Why We Need Courts to Deal with Morality

The Holy Mother Church , in her infinite wisdom, deduced that there were different types of sexual sins, and then the state and ecclesiastical courts enforced them. These sins included fornication, adultery, incest, rape, abduction, sins against nature, and sacrilege. The typical, liberal-minded modernist will argue that it does not matter what the Church taught and that they were intolerant. Furthermore, they will argue that it is wrong to punish those immoral against like sex between unmarried people and sodomy by homosexuals. However, they fail to see that we do the same thing in the modern context of today. Every culture needs taboos and mores to create a stable, ordered society. If moral relativism was allowed to run rampant, then anyone could do anything and chaos would lay waste. Efficiency would be abolished and society would crumble at the feet of history. In America, child molestation, incest, rape, adultery, and abduction are still viewed negatively and punishable by law, except adultery. This is because moral standards are necessary for a functioning nation or community. Here is where the critic will admit that morals are necessary, but that they should not be punished in either ecclesiastical or civil courts. However, our readings demonstrate the very valid need of this to happen.

Looking at the case of Catarina Maria and her lover, Juan Teioa, one sees the necessity of the courts. Colonial Mexicans possessed certain ideas of honor, which was a socially constructed concept. However, it was important to them none the less. Catarina was caught having illicit sexual relations with Juan and eventually her brother forced (at least this is my conclusion from the case) to file charges against the man she loved. They said that Juan “forcibly” deflowered (took her virginity) Catarina. If the courts had not been available, the brothers could merely have cried “rape” and Juan Teioa’s honor would have been tarnished forever. Yet, the courts were able to determine that the two of them had made love, which was admitted, though the courts said it was consensual. Juan Teioa’s sister actually transmitted love letters between the two. There were witnesses to support Juan’s story. The truth was came out (so to speak). If civil courts had not interfered in matters of morality then Catarina’s false, malicious accusations would have hurt Juan forever because once honor is lost, it can never be regained. This might be difficult to translate into today’s world, but there is ample evidence to show that morals should be upheld by the courts to protect society and the community as a whole, especially when the subject of “honor” is raised in Colonial and today’s society. Though, instead of “honor,” it is reputation that is being protected. The courts help save the reputation and honor of the accusers and the accused.