Bishop supports legalization of brothels

Jeff,

Moral insanity might be taking things a bit too far. As you may or may not know, St. Thomas said that prostitution should be legal so that men are not overcome with lust and further immorality might ensue. To wit: St Augustine wrote, "Suppress prostitution and capricious lusts will overthrow society." According to St. Thomas, "prostitution in the town is like the cesspool in the palace; take away the cesspool and the palace will become an unclean and evil-smelling place."

It is not the role of human government to prescribe every virtue or prohibit every vice. There are prudential concerns which might justify permitting some immorality -- at least according to Saints (and Doctors of the Church) Augustine and Thomas. On this point, Bishop Hollis appears to be in good company.

This is not to say that his was the right choice (as I believe it is not), but rather that "moral insanity" might be a bit much.

God Bless

Word play:

To say that say the bishop should be condemned and have his guts come out!

WIth this reasoning, every form of slavery should be encouraged, as long as "it's as well regulated as possible for the health of people involved and for the safety of the [ladies] themselves."

"reluctant compliance"

CatholicAudio:

I believe Aquinas argued that prostitution should not be punished by the state, which is not the same stance as arguing that prostitution should be legalized or licensed by the state.

Not to punish is to tolerate behavior without endorsing it; but to legalize or license is to endorse the behavior.

I believe that the bishop, in supporting the legalization or licensing of brothels, is going beyond what Aquinas argued for. Prudence in maintaining the temporal order of a state may require not punishing prostitution, but it does not require endorsing it through legalization of the practice.

I believe the bishop made an error in judgment, but Aquinas did not.

Catholic Audio,

How does prostitution harmonize with JPII's Theology of the Body and personalism?

(Answer: it doesn't.)

Jesus told the prostitute, after saving her from certan death, to "leave your life of sin." (Jn. 8:11) Fallible St. Thomas must have missed this verse.

A bishop should regard the kingdom of God, and bringing people into this kingdom, and not compromise God's law to keep peace with man's sinful nature.

I too have heard that Saint Augustine argued that some sins should be dealt with by the coercive force of law but others (such as prostitution) should be dealt with through persuasion.

In case of adultery, Moses had adulterers stoned. The pharisees only brought female adulterers for stoning. Jesus stoned no one.

Many many countries legalize prostitution but make illegal everything relating to it (soliciting, brothels, pimping, advertising, etc...) illegal.

While I would certainly disagree with the bishop over this, the issue of when to use the coercive force of law to promote virtue remains a difficult task at all times. Those that make mistakes are not necessarily insane.

Now if Catholic hospitals were to start providing prostitution services, that would be a different issue altogether. Or if said hospitals were to provide services that would result in the death of fertilized ova, that would be much much worse.

Of course, one can simply argue that Aquinas and Augustine would be wrong on these points.

"It is better that one man die than the whole nation perish" was a pragmatic thought, also. Same with contraceptives within marriage (after intense prayer for discernment, of course), condoms for those with HIV/AIDS, and HPV shots for adolescents, etc.

"It is a consistent life ethic I want, not pragmatism" (Is that a fair paraphrase?).

Oh come on folks. Go read what Aquinas actually said. He quotes Augustine in ST 2 -2 - question 10 article 11 and he is talking about tolerating unbelievers. There is no way that Aquinas can be used to argue that prostitution should be legal.

I do not have a copy of Augustine De Ordine handy but I am certain his statement was directed at pagans - not baptised Christians who become harlots.

test

L. Kobet,

No argument from me with your post. Prostitution is bad (i.e., sinful
and not in comportment with human dignity), and no one has said
otherwise. I'm on your side on this one.

Mark,

Holding that prostitution shouldn't be punished by the state and saying that that's different than legalizing it is a distinction without a difference. Legal just means not punished by the state.
Now...licensing makes the calculus a bit different, but I don't think
it's necessarily dispositive. For example, it could be argued that
licensing would (likely) restrict some of the evils (exploitation, age
of prostitutes, etc.) which might otherwise come from another (i.e.,
unlicensed) form of decriminalization. In this manner, it could be
construed as a limitation on an otherwise rampant ill. Conversly, it
could (as you seem to believe) be viewed as some sort of government
endorsement of the practice -- though the counter would be that that's
not highly likely to be the case (see licensing and regulation of
cigarettes, for example).

NOW...my personal thoughts are that we're an overly sexualized culture
as it is and that this is a bad prudential move, as it slides us further
that direction and isn't coupled with any kind of ameliorative measure
(like chastity education, for example).

My whole point in saying anything is simply to say that calling this
*moral insanity* is taking things a bit too far. I (like Aquinas and
Augustine) think prostitution is immoral, but I (like Aquinas and
Augustine) would say that this doesn't mean it HAS to be illegal. (See
the first part of the second part of the Summa and the prohibition of
every vice.) Reasonable minds may differ on whether or not it
needs to be illegal, while still holding that it's always gravely immoral.

God BlessGod Bless,
Ryan (CatholicAudio)

Oy. What a mess. My posts are all kinds of hosed. Part of the above is an e-mail to Jeff, and part is response to posters.

I tried posting and re-posting, and it isn't working out so well.

Hopefully Jeff can clean this up a bit.

Thanks, everyone, for understanding.

Michaelus,

Good point. Context is important. Note, however, that despite the context being "whether or not to tolerate unbelievers" St. Augustine is quoted by St. Thomas with approval for the statement. It's used for a different proposition, but it's used with positive endorsement of the statement's validity. Note also Q96, A2 of the Summa (referenced above) where St. Thomas explains that it is not the job of the government to repress all vices. Specifically, he states:

"Now human law is framed for a number of 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 such like."

Again, I'm not saying that Aquinas approved of prostitution (he obviously did not), but rather that he didn't see it as a moral necessity that it be always and everywhere banned BY THE GOVERNMENT (as it is always and everywhere banned by the Natural Law) as he explicitly did with murder and theft.

God Bless

This has got to be a joke.

Ryan - thanks for the post - which leaves us with the question of whether it is possible for the majority of men in New Hampshire to avoid fornication. Perhaps it is not!

Any idea where th Aquina "cess-pool" quote originated?

Should we not apply St. Thomas' standards about human law?

Law is posited as a certain rule and measure of human acts. But a measure ought to be a homogeneous in measuring...for diverse things are measured by diverse measures. Whence it must be that laws are also imposed on men according to their condition...The law ought to be possible and according to nature and according to the custom of the country. But the power or faculty of the one operating proceeds from an interior habit or disposition, for the same is not possible for one who does not have virtue and for the virtuous man; just as also the same is not possible for a boy and a completed man. ... Now human law is posited for a multitude of men, in which the greater part is of men not perfect in virtue. And therefore by the human law is not prohibited all vices...;but only the graver ones, from which it is it is possible for the greater part of the multitude to abstain; and precisely those which are unto the injury of others, without the prohibition of which human society would not be able to be conserved...

(S.Th I-II q. 96 art 2 corpus my translation).

The question really is this: is society so depraved that the law against prostitution is not possible. Of course, even if it were the case that the law against it is bad law, St. Thomas wisely points out that changing the law, even a bad one, has very bad effects. The stability of laws is important and there is a danger that in legalising something the government seems to be saying "it is moral". Whereas with certain vices that the government has not outlawed, it can still effectively discourage as immoral, such as petty lying.

Michaelus,

Frankly, I'm not quite sure. It's quoted in Anthony Burgess, What Shakespeare Smelt, and Salgado, The Elizabethan Underworld, 49-51.

Also -- can they control themselves? Yes. And they should. And (IMHO) they should be made to by the laws of the state.

Joshua,

Good point, and I agree. Stability of laws is important, and this measure doesn't help that stability. Moreover, the law is also a teacher and serves to inform the ideas/morality of the commonweal (as St. Thomas tells us).

IMHO, were prostitution previously legal there would be no necessary call to make it illegal (see Augustine and Aquinas), but since it is ALREADY illegal, legalizing it (1) undermines the stability of law and (2) informs the public that the government NO LONGER thinks it's harmful/bad enough to be illegal. For those reasons I think the bishop's endorsement is wrong. The pot smoker "people-will-do-it-anyway" argument is rather paltry, considering the almost unavoidable increase in prostitution this would bring.

But morally insane? That seems a bit over the top. Rather, it seems he hasn't really thought it through.

God Bless,
Ryan (Catholic Audio)

I've been hearing more and more about children and young adults who willingly prostitute themselves for i-Pods, cash, etc. Should sex with children be "well regulated as possible"? Or should the johns fully expect to get busted?

What about bum fights in which homeless men willingly participate in bloody battles for money and/or drugs? There are people who want to see such things.

Let's face it, there's always going to be a market for sin. I'm wondering if anyone can find the Biblical passage where Christ said that it's preferable to permit some sin so that worse doesn't happen. I can't seem to find it - although, strangely enough, I recall a "pro-choice" woman who advocated abortion to curb crime.

Who was it that said, "hell is paved with the skulls of bishops"?

To the point:

Whether illegal or not in civil society, what the Hell was the Bishop thinking by opening his mouth and pronouncing on this?

PARTICULARLY pronouncing that "licensing" whores is a "good idea."???

Does this poor old fellow have no Office to read? No checks to write? No Masses to say? No parishes to visit?

Has he only the time to drool forth inanity such as this?

Will it never end? God. please grant us holy, faithful shepherds for we are perishing.

Let's face it, not all the cannons among the prelature are tied down securely, especially since the emergence of the special spirit of Vatican II--the one that seems to grant license to all human activities between the knees and navel.

And coming from Britain, what can one say as that once fine country insists on becoming a fascist nanny state of the first order? By the bishop's own reasoning abortuaries should be up and running as freely as they are because everyone knows that some women will continue to have abortions.

Anyways, a bishop with the name of the Right Reverend Crispian Hollis must have walked off the set of Monty Python. We can only hope that he will return to his true calling.

To Ryan:

I tried to find the Aquinas quote about the cesspool in the palace, but had no luck. It's definitely not in the Summa Theologiae. I searched online, and found several documents quoting it. But they either gave no source, or gave a source to another book, not to any source in Thomas.

So I'm skeptical that Thomas really wrote it.

Anyway this is an intersting discussion. To throw in my two cents, a bishop has what Teddy Roosevelt called "the bully pulpit." He has to use his moral authority to promote morality and religion. I think the real problem with this bishop's statement is that he isn't calling people to a higher standard. He's throwing in the towel and saying it's no use.
OK, it is true that there will always be sin in the world. But bishops, as St Paul urged Timothy, have to preach the Word "in season and out of season." Today, preaching sexual morality is definitely out of season. Which only makes it all the more urgent.

I guess this bishop is just another one of JPII's homeruns.

"Unde Augustinus dicit, quod hoc facit meretrix in mundo, quod sentina in mari, vel cloaca in palatio: tolle cloacam, et replebis foetore palatium: et similiter de sentina: tolle meretrices de mundo, et replebis ipsum sodomia."

From De regno, as continued by Bartholomew of Lucca after St. Thomas's death.

I'll leave the translation to someone who knows Latin.

"Unde Augustinus dicit, quod hoc facit meretrix in mundo, quod sentina in mari, vel cloaca in palatio: tolle cloacam, et replebis foetore palatium: et similiter de sentina: tolle meretrices de mundo, et replebis ipsum sodomia."

Whence Augustine says that this makes the harlot in the world, what bilgewater is in the sea, or a sewer in a palace: take away the sewer, and thou shalt fill the palace with stench: and similarly of the bilgewater: take away the harlots from the world, and thou shalt fill it with sodomy"

I think it is very important to note that the Church as an institution during the mediaeval ages advised that harlotry be tolerated. It was only with the outbreak of syphilises that the Church then advised that it be outlawed.

IOW, the principles that Aquinas used. Note all vices can be outlawed, but only ones that are public (for even if the government could read minds and enforce a law there, it is not in its right and that law would be unjust), graver (you would not outlaw all lies for instance), and possible.

It is the latter that is important. I think we must admit that it is conceivable that a society could be so depraved that the majority would not be able to follow a law against prostitution, just as now they are too depraved to outlaw contraception (which was once outlawed). But to claim that is pretty bold, especially weighing what St. Thomas said about being a harm to others. In the past, perhaps, before venereal diseases and thinking only of real consensual relations, the harm was only to the sinners in any considerable degree, and negligible in society. Is that the case now?

He should be "the Left Reverend."

Wait a minute...this isn't right...how come the bishop is only concerned about the "health of the people involved and the safety of the ladies themselves"? What about the all the gigilos in the area? Who is speaking on their behalf? Don't they have a right to health and saftey on the job too?

Where is the International Union for Sex Workers when you really need them? Heavens to Betsy, what's the world coming to when we can't have equality in the sex trade industry?

Ok, so how can we be for legalized prostitution and against human trafficking....? Oh, is that like being "against" abortion and pro-choice?