Read DREADNOUGHTERS' Comments Below and/or Add Your Own V.R.S.N.S.M.V. + S.M.Q.L.I.V.B
A bloated chipmunk??
I saw you on 'Speaking in Tongues'. I thought you spoke articulately - even though I don't agree with what you said. And, for the record, you didn't look like a bloated chipmunk.
I am so sorry to hear that you have been the object of some back lash. I can't do very much, but if the prayers of an ol' sinner like me count for anything, know you'll be in 'em.
Water of a ducks back mate.
Go rent the DVD Kung Fu Hustle .. it will may appeal to your eye .... music is good too.
Well, I do look a little like a chipmunk Aaron 
Thanks Eilonwy. That means something to me.
It's not so bad Atiyah. Just sometimes it helps to remind people that I am a human being, not just a collection of ideas.
It amazes me how many people confuse being a sinner with being a hypocrite. The former is a failure to live the belief, while the latter is a failure to believe the life. Not surprisingly the hypocrite ends up remaining a sinner to boot.
Persevere Dread.
It amazes me how many people confuse being a sinner with being a hypocrite. The former is a failure to live the belief, while the latter is a failure to believe the life. Not surprisingly the hypocrite ends up remaining a sinner to boot.
Persevere Dread.
Dr Blosser is an expert in hypocracy ... indeed an examplar. Go take a look.
But I don't actually mind hypocracy it's bad manners and the lack of civility I dislike.
Having dipped into abuse Dr Blosser gets it back in spades.
What an awful little man with his third rate PhD probably from some hick American university where the oral exam is hog calling . I suspect his dissertation started out on animal husbandary ... until they caught him at it which forced a switch and broke up an otherwise beautiful relationship.
So do me a favour Dread - go and visit this loony's blog and inform him that I am not one and the same person as Fr Joe.
Atiyah -- as I've informed my father, "Actually, a quick check of their individual IP addresses reveals they are not the same person."
Meanwhile, take a look at your comment and then ask yourself whether you're in a position to lecture my father on 'civility'?
Christopher (alumni of the "hick American university where the oral exam is hog calling").
P.S. Dreadnought -- hang in there; as a SSA Catholic who actually affirms the teachings of the Church in obedience to Christ, your very existence is an affront to our so-called "modern" culture.
No wonder they're hurling insults and spitting venom.
I finally saw your interview and commend your courage and unflinching responses. What I saw was a young man unafraid to proclaim his love for and devotion to Christ and his Church. That is why you are wrong when you wrote above: "I am no model for other young men, certainly not for other Catholics. "
I wrote you privately earlier and closed with "May God bless you abundantly". I echo that here.
Absolutely Christopher . A simple gracious apology from your Father will result in one from me.
And at anyrate my insults are well executed and stylish.
You cannot seriously ask me to believe that someone with a real doctorate from a serious university would behave in such an outragous manner.
The fact that you went there too affords me no comfort what soever.
Now I read I am now one of Joseph O’leary’s agent provocateurs pulling down Roman Catholicism brick by brick combox by combox in a vast worldwide conspiracy headquartered in Japan. Come on – keep things in perspective Catholicism will outlive us all.
And poor old “Joe” in his post in defence of your father says one can’t necessarily learn anything with higher education. Oh the delicious irony of posting this on Dr Blosser’s Blog.
We all deserve better.
Atiyah,
You had requested that Dreadnought correct the bloggers on the fact that you weren't a clone of Fr. O'Leary.
Just thought I'd indulge the request and correct the record.
Now, if you don't mind, I'll resume my hog-calling, Nascar-racin' and tobacco-spittin'.
Not surprised at the bizarre name-calling. Cheap and misplaced accusations of "hypocrisy" are one of my big pet peeves - perhaps for selfish reasons no? - and I've said this a million times, but I will say it again. Aasuming for the sake of argument that Dread goes to bathhouses every weekend, he is not a hypocrite because he has never claimed (as far as I know) to be the paragon of chastity. All he has done is to say that he agrees with the Church's teaching on homosexuality and has given arguments in its defense. There is no reason to believe that Dread is lying when he says that he agrees with Church teaching.
Finally, there is something sick and twisted - disordered even - at Father O'Leary's gloating accusations against Dread. O'Leary's charge of hypocrisy don't refute Dread's arguments - no matter how flagrant (in theory!) his sexual escapades might be. Since Dread's theoretical escapades are irrelevant, the only logical conclusion is that the accusations are nothing more than dectraction or libel motivated by a desire to harm Dread. Why Father O'Leary would want to harm Dread is beyond my comprehension. At the very least, it is scarcely consonant with the manner in which a person who supports gay rights and protecting the dignity of gay men insofar as they are gay. It is sadly common that so many people try to personally destroy gay men because they are gay and/or they think incorrect thoughts. And this is true not only of the Father O'Leary's of the world, but by right-wing Catholic witchhunters and rumormongers.
Nonetheless, for the reasons stated above, I don't think O'Leary is hypocrite, but he has shown himself to be a complete jackass.
Keep your chin up, Dread. Don't let the bastards get you down.
Dread, I was once a victim of a malicious calumny that had serious and drastic effects on my life. I went to speak to a kindly old Monsignor (who has since gone on to God) about my problems. After listening to my tale and my complaints, the first thing he said was, "You certainly have reasons for rejoicing here. We can never be like Christ in His resurrected glory in this life, how blessed we are when we are able to be like him in his persecution and suffering, whatever the cause."
I'm glad you look at this as an opportunity to grow in grace, which is certainly is, rather than an opportunity to engage in bitter vitriol. Your willingness to serve Him will allow Him to accomplish His will. Gaudeamus!
Thanks Patrick! I'd expect a priest to behave better, but what can you do? If I ban him I look like a bastard.
Nothing wrong with blokes from the heartland Christopher. NASCAR, guns and moral clarity keep America great. I'm sorry your father was denigrated here.
Atiyah, your comments about Dr Blosser are unwelcome and misguided. While you're not Fr Joe / Spirit, it's telling that sometimes your comments resemble his.
Much appreciated 1969, these people seem to think all believers are hypocrites. I suppose it makes it easier to sleep at night.
Penetanguishene, your eloquence is welcome. Stop by often mate. My heart goes out to you
Sounds like you had a good guide Tim. You should clone him and install him in every church!
It is totally unfair to characterise all of the criticism you have been subjected to here as a hateful crusade against the Church and yourself. As one of the most persistent and outspoken participants in the debate following your television appearance, I feel you malign and misrepresent me in painting me as having come here simply to attack you. I expressly stated that I was not attacking yourself or the teachings of the Church, even if I did not wholly share your beliefs. During what became a long and (I think for both of us) frustrating debate we both at times questioned each other's character. I wrote that I came here merely to seek clarification on your position in relation to some matters, and then to unpack some of the implications of your message. I'm sorry that you found it such a trial, John, but to suggest I am the 'devil's mate' on some dark mission to discredit and attack you and the Church is mean-spirited and blatantly untrue.
Besides my insulting outburst, the majority of debate was far from malicious, or particularly evil. You have some articulate and reasoned individuals striving to understand how you reconcile two seemingly incompatible lifestyles.
You seem unable to tackle a reasoned question, and twist and project a great deal of your own issues into them. By dancing around some simple points of debate you make your case pointlesly complex, somewhat nonsensical and ultimately indefensible.
It is hard to see the diametrically opposed lifestyles of homosexuality and Catholicism fitting together. No matter how much of a 'sinner' you profess to be. Your musings and attempts to come to grips with your sexuality are a public demonstration-in-progress that supports this notion.
I'm sure you'll agree there are much more pressing things in the world that someone with your education and eloquence could be championing, which you would hope would be more nourishing to the soul, especially in God's eyes. By helping others instead of fixating in the flaws God made you with, you may just be able to better come to terms with who and what you are.
Awww i'm sorry to hear that you have come under so much attack.
Look a the Catholic Church for example, it's the most controversial Church, why? Because it's so powerful and wonderful.
Jesus came under attack and the matyrs and such. Remember there are those of us who support you and you encourage us too, just by being honest.
Only share what you want to share about your private life, you don't have to answer every question. I have read some of the questions you have got and attacks through the comments part and I thought "If I were John I would tell em to *****" But you are nicer than me And that's good of course.
Remember what you said "God doesnt make mistakes"
I would feel weak to be attacked on my every word, so I will send you some prayers. Keep that chin up at all times!!
Christopher
LOL well done
You seem to have better manners than your father and a sense of humour - I guess you take after your mother. It was she who undoubtedly had the good sense to give you your excellent first name too
I thank you for having the decency to visit here and set the record straight – it is telling that your Father cannot do so either here on more importantly on his own blog. However I am grateful as had you not done so I am not sure Dread would have.
I apologise for any offence I have given here.
Dread
Your mindset is telling. Forced to admit what even the Son admits is wrong you nonetheless attempt a justification of Dr Blosser’s behaviour on the basis “Atiyah you deserve it because of the ideas you express.” More than any words Dread this speaks with lazer-like eloquence about your character as a man.
There is a blindspot with you that results in a fundamental lack of decency.
Perhaps also standards at Melbourne have dropped. Perhaps it’s ok to attack the person and not the argument. Although I note you plead that this not be done to you and seek solace from your ‘Dreadnaughters” even after you yourself stray into being offensive.
Of course with you Dread any analysis of your argument is treated as a personal attack and your initial reaction to analysis is always to go for the person should they differ from you. In this you are staggeringly consistent.
I will get so much pleasure in watching the Australian Liberal Party reconcile itself to gay marriage/civil unions in Australia when John Howard (the Great) goes as all leaders eventually do. Already there are a number of Liberal MP’s interesting in the idea. I also have the notion that actually Dread (like many of the conservative gay orthodox Catholics) is the marrying type. But he have to come to peace with his own sexuality first.
I note that until one or two days ago, on the home page of your site you described the Dreadnought blog as a source of "punditry". Then, when members of the public exercise their right to examine and respond to public statements made on a self-described source of punditry, you cry foul and complain of a malicious campaign against poor humble you who never claimed to know anything by hostile agents of satan. The disingenousness and gall of it all quite frankly astounds me.
In fact I have never attacked dread as a person, I have merely queried the logic of his arguments.
DN:
I have deleted four comments from Fr Joseph S O'Leary of the Nanzan Institute and Sophia University, Japan:
1 - described another academic as a homophobe.
2 - described DREADNOUGHT as dishonest and concluded I'd make an untrustworthy lawyer.
3 - implied DREADNOUGHT has lied when the precise opposite is the case. I draw your attention to this exchange where Fr O'Leary - who is not my confessor and has never met me, nor been privy to my personal reflections - impugns my integrity when I present for Holy Communion.
4 - called the Church he apparently serves imperfect, described it as the source of hate and stated that the Church is not inspired by the Holy Spirit when dealing on human sexuality. For the benefit of non Catholic DREADNOUGHTERS, such claims are heresy and if sent to his presiding Bishop, would likely result in serious disciplinary action. I don't care what a man says, but a priest is a different kind of man. This is public scandal and it will not be tolerated here.
These claims are libelous and they are filthy. They make me feel ill and they distress my DREADNOUGHTERS. They are totally untrue. I have warned Fr Joseph S. O'Leary repeatedly. I am not paid to do this and I am not some bitter cleric's free therapy service. He is banned permanently. Vade retro Satana! Nunquam suade mihi vana! Sunt mala quae libas. Ipse venena bibas!
Edited By Siteowner
Spirit of the Vatican, the Church's teachings are indeed perfect teachings. The Church did not make up any of this decision on sexual morality, including gay relations, this comes from God.
If the Church says it is right then it is right.
We cannot conform the rules to suit us because of our pain, we need to deal with it, tough or not.
I doubt Dread is ingoring the struggle but taking it on, and feeling it i'm sure and it's not caused by the Catholic Church, it's a morality issue it's for the love of God.
Everyone is worthy of love and affection and there are ways to get that without having the sexual pleasures. A trust in God through your struggles will be rewarded and God gives the strength to deal with it no matter how hard.
I feel saddened too that gay people cannot completely give themselves to their partner, and go where married people can go, but even some hetero sexuals are called to be chaste.
Falling in love is a gift in itself.
Justin, a 'gay' lifestyle and Catholic teaching are indeed incompatible. I've never claimed otherwise. I feel like you're taking half-arsed pot shots. Have a read about and come back and spike me with some real arguments mate
Marc, I did not refer to you in this post. Somewhere Carly Simon is singing... I value your input and enjoy our dialogue. You're always welcome. Certainly I value your bullshit-meter. You keep me honest, thank you.
Thanks Carmel. It's a bit of a stretch to compare me with those great men and women, but I value your support.
Calm down Atiyah, I don't condone rudeness anywhere.
"Perhaps also standards at Melbourne have dropped. Perhaps it’s ok to attack the person and not the argument."
You launch a personal attack here and then chide me for apparently doing so.
I'd prefer a return to serious debate, not this horrid bitching, brought about - mainly - because of the malign influence of Fr Joseph / Spirit of Vatican II whose foul influence has ruined two otherwise clever discussions here and on the Blosser site.
Send Carmel to Japan. She has a better grasp of ecclesiology than some vaunted theologians.
And now for something completely different:
What do people make of the Opus Dei business? I find their writings and practices - separated for the moment from the actual organisation - terribly evocative.
Perhaps it's the Jesuit-educated part of me? Finding God in all things (everyday work/life, etc.) was, after all, St Ignatius' shtick.
Does this not mean, then, finding God in a gay bar?
You know, DREAD, I like you and I've enjoyed reading your blog. Also, I've enjoyed reading SOME of your exchanges with your critics--the ones who can be moderate and respectful of others' dignity and integrity.
However, this whole thread seems absolutely TERRIFYING to me, in terms of the willingness to defame and go for the jugular on the part of EVERYBODY, including you. I think it's time to take a deep breath, and consider whether, in some cases, SILENCE is not the most charitable and "Christian" response.
Bruce:
Father O'Leary is a well-known troll. Something had to be done and arguably John should have done it long ago. A pity because he's a smart guy and has something to say when he doesn't have a bee in his bonnet.
John,
In all things Catholic and homosexual, with all of the vestmental and pectoral illustrations in between, I have looked to you for the response which I have found to be the most humble, articulate and, plainly, an enjoyable read with the truth ever present as the agenda. Narry an ego makes itself (visibly seen). Don't bother arguing the last point. Your response is predictably humble.
In my own mind, the antithesis of everything I have come to know and enjoy on this blog is most perfectly summed in one title: Whispers In the Loggia.
Using every ounce of remote self-control, I'll make no personal attacks. I shall say Whispers leaves much to be desired, no less, it would be a good thing for its author to learn a more appropriate and authentic "electronic personality" from yourself.
I do not approve of your approval of Whispers, though I find its author to be an excellent writer, its the massive ego that gives me prostate issues.
All the best to you,
Ryan
Isn't a massive ego supposed to give one prostrate issues
Swishy loudmouth is Rocco's shtick. I don't for a minute mistake the caricature for the man Ryan.
I agree with you Bruce. I also agree with Patrick. The banned one is the cause of most of the distressing nonsense.
He remains banned.
Well, I almost feel like I've walked into the middle of an argument. Not really sure what to make of all this other than there seems to be a lot of pointless invective being tossed around. I find John's reasoning to be flawed but I never took any of it personally. I'm not certain why anyone else has, though I could have missed something I suppose. I respect where he is coming from along with Morrison, even if I do not agree with them. I may end a conversation when I think games are being employed, even if unintentionally, but I still have yet to take any of this personally. Why not rachet the rhetoric down on all sides just a tad?
Btw, Christopher, ain't nuthin' wrong with NASCAR. Good sport, many cute drivers... 
John, Philip Blosser's comments, quoted in your post, illustrate perfectly what I meant in earlier comments and what you constantly refer to as 'moral relativism'. No one should ask or debate anything; all we should do is obey to dogma.
The simple question for all Christian SSA men regarding church theology is: WHY can't two men love each other with their bodies? WHY can't we express our love as we are? To simply ask a QUESTION is considered 'relativist' on this blog.
To question the strange distinction between love and sex is considered 'Nietzschean'. Same-sex attracted readers want to know how you are a practicing homosexual, while judging others for fighting for equal treatment of their relationships.
You endorse two dysfunctional cowboys in 'Brokeback Mountain' ('they're so hot') over two happy, well-adjusted women in Belfast ('appalling'). Why? I am not fuzzy, you are. You have a boyfriend, while accusing non-Christian gays to be sex-obsessed nihilists. That is preposterous.
I think it IS relevant what you do in your own life. It's why the Reformation happened. In 1500 AD the Pope could be a murderer, a rapist and a thief, but as long as he professed a certain conviction, all was OK. If you support a repressive theology, that's fine, but to refuse to engage in dialogue is very questionable. I know manipulation when I see it, it's sad you choose to engage in it.
"WHY can't two men love each other with their bodies? WHY can't we express our love as we are? To simply ask a QUESTION is considered 'relativist' on this blog"
No, not at all Vincent. Men can love each other with their bodies, they can express love as ordered by God, just such activity must not involve 'homosexual acts'.
Asking questions is not relativism, rather relativism would be pretending all the answers are equally worthy.
"Same-sex attracted readers want to know how you are a practicing homosexual, while judging others for fighting for equal treatment of their relationships."
What on earth is a 'practicing homosexual'? In any event, why do you think I am one? Finally, why is it any of your business? You mistake your interest for a widespread hunger. Less than five DREADNOUGHTERS (out of about 8000 who have visited this week) have expressed any interest in my sex life or lack thereof. I consider your questions beyond the pale of ordinary decency.
I am a practicing Catholic, that makes sense and is up for discussion.
Equality is not an absolute good. We could all equally march to the death camps but it won't do us any good.
You need to re-read my review of Brokeback. I don't understand your point about the Lutheran schism.
I don't support a repressive theology, I support the teachings of Christ, which are - by definition - the only path to true freedom. Certainly the best tool to ensure one doesn't become a slave to ego, lust or bitterness. Catholicism is about flourishing Vincent, cast aside your prejudices
We're trying a more calm tone now. I appreciate your passion, but bitching is so last comments box
You're right AGJ. We had a malicious visitor, but he's been deleted. Deo gratias! The instant online exorcism.
I truly believe attempts to bait and switch, re-direct the wider debate toward more personal attacks - are a sign of failure.
If I'd stood up at a colloquiam and - rather than challenging my supervisor on philosophical grounds - rather called him a hypocrite and threw a chair at him, I'd rightly be shown the door.
This is DREADNOUGHT, it's not Jerry Springer.
Thank goodness most DREADNOUGHTERS have enough faith in their own arguments to resile from such nonsense.
Meanwhile, RP still fellatios the large, dark fallace.
Homosexuality and Catholicism are juxtapost, ergo, require the loophole syndrome.
Frankly, if one must life their faith in search of the loophole: "We fall but get back up", "Its part of my nature and conscience", etc. then recognition must be given to this before embarking upon the great search.
Fine.
But wait. The loophole is the grace-way divinely given to the homo and sex-ed up alike. In and outside of marriage, with or without a spouse.
It's too much. Blessed be the Cabernet!
RP remains the same.
What on earth? I think you mean it's silly to live always searching for the way out of the demands of the faith.
I agree.
I think you're also saying it's silly to pretend one's not human.
I agree.
Blessed be the Cabernet indeed!
Dread,
Do not be troubled. I think you are one of the faces of the 'new evangelization'. It takes guts to appear on national television and admit submission to Catholic belief. The response was to be expected and as we are told by Jesus himself:
Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you. Mtt:5:11-12
It is my experience that when you encounter responses of anger and hatred it is because you have struck a raw nerve. Deal with this with your usual measured response and any amount of good will come of it.
It certainly helps to have DREADNOUGHTERS like you Marie-Louise. Thanks for your support
John, I'll never bitch again. However, I gave the wrong impression. I am NOT interested in your sex-life; I don't care what anyone does in his or her bedroom. I meant something else.
It was, is and remains foggy how all this (Catholic teaching on homosexuality) should work. Also because you so often suggest that gays are either hedonistic and sex-obsessed or that gay couples are pathetic straight clones if they wish to register their partnership. It sounds a little arrogant and it just springs to mind: is your love with your bf so different then, isn't it just as any guy who loves his man? (I hope this is not ‘indecent’ to say).
The difference between celibacy and chastity that you make is irrelevant in the case of same-sex attracted men. Other Catholic sources I read explain it as abstinence in case of anyone not in heterosexual marriage. You seem to have your own version of what chastity means.
I think the separation of sex and love is schizophrenic in case of a relationship. When people ask you about this chastity thing you usually say things like 'what's so brilliant about anal sex', which is an avoiding tactic, as most of us know that loving sex is not using the other as an object for mere gratification, but sharing love and pleasure where the other is as important as one's self.
The Church does not define what 'homosexual acts' are (except for anal sex) and still forbids it anyway. Weird. But no matter what I read about it (not just your site), it seems that 'striving for chastity' means that everything involving the dick should go. That seems absurd to me.
Eventually, when we're old impotent men, we're chaste after all.
"It was, is and remains foggy how all this (Catholic teaching on homosexuality) should work."
Read the Gospels, they're a pretty good guide Atiyah
"You seem to have your own version of what chastity means."
All Catholics must practice abstinence. You confuse chastity, celibacy, abstinence, continence, etc. - sometimes conflating all of these. The Church does not, I do not. My position is the Church's.
"The Church does not define what 'homosexual acts' are (except for anal sex) and still forbids it anyway. Weird."
No, it leaves the details to conscience and proper confession to a priest. This is not weird, it is humane and sophisticated. Catholics know - via the help of the paraclete - when they're approaching sin.
Dicks are for other uses too Atiyah. Old impotent men, granted, would likely find it easier to conform on a practical level with the teachings on same sex attraction.
But a sin committed in one's heart is a sin nonetheless.
I know the Gospels, John . They're the best part of the Bible and the message of the Gospels is the most powerful in the universe.
Of course, I also know sex can be ugly, meaningless, pathetic, sinful, dark, lonely, destructive etc. I do have an intuitive understanding of sexual morality, that is, mostly my conscience tells me if what I'm doing is right or wrong. However, the same boring point I always keep returning to in these comment boxes is that 'homosexual acts' are sinful per se. I simply don't believe it, and I'm not convinced at all by the Catholic Church's teaching on human sexuality in general.
And my name is not Atiyah, it's Vincent. I'm flattered you mixed us up, because his comments are much more sophisticated than my limited Euro-English .
Whoever you are, you've moved beyond pure reason into arguments from faith.
I cannot give you a philosophical formula for belief. Either Christ is King of your heart and you accept His Church, or He's not and you don't.
That's too rigid. Accepting the Church shouldn't mean you can never disagree on anything. The Church, as she's made up of people, has made many mistakes, just like individuals do. Accepting Christ has never convinced me homosexuality is sinful. Using pure reason is not inconsistent with faith. The two comments you juxtapose are not incompatible at all.
"NASCAR, guns and moral clarity keep America great."
What is so great about guns in the US when they killed 30,136 people in 2003 alone?
http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe
How does this fit with your Catholic faith?
Just curious!
btw, I'm not catholic, and I'd never expect a catholic church to marry me and my (female) partner. But what is the problem with the secular state giving us rights to have a secular civil union, with legal recognition on a similar level to hetero married couples? I'd like to be a legal step mum to her kids, as it affects their legal rights in a whole range of areas. Before you lecture me on the sinfulness of raising children without a father let me tell you the kids see their father every week and I encourage that contact.
Do you wish to impose Catholic rules on the entire country? And Elton John's not catholic - why does he have to obey your rules? How does it help the Catholic faith to suggest people who do not believe in it should be forced to obey its rules?
I understand you justify your own same-sex relationship through a mixture of doctrinal loophole / sin, confession and guilt - but can you comprehend that the same combination might not appeal to others?
The Church per se is perfect, Vincent. Rather, the men who sometimes run and speak for her make errors.
"Using pure reason is not inconsistent with faith." Of course not, 'Fides et Ratio' put that old canard to bed.
As John XXIII quoted from St Augustine: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity."
Human sexuality and the teaching on it is an essential of the Catholic faith. It goes from basic anthropology/ontology and leads to the eschaton.
Marriage isn't just bad for you because it's against Catholic teaching Sju, it's bad for you because it cannot give you anything that truly aids your flourishing. Catholics aren't some weird form of human.
I'm writing on why in depth for DNA Magazine. It'll be out in April.
Your characterisation of my faith is cynical. I don't treat with cynics, I pray for them
As for guns, the right to bear arms ensures the US does not degenerate into tyranny. It is the revolution mechanism of natural law writ large in the Constitution. Natural law is the philosophy most often favoured by the Catholic Church.
Supporting such an idea does not mean someone supports random murder. Be serious.
Linguistic experiment:
"As for Abortion, the right to bear children by choice rather than force ensures the US does not degenerate into tyranny. ...
Supporting such an idea does not mean someone supports random murder. Be serious."
I'm expecting that we would disagree on exactly how tyranny is prevented. I believe that guns create far more tyranny than they allieviate (especially for women and children - in the US, the biggest single cause of death for pregnant women is murder).
I also believe that safe legal abortion is a necessary part of having a free society. That doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge the inherent sadness and loss entailed in the procedure.
But if you are serious about the value of human beings and their welfare, why do you think I am joking when I refer to the deaths and pain caused by the oversupply of guns within the US? (god only knows the deaths and pain caused by the oversupply of US weaponry outside the US!) Are these deaths just "collateral damage" in the natural law system which you advocate?
I'm kind of amazed to hear you advocating violent revolution as a good example of natural law. Isn't it more democratic, and in line with natural justice to have a system of government where ministers who lose the confidence of the electorate / lie to or mislead the electorate must be removed?
I am glad to see however (in your response to another commenter) that you are keen for the anti-abortion movement to devote its energies to providing the financial and practical support for women to continue with pregnancies which they would otherwise be unable to continue with.
Re "flourishing" - what use is it for my partner's children to suffer from a lack of rights because of the catholic church's views on their mother's relationship?
I certainly don't think catholics are some "wierd form of human" - some of my best friends etc etc... But if your argument that "[marriage / civil union] cannot give you anything that truly aids your flourishing" is not just about the catholic idea of what "flourishing" is - then what is it about? I don't read DNA and don't plan to - I'm not interested in gay male porn. You seem to be pretty vague on this point.
If a civil union gives me
- clarity in my lifelong committment to my partner and what we expect from one another,
- a way for us cement our relationship,
- an occasion for us to receive ongoing public support and recognition as a couple and a family from our family and friends, and
- legal presumptions that everything we have, we share, including responsibility for children,
then how do you know that these things do not aid our flourishing?
While I understand that you are sincere in your belief that to truly flourish, people should be catholic, I can't imagine that you would support using the legal system to compulsorily achieve that end.
I understand that divorce and remarriage is not allowed in the
You make a category mistake, children are not morally neutral, inanimate objects, they're human beings.
I know it's trite, but guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Violent revolution is the final resort. Of course it's better to have other mechanisms for the smoothe transition of power.
Children should not suffer. I disagree that children suffer because of the Catholic Church. If your partner decides to have children in an irregular circumstance, she has caused the suffering, not the Church.
Catholics borrowed the idea of flourishing ('eudaimonia') from the Greeks (Plato, Plotinus, etc.). Natural law stands alone - even in a totally secular formulation.
DNA is not a porno.
I am not against civil unions, I am against gay marriage.
I don't think people should be forced to be Catholic at all. You mischaracterise me.
I'm sorry you were cut off...
Indeed, children are human beings - and to bring them into the world is the sacred responsibility of women. Having been given that responsibility, women are also equipped with a fully functioning conscience and mind to determine when and how they can exercise that responsibility.
re suffering - my partner's kids suffer from less rights because they are not legal defined as my step children - eg if my parents leave something in their will for any "grandchildren", they would miss out.
My partner had children within the "sanctity" of marriage, though it was an arranged marriage against her will, when she was 16. After 14 years of putting up with his violence and gambling, she kicked him out of the bedroom, and eventually he left. So please don't blame her for the "irregular circumstances".
If the Catholic Church is successful in its campaign against equal rights for same sex families, then the direct result of that is that el prima's kids have less legal protections than kids with a hetero step parent.
Please let me know if I've got this wrong, if the Catholic Church is okay with equal parenting rights for same sex couples / step parents, but is just against same sex marriage.
Glad to hear you are okay about civil unions. Why did you heap scorn on elton john for exercising that legal right? Was it because he accepted a Christian blessing of the union?
But how do guns help with the "moral clarity"? For women who live with the fear that their partners might shoot them, the morals are very clear - obey or get shot. But I don't see how that advances human flourishing. You don't need guns in people's living rooms to keep violent overthrow as a last resort. Guns create a "fear effect" that is the opposite of freedom, the opposite of law.
Stop using euphemisms. Kids are kids, they're not the exercise or otherwise of a 'responsibility'. Just kids, with smiles and hands and little feet.
Again, the kids suffer because of your partner's choice, not because of anyone else. The State should not encourage bad choices.
I don't blame her for anything, I am not keen on discussing personal details. But when a mother chooses to enter into a lesbian relationship she takes her kids with her. Is that best for them?
The Church is not against true love and true rights, just against injustice. She wants society ordered for the benefit of children with one mother, one father. If this cannot be the case, of course she is there to support.
However, serious people cannot support irregularities as if they are an ideal. Looking after kids in a crap situation is heroic, forcing them into such situations with legislation is monstrous.
There is no Christian blessing of licentious gay sex. End of story.
It's silly to generalise about guns in the home. I know men who've had guns in the home for generations and their women are flourishing.
"I don't blame her for anything, I am not keen on discussing personal details. But when a mother chooses to enter into a lesbian relationship she takes her kids with her. Is that best for them?"
What is she supposed to do - leave them behind?
Dreadnought - I am so glad that your judgemental holier than thou logic "works" for you because god knows it does not work for anyone else.
Is it just our family that you have deemed a "crap situation" or every other family with a same sex attracted parent? And how does allowing equal recognition of lgbti parents "force" children into such a situation?
Does the Church support the removal of children's rights to support etc from hetero step-parents? Or is there a scale of "non-ideal" situations where lesbian parents occupy a special place at the "crap" end?
A mother should consider her children's needs before her own.
The State legislates the ideal, charities and communities support people when situations fall short. Any other ordering of society harms children.
Really SjuSju, I am not at all keen on commenting directly on your personal circumstances - and I won't do it. If I met you and yours in person, I'd hope to be warm and gentle.
And you? Whose needs do you put before your own? The ideal of mother's sacrifice is all very lovely but it is purely theoretical for you, isn't it? And one of the difficult things about being a parent is that sometimes, if you ignore your basic needs, you can make yourself incapable of responding to your children's needs.
How do you know that my partner has not already considered her children's needs, and that this is the best possible way she can see of meeting them? It is not as though she leapt into reckless lesbian parenting without a thought - she tried the "sacrifice yourself for the kids" model for a good 14 years and suffered severe depression as a result. Do you have all the relevant information to substitute your judgement for hers?
re: "the ideal" - the state already legislates to protect the rights of children in hetero step families - would you prefer to see this repealled as it doesn't fit "the ideal" and should be left to charities? Likewise, where children are born out of wedlock (and out of the "ideal") would you rather that they had to rely on charities rather than have access to legislated child support?
I don't want to get nasty either, but some of the things you have said are deeply offensive and hurtful - about people you know very little about. Perhaps you say you don't want to comment on personal circumstances - but you already do that every time you make a generalisation about same sex parenting.
We are all a lot more warm and gentle in real life - this is one of the disadvantages of the internet. All I'd ask is that you use that gentleness in your theory as well as your practice and consider that there is a way for you to speak your truth without tearing others down.
Taking a gentle approach also means acknowledging that there is only one being with perfect information, and you are not Him.
Like I said above, I'm not keen on discussing you, your partner, her children or anything else about your personal plight here.
Hetero relationships are the ideal for child-rearing.
Yes, I'd like to see children, wherever they're born, taken are of by loving people, not the cold, blind, deaf State. This should always be the preference. Reliance on welfare makes it too easy to divorce.
That said, children must not be left without any support. It's a fine line and I'm not a legislator. Cleverer people than I can work out the detail.
I'm not talking about 'people I don't know'. I'm speaking generally, See above.
God knows (literally) I'm not perfect and I'm actually pretty dumb. I am, however, trying to make a difference for the better. I hope you'll meet me there and perhaps we can find common ground.
But it's only going to happen if you leave the personal baggage at the door. That, or have a beer with me away from the icy rigours of internet rhetoric
For the record and believe it or not, SjuSju I'm not totally unfamiliar with 'gay' parents and their day to day struggles, on a human level.
Funnily enough, I don't see you leaving your baggage at any doors. You seem very ready to label my partner's choices as "bad choices" which is already a pretty personal comment.
Payment of child support comes from the non-resident parent of the child, but is mandated by the state. And it enables children to be taken care of by warm loving people - their families, but with some financial support from the parent who cannot / will not give day to day care. All the "cold hard state" does is require those who have taken on parenting obligations to fulfil them as best they are able.
"Reliance on welfare makes it too easy to divorce" - so do you think that women should be forced to stay with husbands because they and their children will be impoverished if they leave?
I don't think you can have it both ways - either you put children's welfare first and foremost or you use the welfare / tax / legal system to punish your idea of "bad choices" and to reward what you think are "good choices".
Putting childrens' welfare first would mean encouraging the family. Encouraging family means de-emphasising divorce, applying tax breaks to parents, deleting abortion, etc.
It doesn't mean further entrenching the no fault divorce mess that's ruined the lives of so many kids in the West.
you've just made it very clear that for you, "putting children's welfare first" still means encouraging what you see as "good" choices and punishing what you see as "bad" choices.
This is an ineffective way of advancing children's welfare. Eg if you apply the same technique to another equally debatable "choice" (but with actual negative impacts on children) such as drug addiction, your approach would result in making it impossible for addicted parents to access detox services / needle exchanges / safe injecting rooms while simultaneously giving tax breaks and other financial "incentives" to parents without addictions.
What kind of result would your solutions create for children living with addicted parents? They face an increased risk being orphaned (either by their parents overdosing or contracting a fatal infection or by being imprisoned), they would almost certainly be more impoverished, and you give hand outs to families who don't need it just to reward them for fitting into your "model".
If charities can fill the gaps, great - but why create more families who need charity when you can have social policy which is focused on practical help rather than ideological punishing/rewarding?
And it means that your primary concern is not on children - what do they want? What benefits them? How do we get a better result for them? but on the adults and attempting to influence their "choices".
Re "deleting abortion" - please let me know if you know of any society in the world where abortion does not exist. On my understanding, abortion happens whether it is illegal or legal. The question is whether you want back yard abortions to return to its status as one of the major causes of death in women of child bearing age.
Perhaps though you are not proposing to use legislation to "delete abortion" - perhaps you propose the creation of a fail-safe contraceptive or to persuade people only to have heterosex when they wish to get pregnant. Either way good luck to you.
Punishing? Where are the death squads out hunting lesbian parents? Don't be absurd.
I've not made any statement about drugs, please don't make them for me, You are wrong.
Private charity is more efficient than public welfare. Google 'churning' and 'healthcare'.
I've said nothing about choice.
The question in re: abortion is whether my tax dollars pay for the murder of my neighbour's children. The question is whether murder is penalised or encouraged. The question is whether children are loved and safe from the moment they are conceived.
South Dakota just outlawed abortion.
I am against contraception. No pregnancy is unwanted. All children deserve love.
"I am against contraception. No pregnancy is unwanted. All children deserve love."
Well?
Why aren't you out there making babies then? Or caring for those that need care? Funnily enough it is very hard to find foster and respite carers (even in australia) for kids with special needs and behavioural problems.
It is all a bit easy to be "against contraception" when you:
- can never get pregnant; and
- never intend to have heterosex with a woman.
Re "punishing" - you've already told me that kids with same sex parents shouldn't have the same legal rights re support / inheritance / super etc regarding those parents as kids with hetero families, because that would encourage "a crap situation". This is denial of legal rights of children to "send a message" to parents for making "bad choices". Sounds like punishing to me.
Thanks for the google tips - why don't you google Sweden and see what levels of child poverty / mortality you find there compared with the US. Then come and have a chat with me about the "efficiency" of private charity.
Re abortion - so you can live with abortions happening so long as you don't have to pay for them, even if that means that women die as a result?
Again - please tell me why your "sin" is somehow excuseable (and infinitely repeatable and forgiveable) whereas the "sin" of a woman who cannot continue with a pregnancy must be made illegal and punishable by law (or death if she is unlucky).
Do you really think that abortion no longer happens for women who live in South Dakota?
And more to the point - if you think there is no difference between a fetus and a newborn child, then what is your understanding of the mother in the picture? What is she, just a lolly-wrapper that temporarily "contains" the goods? An irrelevance?
Would you think about your own mother in this way?
Would you think of Mary in this way?
Nonsense in re: children's rights. You argue for rights for lesbians who choose to live together, not just/mainly for their children. Children are not the legal subjects of 'gay marriage'. Delete the sophistry, argue the real issue.
Johan Norberg neatly describes what's wrong with Sweden.
I cannot live with abortions. No one may kill a child. If we outlaw abortion, no one is forcing women to back-alley abortionists, you have a bizarre view of personal autonomy/responsibility.
I don't know what you're talking about in re: sin.
South Dakotans who choose to kill their babies will go to prison, as they should.
Both mother and child are inestimable gifts. Their lives are precious. They deserve love and respect, not death.
Mary said yes to her child, despite great hardship. She continued to say yes to Him throughout her life. She is the model, par excellence, of motherhood. She is the antidote to those who kill their children, those who say no to life and love.
Obviously you were having a bit of difficulty looking child poverty / mortality in Sweden vs the US. I understand that Johan Norberg is a free market advocate - I didn't see that he had argued that the result of Sweden's social policies were negative for child poverty and mortality. If he has argued that, please refer me to the relevant article.
Sweden v US child mortality:
Wikipedia states that
"The infant mortality rate corrolates very strongly with and is the best predictor of state failure. Infant mortality rate is reported as number of live newborns dying under a year of age per one thousand live births, so that IMRs from different countries can be compared. A good source for the most recent IMR's as well as under 5 mortality rates (U5MR) is the UNICEF publication 'The State of the World's Children' available at http://www.unicef.org/
publicatio...ndex_18108.html For example, the worst U5MR is 284 in Sierra Leone. (That's 28% of all children born die before they turn 5 years old.) The 29 countries with the highest U5MR are in Africa. The U5MR of the United States is 8/1000, and there are 31 countries with lower U5MRs, although many of those use a less stringent definition of mortality than the US. Sweden's is the lowest at 3." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Inf..._mortality_rate
Given how often you like to go on about how all babies should be valued, wouldn't you like to see the US reduce its infant mortality to the level of Sweden's? With a US birthrate of approx 4 million births per year (http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/
aabirthrate.htm), this would mean saving the lives of 20,000 babies per year.
In the same period in which Johann Nordberg describes the welfare state in Sweden developing, the 1950s to 1980s, child mortality dropped exponentially from approx 50 deaths of children aged 1 - 4 per 100,000 mean population to approx 5. Meanwhile, in your "blessed" US, the same rate dropped from approx 31 to 20 - still four times the mortality rate in Sweden. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ice...ice95v1/
c05.pdf See also:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ice...ice95v1/
c17.pdf
Child poverty:
A 2005 UNICEF report shows that 21.9% of children in the US are living in relative poverty, whereas only 4.2% of Swedish children are in the same sitatuion. During the 1990s, the US has gone backwards by 2.4% while Sweden has continued to improve over the same period by 1.2%.
http://www.unicef.org/brazil/rep...l/
repcard6e.pdf
Comparative UNICEF reports on US and Sweden are here http://www.unicef.org/infobycoun...ountry/
usa.html and here http://www.unicef.org/infobycoun...try/
sweden.html.
When you line up the US on a whole host of social indicators from employment, to the gap between rich and poor, the US is (surprise surprise) the biggest loser: http://www.ccsd.ca/pubs/2002/oly.../
indicators.htm Yes, the US income per person is the highest, but when you also get the worst poverty rate, child poverty rate, life expe
When you line up the US on a whole host of social indicators from employment, to the gap between rich and poor, the US is (surprise surprise) the biggest loser: http://www.ccsd.ca/pubs/2002/oly.../
indicators.htm Yes, the US income per person is the highest, but when you also get the worst poverty rate, child poverty rate, life expectancy, the longest working hours, the most violent society, then I don't see how living with US social policy is a better deal for children and their welfare and safety. Or do you think personal income levels are more important than child safety and welfare?
Also, if your concern about marriage is to ensure that children are raised by their biological parents - one of each gender - then a higher marriage rate doesn't necessarily guarantee that objective - a study by the National Marriage Project in the US found that in comparing Sweden with the US:
"One significant difference between the two countries regards the percentage of children living with their biological parents. The number of births outside marriage is higher in Sweden, 56 per cent, than in the United States, 35 per cent. Even so, more children in Sweden live with their parents." http://www.ad2000.com.au/
article...005p8_2076.html
As to the welfare "inefficiency" argument, there is plenty of theoretical material to argue either way. eg http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-
...farepoverty.htm But if you take "looking after children" to be a key performance indicator, then a welfare based system (like any scandinavian country) does it far more effectively than does a "private charity" based system (such as the US). Yes, it costs more, but I think it is worth it, if it means less children die and or live in poverty. Do you think so?
Re children's rights / lesbian's rights - 1. marriage rights affect the rights of the children within the relationship and may for example, give that child a right to inherit from a non bio step parent. We are talking directly about *children*'s rights here.
2. same sex parenting rights directly affect the rights of children in exactly the same way.
Re abortion - so yes - you are happy for women to die unnecessarily rather than for abortion to be legal. glad we got that straight. explain to me again how you value women's lives? And why women don't deserve the same forgiveness for their "sin" as you do for your "sin"? Are you arguing that "genital" homosex should be illegal, just as it is under catholic law?
You still haven't told me how you are providing love and care for children who need it - or is that just women's business? I know Mary is supposed to be my exemplar - but isn't she yours as well?
I'm sorry, are you a Communist? I have no interest in getting into an economic argument with someone who quotes from Wikipedia.
No one serious would argue against free market capitalism as the best tool for lifting the masses out of poverty and providing for children. No one would, because no one can. The facts speak for themselves. There is no support for your political ideas, not on the left or on the right in any serious country on earth. Venezuela is not a serious country.
Your view of responsibility is wrong. If one chooses to enter into a relationships that one knows will disadvantage one's children, one causes the damage, not the State. We must change ourselves first before trying to alter the law of the land to make up for our selfishness.
Again, responsibility is warped in your understanding. Women who choose to kill their children and happen to die while doing it merit very little sympathy. Such sorry behaviour is certainly not cause for legal reform. Rather we should open our hearts to pregnant women and make it easier to bear and provide for children, not easier to kill them.
Again, what 'sin' are you talking about?
I don't have to describe my personal life to you. I don't have to discuss my finances with you. You keep coming back to personal examples and attacks when your arguments fall over. That's tiresome.
No, I'm not a communist, and neither is Sweden's economic system.
You argued that "Private charity is more efficient than public welfare." My question (which perhaps I needed to explain a bit more clearly for you) was - if this statement is true, why does Sweden with a public welfare based system generate better outcomes for children than the US which has much better private charity system and a far weaker public welfare system?
Which bit of my reply are you disputing - the UNICEF statistics on child poverty / child mortality? Or do you think that despite having more children dying and living in poverty, the US offers a better result for children? Or have you got another, different measure for "efficiency" which I haven't taken into account? Or do you think this result comes from factors other than the social welfare / private charity mix? Or do you think that it is impossible to have both a strong social welfare system and a free market?
I'm not sure we are discussing the same question here. Which "facts" do you mean?
Personally, I think that it is impossible to have a "free" market unless you enable all people to participate in it to the best of their abilities. There is nothing "free" about a market where you need to be born into privilege just to get started.
While adults can and should be responsible for their own welfare, I think that it is important to try and give children as fair a start as possible by ensuring that they have as a basic minimum, adequate access to health care, education and basic services so that they can learn and grow to the best of their abilities.
Do you disagree with that?
I'm saddened to see that you have no compassion for women who feel that they are unable to continue with a pregnancy, without even allowing some consideration for the multitude of reasons why these women may have reached such a decision.
SINS 101
I'm not catholic, so you might have to explain this slowly and carefully.
I understood that you had previously commented that homosexual acts are without a doubt "sins" according to Catholic teaching, and that desire to carry out homosexual acts is equally sinful. Is that right?
I also understood that you feel that men who committ homosexual acts or have homosexual desires need to ask for forgiveness from God, and that forgiveness is possible. You also say that being a same sex attracted man who has to take responsibility for his chastity is not so different from a hetero man taking responsibility for his chastity - and that both can be forgiven for occasional slip-ups. Is that right?
If you are not comfortable talking about this in a personal sense, let me put it this way: What is the difference between a homosexual "sin", and the "sin" of having an abortion? Can one be forgiven and the other not? Do they merit different treatment, under church law and state law in your opinion?
These are personal matters when we start measuring one sin against another. Really, I think that is up to a higher authority than you or I to judge. But if you want to argue that your religious beliefs justify women dying from illegal abortions, or being put in jail, then yes, we need to flesh out these personal arguments. Why does one "sin" (which you might commit) warrant a different treatment to another "sin" (which you are not physically able to commit)?
Which is a bigger priority for you - reducing the number of abortions which occurr or ensuring that abortion is illegal?
If you are going to trot out the old "abortion is murder" line - don't bother - we can just agree to disagree. You and I both know that the definition of murder only applies to a live human person who has an existence independent of his/ her mother.
While it may be your catholic belief that a fertilised egg/ embryo / fetus is the same thing as a living person, and warrants the same legal treatment, there is a huge diversity of legal, medical, scientific and popular beliefs on the same issue.
The only real consensus (in Australia, at least) is that abortion is a difficult ethical decision and it should be made by the people with the most information about the particular circumstances, and who are going to be most affected by the decision - namely the woman involved, her partner and her doctor.
Why should your personal beliefs prevail over the beliefs of the people involved? Of course, you are free to try and convince people of the rightness of your beliefs, but why should the state legislate to enforce your beliefs on others?
I'm not sure how this became a debate about the US vs Sweden. I have no interest in such a debate, I'm not an economist.
The claims I make about efficiency and welfare reform are old news. The US is as it is, so too Sweden, because of many variables. The countries are not directly comparable. Sweden is no paradise, go and ask the Muslim youths, or the masses of unemployed young people how much they 'like' being on welfare.
I'm being serious, google 'churning' and 'welfare'. There's more evidence, by more interesting people than me, to back the idea up.
Who on earth would disagree with a platitudinal statement like your second last sentence?
However, State-controlled welfare is not the best way to deliver such outcomes for children. There are poor kids, abused kids in Australia, Sweden and the US. They suffer because of their parents, who - unless you give children the money directly, a ridiculous idea - are ultimately responsible.
Once again, personal responsibility trumps socialist nonsense. The State is a tool, not an idol. If the tool is useless, or inefficient, you fix it or try something else.
I'm still unclear as to how any of this relates to 'gay marriage'???
Of course one can be forgiven for having an abortion. God's mercy is endless.
However, deciding before you sin that you're going to sin, but you'll confess it later is certainly not good behaviour. Similarly, if you make an insincere confession, you've fallen short of the Church's standard.
Another key point, anal sex is a grave sin, but wilful slaughter is worse. Abortion carries the punishment of immediate and automatic excommuncation, for those who undergo, perform or assist in the destruction of a child.
There is no such excommunication attached to homogenital acts.
Abortion is murder. Your definition of life is selfish and arbitrary. The nazis too decided who was human and 'less than human' and with catastrophic results.
I will not support such evil. All abortion is wrong. All abortion should be outlawed. Reducing abortions is a start, but the true goal is a total ban.
You claim consensus, but no abortion advocate argues for a vote on the issue. If abortion was the single topic of discussion in an election tomorrow, the pro-death side would lose in most nations on earth. This is the simple truth of your consensus. Don't believe me? Where in the West have the people ever voted for abortion? Ever? Not any State in Australia, not Federally, not in the US, UK, Canada, etc.
Children aren't children because of my beliefs, being a Catholic doesn't cause conceptions. These ideas stand alone, apart from dogma and philosophy.
And regardless, we legislate personal beliefs all the time. Currently, your religious ideas are favoured by the laws of my country. My tax dollars would pay for you to have an abortion. That is morally repgunant.
Commenting by HaloScan
