Mardi Gras flashing customs - lewdness or idiocy or what?

Remove all ads!

I didnt read all of what you wrote chev but as I understand it you are saying that women have have themselves to blame for being raped if they are a bit naughty and show some skin?

 

@ Aldeth - I think we will just have to disagree on this one. By subjecting yourself to the advertisements you are paying to see to the content of the news - it may be a bit more indirect than shelling out money for a video but it makes no difference in my mind.

By your logic, if the Girls Gone Wild had aired as a t.v. show it would be o.k. where it is not o.k. to sell directly on video which in my mind is flat out silly.

 

joacquin, you didn't read all of what chev wrote. If you did, you'd understand what he means.

 

How am I going to reply to something like that?

But the point is indeed interesting.

I would go even farther than that. I would say that a woman who takes part in that revelry and arouses a man who rapes even a different woman, she needs to consider her own contribution in the act. She carries some guilt towards the raped woman for arousing the rapist into raping her and even a certain degree of guilt towards the rapist himself for helping bring him in that sorry state.

Here's the catch: There was also someone who gave her the bad example or otherwise corrupted her into arousing the rapist. Likely some guy who offered her beads. Or maybe another woman exposing herself.

If the raped girl commits suicide, the rapist will have her blood on his hands. If the raped girl's boyfriend or brother or father kills the rapist, the rapist will be responsible for his own death and for bring his killer into the state which made him kill (and likely pay for it with a life in prison).

Let's suppose a shopkeeper seels alcohol to John, aged 16. John gets drunk and gives beads to Ann to expose herself. Mark's arousal increases and when the boiling point is reached, he rapes Alice. Alice commits suicide. Her boyfriend kills Mark. Mark's father kills himself. His wife gets a stroke and dies. Their other son ends up in orphanage and ultimately on the street. He becomes a guy like John and eventually a shopkeeper who sells alcohol to youngsters. The circle closes and everyone all the way down carries some guilt. While we can't really stretch such accountability ad infinitum, this shows that people need to consider the consequences of their actions and that they are responsible for what they do and that it can and will affect others. It also shows that certain acts are not so harmless as they may seem.

Basically, you can't really actively take part in the more saucy part of that event without taking some of the responsibility for the associated abuse on yourself and assuming your own place on the circle.

 

chev is right on this. Some of the 'big' evils in our world seem to spring from the little things that you shake your head and snicker at...check out the story of the Oklahoma City bombers.

Nothing that we do in this world, no matter how silly and minor, is in a vacuum. The smallest pebble will make waves in a lake that break upon a distant shore.

I personally don't take a hard line on the actions of others...I have too much trouble keeping track of my own actions...but innapropriate nudity, a misplaced kiss are still little errors that can have a huge effect on a distant shore. They may not. They may truly mean nothing...but they may also have an impact for the negative on others.

In chev's example...Mark is completely responsible for his decision to rape Alice...nothing relieves him of that burden...but Anne bears a burden of her own for her personal behavior...as does John and the shopkeeper. That responsibility may never be brought to bear in a Court of Law...but the burden still remains on the person.

In short...keep your darn shirts on and your bodies to yourselves.

Whatever you do...pretend your Grandma is watching.

 

The way I see it you may arouse anyone to any extend you like. We are not animals. Well, I always thought so anyway.

Moreover, you are allowed to change your mind. At any given time. No one is going to tell you "Well, you lead me here, honey, now there's no turning back anymore. I'm aroused big times. My pants are bursting and you are responsible, so better play your part, baby!"

But as long as people pretend that any raped woman may bear a certain burden of her own there's no way the extend of wrong-doing on the side of the rapist will ever enter his head fully. After all, he's not the only one responsible, isn't he? He was aroused, wasn't he?

I can't stand this way of thinking. But if it suits you...

 

You're responsible for your own actions. Period. I don't care if mother molested you, father got drunk and beat you daily, the woman you raped wore a short skirt, flashed some skin, whatever. You're your own person. Act like it.

Committing a crime is a choice, like any other. It may be influenced--hell, will be influenced--by other people, events, and so on. But at the end of the day, it's your choice. No one else's

 

But that's just the thing - in the case of shelling out money for a video you are PURCHASING it, and thus supporting the company. I think there is a HUGE difference.

Take this as an example - I watched three televisions programs last night: CSI (a forensic crime show), ER (a hospital show) and the nightly news. In no way did I feel that the content of the show was influencing me to purchase forensic equipment or hospital equipment. I will grant that the contents of the show will affect the number of viewers who will watch, and that furthermore the number of viewers determine how much the television station can charge for commercial time, but this linkage is very indirect at best.

 

As I said, I guess we will just have to disagree about this. The producers are still getting paid for the content - whether it is by you directly giving them money or someone else giving them the money in exchange for your being exposed to advertisement makes absolutely no difference to me.

Bah, I am just repeating what I have said before - lets just let this die.

 

@Darkthrone, AMaster: Yes, the actual perpetrator's guilt is out of question, but as you both say, everyone is responsible for his own actions and the consequences thereof. Therefore, whoever teases and plays on lust is responsible for the consequences of it. Parents who are culpable in ill-bringing up a child, carry some moral responsibility for the child's adult actions and so anyone who provokes someone to do something bears some blame. There is no liberty of acting without regard to possible consequences. In this sense, victims who provoked their perpetrators had their time contribution in the crime, similarly those who supplied alcohol to underaged offenders, and crime perpetrators contract guilt for victims committing suicide in despair falling victim to a crime such as rape or severe mutilation or destruction of all property. That responsibility, as Hacken Slash pointed out, will not make it to a court of law, but it exists on a moral and a social level.

So far as the reduction of the perpetrator's guilt is concerned, we are on a slippery ground. However, it must be said that, as we would consider the perpetrator of a provoked assault to be less guilty (if only slightly less), logic dictates that perpetrators of provoked sex assaults should be considered less guilty than those of unprovoked ones. What makes the difference is the victim's contribution. Here the path separates in two and we can either consider the difference to be a result of a mere fact, or consider it the victim's own contribution. It will most likely be a low degree of contribution. Who knows, maybe just a couple percent or less. It's not a crime, it's not intentional, it's negligence or lack of care. Negligence may be culpable or not, but lack of care about the consequences of one's actions is all but plausible.

Perhaps it's not enough to attribute part of the crime to those who gave the hint, provoked an assault with their behaviour without a direct intent or unwittingly provided the means of it. However, a reasonable and responsible person must give it a thought.

 

I would have to say anyone who finds a few seconds' exposure to a bare bosom so arousing that they even *think* about rape has a pretty serious problem. Should we sue National Geographic for creating sexual predators? People in Afghanistan and Iran think hair incites lust the same way people in this thread seem to think bared boobs do. If a man from a country in which women's hair must be covered to comply with decency laws comes to Canada, sees my exposed hair, and goes on a berserker rape rampage, is it my fault for wearing my hair uncovered in public? If anything, I'd say that excessive modesty standards cause men to fetishise female body parts in a way that probably leads considerably more to a culture of rape than nudity does.

As for the difference between news and entertainment, my knowledge of entertainment law is pretty scanty, but I have done enough modeling to know that clients *have* to get my written permission before they can use my image, while at the same time, I've seen myself on the news and in newspapers without having been asked to sign a release. And the Actor's Guild has standard union rates that must be paid to people appearing in the background in films and television. So there must be some kind of legal distinction, but I don't know what it is.

 

That's perfectly right, Sprite. I fully agree. But if seeing enough bare breasts (along with the specific atmosphere created by flashing) puts perverts in rape mode, each single act of flashing contributes a little share to setting said pervert in said mode.

No, of course not. And we shouldn't sue newspapers that print Mardi Gras photos for informative purposes. Please also note that I specifically said it was not a "suing" kind of responsibility but a moral one. National Geographic doesn't act with any sexual purpose in mind and their photos don't have a sexual character.

If you realise the danger of his reaction being so and you still choose to go ahead, then, with all respect, yes. If it's just a matter of cultural difference or there is no reason to suppose his reaction could be strong, then, of course, no.

The problem is not with a specific act being licentious or not in the culture, but with the flasher choosing to do an act which is licentious in her culture, in this case, flashing. If it weren't for modesty standards, she wouldn't be flashing. If we didn't have modesty standards, her breasts would already be naked or she wouldn't care to make them so. It's not about it being precisely breasts or anything, it's about the flasher taking beads for violating modesty standards as they are. If we had different modesty standards, she would be violating those.

As for news and entertainment, the difference is that entertainment is that news is supposed to be informative, so they don't have to ask your permission. If they make the news specifically about you, they might need you permission if you aren't a public person. When they're using your image to promote something or to fill a role in a movie or otherwise bring about profit, they need your permission. It's more about the financial side of the matter, like they need to pay you if they're going to profit from using your image. Being an actor in an event being reported is also different from being an actor in a movie. That's why it's considered to be public unless they take some peculiar focus on you (e.g. if you're getting a medal, they can make news about you along with photos without permission, but if they come round to make a story about your life or your business, they need to ask).

That's why I believe the girl should only get damages if they ostensibly focused on her or took it out of the context (in which case she should get a share in the profit and some compensation for non-monetary losses). If they simply taped the parade without singling her out too much, she shouldn't get any money even if they published it on porn sites, even if they made money on it.

 

It's not even a moral responsibility.

Or, if it is, it's also a moral responsibility not to drive expensive muscle cars, wear fashionable clothing, display wealth of any kind, ever show anger, and so on. After all, you may be "provoking" someone to steal by displaying your (theoretical) wealth. You may give someone the idea to use violence by visibly displaying anger. And so forth.

Right?

What you seem to be arguing is that your actions influence other people, and that therefore you're somewhat respnsible for other people's actions if you do something that may "provoke" someone or give them ideas.

Except, anything can influence someone. Literally anything you do. Or don't do. With very few exceptions, you cannot know what influence on others your own actions will have.

Yes, it's clear that molesting a child will have a negative impact on a child. That carries with it moral responsibility for negative actions the child may undertake. It's not at all clear that flashing your breats to a crowd at Mardi Gras will...what? Cause one member of the crowd to rape someone? It doesn't carry moral resposibility for the simple reason that it's impossible to establish a reasonable relationship between action A (flashing) and B (raping).

 

Perhaps not. There's no moral responsibility for being attractive and there's no for possessing wealth or using it (how you got it is another story). But there's a difference between spending more on clothes, cars, hi-fi stuff and the like, and behaving in a sexually provocative way, especially if it's taken to extremes. A comparable extreme would be waving banknotes in front of people who don't have enough money for their bills and groceries. And yes, that would be morally reprehensible and culpable. You must also remember that the human sexual drive is much stronger than the desire to possess things, even if people tend to give in to the latter more frequently. That's because sex assault is clearly more gross than simple assault or property theft. To violate someone's property is not the same as to violate his body, let alone in a sexual way. One can't even compare material loss from theft to harm done by rape. In being ruled by his drives, a rapist is also closer to a primitive animal than a thief. Except animals don't rape nearly as often as humans do.

Showing anger? Normally, it's showing your emotion and as such it's morally neutral. It's also better to show it than to harbour it inside. But sure, if you use it instrumentally in your family relations or take it out on your underlings, causing fear and loss of self-esteem in them, then that's culpable. Anger breeds anger. In families, if parents take it out on children, children harbour it and hide it until they are strong enough and then the outburst comes and they turn against the parents or against the society which they blame for their problems.

Similarly, someone who promotes the culture which makes a dogma of giving in to one's drives, is responsible for the results. Similarly, a sexuologist or liberated writer who says that betrayal in marriage is normal and something to be expected, he is accountable for people's broken marriages and broken lives. Those who advocate and even actively promote promiscuity and random sexual contacts, they are responsible for the dichotomous result of either abortion or children growing up with a single parent.

Chiefly, it can be said about those who develop that culture, steer it, profit from it. But it extends all the way down to those who merely make it possible for it to develop or drag more people into it by providing example. Men who go to prostitutes are responsible for women taking up the oldest profession in the world and those women are responsible for corrupting the men. It's a circle.

In this sense, people who willingly and intentiously (or negligently, especially if it's willing negligence) go to great lengths to tease other people are responsible for pushing the latter into sexual frustration, which is often taken out by going to prostitutes - whether male or female is not important - or buying porn mags (and supporting the porn industry) - or even rape. It's not an overwhelming responsibility - it rarely equals, let alone exceeds the responsibility of the perpretrator of the act, and it very rarely suffices to ascribe the authorship of the act to such a person. But, let's say someone contracts 1% responsibility for a rape, or a theft or a murder or whatever. Does it add up to one fully owned act? Not in the physical sense, but look on the figures.

Correct. This spans from a tiny little contribution which only matters in a metaphysical sense to provocation recognised in courts of law.

That is also correct. Therefore, what a reasonable person would do to avoid such culpability? A reasonable person would try to predict at least some of the possible consequences and eliminate dubious behaviour, especially when it relies on testing people's patience and the control they have over their drives.

But doesn't the child have his own free will? Isn't the child, especially when it grows up, a totally separate and independent person from the molester? You seem to recognise that our influence other than direct interaction can influence people. And, when something is not clear to be harmful, does it automatically make it harmless? If there is doubt, is it not better to abstain from taking the risk, especially if there is no good coming out of it?

The influence is more abstract here and there is no ostensible person to person relation. But what if in our molested child wasn't subject to a couple of gross acts but instead to a large number of acts of lesser weight? What if the girl (supposing it was a girl and not a boy) didn't have one teacher who wanted sex for a passing grade but a number of schoolmates who wouldn't take a no until repeated the 15th time and wouldn't go away without at least groping her or slipping a rude comment?

If 30 boys achieved what a single grown man in a position of authority would, does it not split the load into 30 parts? Doesn't it, in a way, make each of those rude boys 1/30 of a grown molester?

Now let's take a future rapist. Perhaps one of those 30 boys. Let's establish that he didn't fall under the influence of a gang leader telling him to steal, rape and kill. Suppose he watches a lot of pornographic and violent movies, reads all those leaflets telling school children sex is normal for teenages, parents and religions are wrong and so on. He also every day sees girls dressed like whores and behaving like whores. He listens to the bragging of his old friends. He decides he needs sex, wants it and has to get it. Perhaps he won't start from raping, but maybe he will first "work" on a girl telling her stories about how he loves her and pressing on her to give in, even though she doesn't want it ("show me that you love me", "if you love me, you have to do this" - ever heard these somewhere?). When he gets what he wants, he says, "Sorry, it's time to move on," and indeed moves on to another girl. His next line might be, "Do this or I'll dump you," "Do this or I'm driving home alone and you'll have to walk," or even "Do this with me or I'll cut myself," (there are losers who use this line) or whatever such. It's clear abuse and close to rape. How close? How many percent? I don't know how much, but surely some. And it spreads among those people who have contributed to him becoming what he is. How much of the guilt rests with them? Even 0.01% is more than 0. Either this, or we can blame it on the culture and the civilisation. But it's all of us who form the culture. The figure rises the moment the boy turns into an adolescent rapist, then a brutal grown rapist and who knows what next.

Did all those people on his way who helped him make little steps want this result? No. Probably none of them wanted it. Some weren't giving a damn, some were negligent, some weren't mature enough to notice any potential bad effects (this applies not only to underaged people). Some of those, if they heard the full story would show deep regret and strive to avoid repeating their mistakes (likely those with least degrees of guilt), some will insist they can't be held accountable, some will run into silly excuses like "hey, I was just having fun, I wasn't doing anything wrong, leave me alone!" Some won't still notice any links. Their attitudes and their awareness will modify their personal guilt - most likely reducing it, often to near-null. But little or no personal guilt doesn't make the act itself legitimate. Also, some of those excuses will only work first time.

We can excuse lack of awaraness, we can tolerate extensive levels of negligence, we can get over mistakes in the generic sense (something that in the end turned out to be different intended), but not giving a damn isn't a legitimate excuse.

It's impossible to establish a reasonable ground to make the flasher totally responsible and the rapist innocent, I agree. We won't find anything like absolute compulsion. Perhaps for you or for me there's no number of flashers, strippers, porn mags or whatever to push one into sexually assaulting someone. But it doesn't work like this for all people. Flashing amplifies sexual tension and a certain level of sexual tension is required to push someone into raping another person. It's not just aggression.

Granted, this perhaps won't be true for a girl who gets rid of her top at a party for a group of MBA students, lawyers, medical doctors, policemen, whatever. Most likely, there won't be any rape and everyone will treat is as only a harmful joke. But what if one of those guys will start groping his workers, telling rude jokes in work or regarding his wife as an object of his own sexual satisfaction?

You can't predict all such events, yeah. I agree. And such an event is not a normal consequence of the act in question, yeah. I agree again. But, statistically, someone is bound to underreact and someone is bound to overreact. With the number of spectators increasing, increases the number of potential perverts and weak people. Sure, someone who's just playing around is not a moral philosopher in his library, but it doesn't take much thinking to realise what's going on during licentious feasts and it doesn't take a tremendous effort of will to try and keep decent.

This isn't to say that flashers and others are all so evil or inalterably stupid. Heck, no. People aren't infallible or adamant and they make mistakes. So long as they aren't devoid of consideration for others and compassion, they will actually give a damn and try to avoid doing further harm. The point is, however, to avoid repeating mistakes and learn the lesson. As I said, the level of extended moral culpability will likely be reduced somehow, but will rarely be altogether extenuated. Even if it actually would, the problem of the legitimacy of the act itself stays along with the range of potential ramifications seen from an objective perspective.

A link between French-kissing a stranger and the stranger ultimately raping someone could also be establish. Let's take a guy, name him Mark (again). Mark has some beads and gives them to girls who will kiss him with open mouth and tongue without even thinking he could be someone's husband or boyfriend. He moves on and on and with each subsequent kiss he is more aroused. By virtue of the surrounding atmosphere, he remains under impression that money will buy him everything and that it only really takes to ask kindly and offer some beads to make a girl do what you want. At some point he starts openly asking for more. A girl who has just so willingly exchanged oral bodily fluids with him without caring who he was and in exchange for a material item, now suddenly has some unexplained compunctions against going further down the logical road and having sex with him for some special, unique beads. What could his reaction be, especially after a tequila or three?

You could say that none of those girls wanted him to be someone's boyfriend or to push him further down the road. But what is a girl thinking when she's playing with a guy's drives and leaves him hanging? Such is the nature of sex drive that the more you give, the more the person wants and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that French-kissing will make the guy want more and not everyone is strong enough to suffice with just French-kissing. This may be true for a romantic couple, but for strangers who are doing it for the thrill and the excitement (and the pay)? Excitement and arousal is the focal point of it.

Yet another concern relating to decency is the strong semblance with prostitution. If we are talking Christians or people who feel some affiliation with Christianity (wearing a crucifix), there is an obvious inconsistency as prostitution is not compatible with Christianity and the favour being lesser than sexual intercourse modifies the degree, but not really the nature of the act (or custom) and definitely not the spirit behind it. The secular side of our civilisation doesn't consider prostitution to be morally plausible and in most countries, if not all, prostitution is still against good mores. As such, it must be inconsistent with decency. A special day or celebration doesn't really make a good excuse for that. If anything, it shows that decency standards are weak and prone to modelling as to fit one's current needs.

Edit:

The above considers responsibility from the point of view of an act that has already happened and has happened as a result of more or less negligent actions on someone else's part. Essentially, this is responsibility for a specific act from the point of view of its cause. However, if we consider a more abstract responsibility for said cause itself as a separate act (and there is no doubt that e.g. flashing is a a separate act from sexual assault, let alone rape), the presence or absence of the potential result has no bearing on responsibility as it in no way modifies the act itself. Whether the result happens or not does therefore not reduce or increase guilt. Thus, rape happening during or after such a celebration doesn't make a flasher more culpable for his or her negligence, which indeed needs to be stressed. However, even if no such vile act takes place, the negligent licentious behaviour remains. This points us in the direction of the following conclusion: what matters is the probability of a certain result's happening and the possibility of this probability being assessed. As I said before, this will likely reduce the guilt to low levels, but not always. However, as I also said before in this post, this doesn't make the act legitimate, nor does it make it objectively right and proper to commit the act or allow it or tolerate it.

If we take a more balanced, humane approach, it will occur to us that it's not all about avoiding moral culpability and emerging totally blameless in the end. That is not doable and if we wanted to avoid doing anything wrong, we would have to stay home alone for all our lives, and it's still not sure if it would actually not have wrong results for us or other people. As I said, we are bound to make mistakes and it is natural for us. But the key is to realise those mistakes and try to avoid them; to show some care, some consideration, some prudence. It's about attitudes.

[ February 12, 2005, 16:33: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Well well. I'm agreeing with Chev.

I think my self esteem is ruined



Broadly, I agree with what you said in your last post. I disagree about some particulars, but, hey. That's good enough for me.

 

Getting back to the original post (not that I haven't been enjoying you guys' exostential little exchange). I am from Louisiana, have been to Mardi Gras in New Orleans numerous times, and have even lived in New Orleans (however, I am glad that I am no longer there, but I digress). There is a dichotomy that exists in regards to this particular holiday, and even though it is something of an oversimplification, the difference is timing. During the day parades, there is little to no flashing going on. Even though they have lost some of their "family atmosphere," the day parades are basically picnic type events to which the whole world is invited. People will show up three to four hour ahead of the parade and begin setting up. Tents, barbecue pits, blankets, the whole nine yards. The parade passes by, and everybody has a pretty good time (also the throws are pretty much for the kids at this type of parade, which is another reason why there is an absence of flashing).

The parades that run at night usually turn into something else entirely. The folks who were hungover or still asleep for the day parades have had more than ample time to get juiced back up and stumble out to the parade route. I'm not going to say that these are categorically tourists and visitors because that wouldn't be true. However, it is safe to say that the majority of these folks are not natives of the state. So by simple proportionality, the majority of the flashers are not Louisianians. There seems to be some sort of mentality that is adopted on the way to Mardi Gras by people who have "heard all about it." Unfortunately, drunken debauchery seems to be all that gets passed on in the descriptions carried away by visitors. I'll stop now before this becomes a rant.

Moving on to the girl who "Went Wild" and then sued: Good points have been made by both those who support her effort as well as those that think she is paying for her foolishness. First of all if she is trying to stop people from finding out she behaved irresponsibly (which she did), why sue? The media have turned this into a circus, and now many more people than just the Girls Gone Wild purchasers know about it. If she had kept quiet about it, only those who bought the movie would know (and they probably would not even know her name). It's not like it would come up in a job interview.

"Hey don't I know you from somewhere?"
"No. I don't believe we've met."
"Oh yeah, I remember.......Nevermind!"

(Now, I'm not advocating taking no action. She should have made some effort to contact the company and have the images removed first.)

Also, she knew her picture was being taken while she flashed, she probably couldn't see for a minute or two after all the flashes went off. It was more than likely taken by dozens of cameras, cell phones, digital devices, etc. To be so naive as to think that these picture would not be circulated via email or wind up on some pervy site is simply asinine.

Should the company respect her wishes and remove them, yes. Will they? Probably not. They are out to make a few bucks off of this venture anyway. Additionally, I read an article on this a few years ago, so I don't know whether this policy is still in place or not, but from what I remember they approach most of these girls and let them know what the deal is and give them t-shirts in exchange for their cooperation. Supposedly, many of the girls wore the shirts as though they were some kind of trophy.

 

Yeah, like in a scene:

 

Chevy wrote:

I answer with a quote:

http://www.disciplesnow.com/catholic/html/article387.html

Go ask the first Catholic theologian you find.

I'll take Geiler von Kayserberg: „Die Christliche Catholische Kirche erlaubet eine ehrliche recreation und Wollustbarkeit, damit ihre geistliche Kinder desto williger seyn, die heilige Fasten zu halten.“ -> The Christian Catholic Chruch approves of an honest recreation and voluptuousness, in order that her spirital children will more docily keep up lent.

The whole thing has to do with the concept of living through the civitas diaboli and then purification through the times of lent to get to the civitas die.

Toughluck wrote:

Who told you that logic is objective ? Logic means reasioning and is the attempt to classify and order arguments. In praxis, that boils down to "my syllogism looks lovlier than yours", as most things don't turn around axioms and proven facts, practilly all that is relevant, is neither axiom nor proven.

[ February 14, 2005, 23:43: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

There's a lot of "generally", "all", "appalling" and "sexual display", but nothing there is acute, let alone specific. It only shows organised events like that would take place, but there's not a word of the church's position on them, let alone in them.

And again, eating and drinking in excess is quite general. As it is, the relevant sin of gluttony and drink, relies on exceeding the limits normally acceptable in a situation or technically feasible for your body than some abstract absolute line. A feast, while not taken to the extreme of abomination such as routine daily feasting of lack of observance of lent, creates an opportunity to eat and drink and dance.

A certain degree of what one could consider sexual in a given culture but what in fact was not so in any absolute sense could take place. However, there is still nothing about the Church's institution of bad customs or even any other kind of tolerance than just letting the faithful vent and realising that some abuse will inevitably occur while it won't be a show of total general stupor and random fornication and adultery (there's nothing concrete except bringing to daylight the sexuality which was normally hidden and tabooised - sexual conduct sort of happens between spouses, as well). Even if.

However, your theologist runs into heresy if he states that the Church approves of something which is objectively a sin. Such as giving in to carnal desires, which leads to adultery and fornication, is.

I could quote Pius XII's Humanae Vitae on you, where it's expressly stated that it's not licit to do evil in order that good may come out of it. Both Canon Law and the Catechism will not agree that any church authority has any authority to allow beforehand for a sin to be committed. There no such institution whatsoever. A sin can be pardoned in the sacrament of renconcilliation, but only after it has happened. Limits imposed by the very church itself can be relaxed with regard to an individual or a group, thus removing the sinful circumstance of an act, but this does not refer to regulations of divine positive law which are outside of any human authority and legislation, such as fornicaton or adultery. The church on occasion finds herself in need to "tolerate" one evil for the time being in order to avoid a greater evil. However, tolerance does not imply allowance and neither does the evil thus become good. To say the Church could ever approve of a sin is heresy. It could be a theological gaffe and misfortunate miswording on the part of an unbeliever or an enudacated (in theology) believer, but it doesn't seem likely to happen to a learned theologist.

Here's from the Catechism:

Approving of a sin doesn't even make a new generic sin, it actually makes one cooperate in the sin being approved. Not teaching that a sin is a sin when there's an opportunity also falls under here. Protecting evil-doers (such as assailants) so they could escape with impunity also falls under here.

More on sins and confession:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

On the laws which can be changed and those that cannot:

http://www.catholicism.org/pages/chanchur.htm

Dispensations in Canon Law:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PA.HTM

Canon Law:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

[ February 15, 2005, 11:34: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Yes. I just wanted to get back to the basics. So, you agree that in nearly all the Catholic lands, a carnival is celebrated. Famous ones in Cologne, Venice, Rio de Janeiro and, of course the biggest of the middle ages, Rome. Do you agree further, that those festivals were extremly... open-hearted.

And all those festivals are tightly knoted to the Catholic Calendar, one of the reasons Catholics have such an huge amount of holidays in the years. That there is a theological concept, binding the carnival to the lent. The reasion why it's called Mardi Grass in some places, the evening before Ash Wednesday.

Well, I guess you agree, as you don't dispute any of these points factually. You only mention that the quoted summary is summaric. Hm, you could make a city trip to learn more about Catholic Festivals.

Actually, you don't even dispute the delibaretely wrong etymology, used to depict the festivities as completely Christian pre-lent celebration.

And I value your mediavistic knowledge too much, to lenghten this post with accounts how in places like rome, the Church lied taxes upon the people to finance the festivals. I have a feeling you know that very well.

Well, you might be tempted to think so. But I think his words have more authority in these questions as yours. He has a page devoted to himself in the Catholic Online Encyclopedia. Do you have one too ?

And even worse, he has papal backing:

Papst Martin IV. empfahl im Jahre 1284, die Gläubigen sollten "etliche Tage Fastnacht halten und fröhlich sein". -> Pope Martin IV recommended 1284: (Believers should) have many days of carnival and be happy.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/ankeschmitt77/Eifel/Karnevalsvergleich/Karneval.htm

Oh, don't get me wrong here. I have no doubt that is a plausible theological interpretation. Actually, it's the one of the reformators. Sinfull Catholic festivities were among the things that aroused their hot-blooded temper and passions, to extinct in the lands under their authority any trace of unchristan christanity.

But: For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven... a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance. And as long as you don't get to be advisor to the pope or pope, I can't see how you ever could reform old Cristian traditions and abolish the 5th. season of the year.