I have had many people say (family members) that people of different faiths are not sinning when they do things contrary to Catholic social teaching. Basically, saying that it is okay for non-catholics to have pre-marital sex, cohabit, abortions, etc. How do I respond to this?
You can kindly state that you do not agree with their position, but in my experience, the culture is so out of our moral realm that having a discussion/disagreement is no longer an option. If they want to have a discussion, super
Live a moral life, that is the best witness.
If a non-Catholic at least believes in God then the 10 Commandments should suffice to guide their choices.
The 6th Commandment - Thou shalt not commit adultery - includes sexual relations outside of the bonds of marriage.
The 5th Commandment - Thou shalt not kill - obviously includes abortions.
The 10 Commandments apply to all people of all faiths. It is the law written on the heart of every man even if they don’t know all the commandments. Remember how Cain tried to hide from God when he killed his brother, Abel? There wasn’t even a word for killing/death, yet Cain KNEW his action was WRONG.
Society was gradually de-moralized over the last 40 years. Doing what is right was gradually turned into ‘do what you want.’ The bulk of ‘do what you want’ revolves around sexual immorality. Living with your girlfriend and having sex, or just having casual sex with whoever, or getting pregnant and aborting a human being, in-vitro fertilization which usually results in excess human embryos that are discarded or used for embryonic stem cell research, along with profanity and porn.
We all know what is right or wrong, but through TV shows, movies and other media, doing any of this is OK, average or neutral. It took 40 years of seeing actors and actresses gradually abandon self-respect and allow themselves to be portrayed as sex objects, insensitive to morality and appearing partly or fully nude. Slavery to the flesh is real slavery. Things are not better today.
Real friendship, real trust, real commitment. That leads to happiness.
You can advise that the “Natural Law” see Wisdom Ch 13, teaches us - everyone of us - that GOD exists and that there are actions we are not to perform. To ignore the natural law, is to ignore your salvation.
In Wisdom Ch 12, it teaches on the “why” that GOD eradicated the peoples who occupied the promised land before the Isrealites arrived, and the murder of the children was one of those reasons - be afraid America.
No, I think the problem goes much deeper than Hollywood.
The traditional answer for justifying a morality for civil society has for centuries been Natural Law. It was based on Aristotelian philosophy that man had a tendency or internal purpose to attain the good. Modern science has done it’s utmost to separate itself from any such philosophical underpinnings.Therefore, they now also reject Natural Law.
There is still a place for progress in the theology of the scientific secularist, but such progress is pushed upon the natural tendencies. These scientifically defined natural tendencies are developed from evolutionary ideas that what was best to develop the making of our own progeny’s DNA safer and stronger brought us to being able to think scientifically, but are faulty being tuned for a dog eat dog competition of the fitness ladder. Thus these natures must be pushed by higher scientific reasoning by social conditioning to overcome evolutionary nature and propagandize society to be better.
In result, the secularists and religious tend to talk past one another even when trying to settle upon common ground because we no longer hold “nature” to be the same thing and our explanations of Natural Law feeds into a perception that the religious are holding on to long ago found false notions. This is exemplified in the quote of a progressive president saying, “It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”.
So is it the Catholic theologians that have to develop a non-philosophic basis for non-Christians and non-Catholics that again dove-tails to a mutually agreeable basis for civil laws that are inline with Christian morals? How will we get them to accept that when they have already deemed all sorts of evils to be good and good things to be evil?