the rest.

btw....the catechism was set aside when I was in eight grade.
And the formal Latin mass shortly after that.

Does your congregation still do so?