Read DREADNOUGHTERS' Comments Below and/or Add Your Own V.R.S.N.S.M.V. + S.M.Q.L.I.V.B
Dear John,
You write, "Same sex attracted men already suffer, but we can turn our suffering into joy." This ecoes the Gospel of 26 May 2006 quite nicely.
John,
The Anima Christi has, for me, been the answer to the challenges of which you speak.
So inadequately I return to Him, His wounds and hide, heal and am renewed to simply be His and to offer all the sorrows and struggles, hopes and joys to Him for the love of souls, for the love of Him.
If I can offer the following to perhaps say it more clearly...
DARK THE NIGHT
Dark the night,
embraced only by the empty ache of loneliness.
Dark the clouds,
with their cold caress of sorrow.
Questions torn from the heart,
borne on the wind,
buffet the soul,
with stinging tears.
Weary and in pain,
stumbling in the dark,
with wounds confounding
his senses.
But, the whisper of dawn is heard..
"I know and understand,
your needs and your hopes,
they are of My design...
Surrender to My arms
know my Holy Love"
Surrendering anew,
Light from dawn beckoned,
In weary hope he saw
that His Love would never die.
John:
As so often, you're on to something, and you present it very powerfully.
You will be criticized for suggesting a likeness between something distorted and Christ on the cross; but here's the thing: Christ willingly, eagerly, wants to redeem everything, particularly the broken, the shameful, the sin-tainted -- everything!
We can and should bring everything, even our most shameful things, to Christ, offering them to him, that he might redeem them at the cross. Can any human sin be as horrifying, as obscene, as evil, as the crucifixion of the God-man? -- he redeemed that!
Oh, people mean well -- they want to be holy and do the right thing -- but they cannot understand how grace and sin can intermingle like that! The Pharisees thought the same! They were not bad men!
And we miss the point of the Gospels' including them as a major player, if we demonize them too much; if the usual understanding of them prevails, one wonders why they are there, in the narrative, so much? It is because we are more in danger of being Pharisees than we know.
You have an intuition that is profound, but because it is intuition, it can be very hard to express. Keep at it. You're on to something.
Forgot my website link aboce
Beautifully put, John. Thank you.
This is what it's about. An eternal, gentle invitation.
=)
Thank you, John,
I am reminded of something poignant that Jesus once said to a man who professed his desire to follow him.
"Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."
Luke 9:58
In many ways, I sometimes feel that we also have no place to lay our heads, but our crosses help remind us of where our home truly is. And our own deep wounds offer us the opportunity to in turn become 'wounded healers' for Christ.
What me and you "suffer" in the Western World is nothing but decadent bullshit... compared to the situation of others in many countries of the World like (catholic) Poland and Russia, where the police not even stopps the Nationalist from chasing gays through the street.
Sorry for destroying the party.
You've destroyed nothing Etienne. Any man's suffering is shared by good men. Sometimes, however, what people consider suffering (a banned sex march in Poland, for instance) is really good for them.
I really do think that, as God turns things that prima facie seem horrendous into great goods, He uses the experiences of SSA men for His own ends Andrew. I'm still waiting for the DREAD ARMY, a caste of warriors sure in their faith, pure and free, who'll tear the culture apart and put it back together for Christ.
And sometimes a punch in the guts cAt
I think in the middle of all that I got a whiff of your hesitancy/concern Fr Martin. I think it's time I took a serious spiritual advisor - I lack maturity.
Thank you Harry, did you write that? Have you read the poetry of St John of the Cross? It's linked at the bottom of my sidebar.
"Sometimes, however, what people consider suffering (a banned sex march in Poland, for instance) is really good for them."
This pure cynicism ...
[...comment deleted because it was offensive...] try to keep on topic Etienne - DN
Edited By Siteowner
John:
I don't know what part of my thoughts you took as revealing "hesitancy/concern"; but I do encourage you to have a spiritual director.
John, this was a beautiful and thoughtful post, but you immediately loose credibility in response to Etiennes comment. What took place in Poland a while ago and Russia yesterday was not at all a 'sex march', but a peaceful demonstration of gay men. We could see they were spit at, yelled at, beaten by an alliance of 'christians' and neo-fascists, and the police doing NOTHING to prevent it. It was revealing to see this intense hatred and how it can transform even sweet devout Russian matrushka's into hysterical witches. A similar thing happened in Poland.
When you can obviously write so well about suffering, do not turn a blind eye to the suffering of fellow 'SSA' men who live in much more difficult circumstances when it's right under your nose.
Encouragement accepted Fr Martin
I am not the mayor of Warsaw, Vincent/Etienne, nor the President of Poland. Send those men your complaints, I'm not responsible for them.
My post is on suffering, same sex attraction and humility.
You're right Andy K and I hadn't read them:
John Chapter 16
"20 Amen, amen, I say to you, you will weep and mourn, while the world rejoices; you will grieve, but your grief will become joy."
"21 When a woman is in labor, she is in anguish because her hour has arrived; but when she has given birth to a child, she no longer remembers the pain because of her joy that a child has been born into the world."
"22 So you also are now in anguish. But I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy away from you."
"23 On that day you will not question me about anything. Amen, amen, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you."
Hurrah!
What about this idea that SSA men have 'no place to lay their heads'?
I can't help but think that, while it's immediately uncomfortable, such a thing leaves us open to others. Certainly many SSA men are known for their uncharacteristic warmth and compassion. Such things should be emphasised.
It was Gore Vidal or Edmund White who said we sometimes make such good listeners and even writers because our back-story is one that forces us to a level of self-awareness beyond narrow-minded conceptions of the human condition.
Does this sound right? What do the female DREADNOUGHTERS think? Is this why SSA men and straight women are often so close?
Can't add anything to the other resonating responses here. Vintage Dreadstuff.
I've had a suspicion that SSA men were "gifted" in the way you just mentioned, and even prone to be rather spiritual people. I'm not sure what to attribute it to, except that, maybe, this experience of having gone through both internal and external struggles of the kind you describe could (possibly) increase empathy, understanding, etc. Thus, it's not surprising to me that SSA men would be attracted to the priesthood.
I got this hit also after reading some of James Alison's stuff, particularly _Faith Beyond Resentment_ (which bears comparison to your post, I think).
I'm one of your straight female readers, and I do think gay people tend to be exceptionally compassionate listeners. That has been my experience of them, both men and women.
When it comes to great understanding of the kind that lead to achievement in the arts, however, my experience and reading suggest that it's gay *men* rather than gay women who have exceptional gifts.
Camille Paglia - who has taught young people of both sexes in a fine arts school for several decades now - has suggested the existence not of a gay gene but an artistic gene. The provincial sometimes mistake it for homosexuality. If it's mishandled by parents, it can actually be transformed into homosexuality, as the gifted young boy becomes convinced that piano playing or love of opera or whatever, make him less than a real man.
I may not be doing justice to the theory, so don't judge it by what I've written here. What do you and your readers think of it? It doesn't have to be the whole or only explanation for the gifts of homosexual men, but it is, to me, intriguing.
Alias Clio, I don't believe people can be 'talked into' homosexuality. Even an occasional homosexual experience will not transform someone's deepest desires, as is demonstrated by married gay men whose exposure to heterosexual sex never made them straight. I've met men who were very straight but who could relate better to women in all areas and who had artistic interests. Vice versa, I've been taught all my life to be straight, but I'm not.
If gay men are stronger in the arts, it would made sense as male urges to procreate are translated in sensibilities otherwise needed for the family (this sounds silly, I know).
John, I didn't realize I was off topic. It seemed a clear and present case of unjust suffering.
On the other hand, my experience is indeed that humility often is a more appropriate response than pride. Your descriptions of the alienation, judgements and humiliations 'SSA' men face on a daily basis is more than accurate, There is only One who can truly share our trials and in Him we find the true nature of Love.
Well, however imperfectly expressed amidst such firm believers this simple faggot is interested in more than hedonism.
Hello Vincent,
Your comment about married straight men who are artistic, etc., shows that I've failed to explain the theory adequately. Paglia does say that it's an artistic gene - not by any means *necessarily* leading to homosexuality. But she adds that in certain circles - very provincial, he-man-oriented ones - sensitivity and artistic interests are very likely to be interpreted as gay.
The unfortunate gifted male child who experiences the resultant bullying, etc., might, under such pressure, come to believe himself to be insufficiently masculine by the standards of his community, to hunger for male affirmation, and to experiment sexually with his own sex. I have known men who went through some version of this experience - they tend to be primarily gay but deeply unsure of it, as if they somehow had their sexual identity foisted on them. The (true)story of the composer Ricky Gordon Lydon, in the book Home Fires, has a similar theme.
Cultural pressure and expectation may not be enough to make a man homosexual. I expect that other factors, including a genuine "gay gene" for all I know, are at work.
But consider this - for decades now, chichi social theorists have insisted that "male" and "female" are merely socially imposed categories. To argue otherwise is to risk attack as an "essentialist" conservative. Why is it that it's only sexual orientation that must be assumed to be inborn?
And simple faggot or not, neither I nor anyone at this blog has suggested that you are interested only in hedonism - not anywhere that I've seen, my dear V.
John, Yes I wrote that poem..nothing profound but from the heart. and St. John of the Cross is a hero of mine. There are those who say he may have understood of which we speak. Regardless his awareness of the Beloved is profound and practical....The whole subject of SSA longings..His wounds is something that I could discuss at length. Vocations to the religious life, creativity (arts, writing,etc) all express so much more than what we see at quick glance.
Harry
Really Xpat? Maybe I'll have to give it a read...
Paglia again! She seems to come up quite a bit and people are always trying to get me to read her Clio. I must be an essentialist conservative. Boys are boys and girls are girls. Unless, of course, they're boiz and gnurrls, but that's a whole other post
Hoorah Vincent! But I do think someone can be 'talked into' homosexuality. Especially if a young boy is abused, his idea of love, sex and physical intimacy (and its worth) are often, sadly, warped. Such people might express themselves via homogenital acts but their true desires would, causa sine qua non the abuse, lead them elsewhere. I think Hungarian porn stars are also often 'talked into' homosexuality, at least in as much as they perform on screen.
It was v. expressive Harry. St John of the Cross understood more about love, true love and a freedom that brings suffering and joy than most men. Thank G-d he wrote much of it down; and in such solid, subtle, beautiful verse.
Dear Alias Clio,
I do not know what makes people gay. And I do consider 'male' and 'female' to be two distinct categories. I also know I love women very much, but I fo fall in love with men all my life,
Consider this: what if every sign of strength one shows is interpreted as latent heterosexuality? And every weakness as a failure of the parents? That's my politically incorrect story.
Paglia picks 'safe' enemies. And she also has a 'female' view on sexuality, as if it is somehow fixable and fluid. Guys do know who they like. They can hide it, it will remain buried for years if necessary, but sooner or later it will come out.
John, I agree about Hungarian porn stars, but even then: they're paid to do something, but as soon as they're private, they make other choices. This is especially true for male actors, as you and I know 
Forget the last wink, I don't know what I was trying to say,
Ha ha Vincent, okay then...
Does this sound right? What do the female DREADNOUGHTERS think? Is this why SSA men and straight women are often so close?
John, as one of your straight female readers, I just wanted to share some things.
I have known and dearly loved many SSA men. (I have not known many lesbians, but not by choice). All this time I was a practising Catholic in agreement with Church teaching on all matters sexual and otherwise, but I never did judge my SSA friends. I just loved them as they were, even though they lived differently to me.
John, it is a source of deep pain for me that many of these men - even those I was really close to - have rejected me over the years. When I was married, they came to my wedding and all they could do was bitch about my dress or other matters of "taste." Was it because our wedding was in a Catholic Church? Was is because of their own pain? I don't know, but I too am hurting.
All aI ever wanted was to give love to these friends, and share God's great love for them too. Did I waste my time?
When I became a mother, they did not visit me and my baby. I would have loved them to be friends with me and my little family. I would open my arms and heart to them now and open the door of my home and welcome them now. Do they care about me?
I know they suffer in ways I do not. But I suffer too. Some of the gay men I knew were very vicious and bitchy towards me, when I had never done anything to harm them (that I know of).
Why are my sufferings overlooked (not by you, John, just the friends I am telling you about)?
If I'm angry about certain aspects of gay culture, like the fact that my former friends (I still love them but they don't seem to care) refer to children, including mine, as "sprog," it's because I feel hurt.
Anger, hurt and suffering can go both ways it seems.
More humility is definitely the key. I still cry tears for these men and my lost friendships with them. I am crying now.
Camille sampler:
http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/f...onna/
index.html
I was really into Camille for a while, though I disagreed with 70-80% of whatever she said. She had so much punch and freshness as a writer, though. In this link, she's making an evaluation of disco that I could never, ever, ever share, but I like it just because it's Camille being Camille.
Unfortunately, she no longer has a regular column at Salon.
Sorry, that's getting waaaaaaaaaay off topic.
Sorry if I broke the subject/sentiment of your post, Louise. It was a great post. Actually, all of your posts that I've read have been quite affecting.
You should have your own blog or something.
I wasn´t talking only about Pride Marches in Poland or Russia (although the news were embarrassing about the Moscow incident), but about the day by day repression in these countries which is qiute different from what we "suffer" in Melbourne and München, I guess. And the Catholic /Orthodox church adds to this athmosphere in these country as she would in our countries, if she only had more influence...
The Christian god doesnt wants us to suffer, but some of our brothers and sisters on this planet.
[...Apologies, haloscan was down for maintenance for a few hours and comments were suspended...but, we're back up now...]
I don't know Louise, I am not everyfag but it sounds like you had silly mates in the first place.
Consider also that as women age they acquire husbands, families, committments and responsibilities. The average SSA Chip/Buck/Joe/Todd remains, in some cases, in a state of suspended adolescence, no kids, no husband and no drain on income.
I know many guys who feel foolish or useless around fertile women and their growing broods. Such shame might, arguably, translate into a defense mechanism: the bitchiness you write about so affectingly.
Some guys even have a history of competing with their mothers for the attention of men - so there are myriad complications when the 'fag hag' morphs into a mommy.
This is not an excuse for poor behaviour, not all SSA men are so immature, but it might be an explanation.
We need to look at each other, across wildy divergent life-experiences, and see only brothers and sisters, not rivals.
I don't know about anyone else, but I cherish my DREADMOMMIES and their magnificent emails. Thank you!
You still kicking that can Etienne? Lighten up mate.
I like that Paglia Xpat, although I think Madonna can do very little wrong as far as pop music goes ('American Life' conveniently ignored).
Paglia seems to harp too much on the marketing. She seems to misundertand that with Madonna, the marketing, the hype, the spark (it was krumping this time, with a nod to reggaeton culture) is half the fun. Being at The Roxy and MisShapes just weeks after Ciccone, you could still see her stardust, oozing from the corners of the otherwise dank rooms.
The lady bangs.
Just can't get into disco, or Madonna, though I can appreciate her schtick, I suppose. Camille's written some bracing stuff re: culture, cultural politics, etc. If nothing else, REAL honest. I miss her voice out there in the polarizing world. She straddled worlds.
Her magnum opus was _Sexual Personae_. Probably not for everyone. She's in the Harold Bloom school (her mentor), which can veer toward personality worship but includes some insightful stuff.
You still can't enter a gay bar without hearing 'Confessions' even half a year after it's released. Talk about suffering... (it's a very good album, but I heard it a little too much). I cannot find her provocative, even hanging on a cross she's ironic (she should be careful though, considering her hernia ).
Queeny bitchiness is intimidating to many people, but its just a pose, as John said a defense mechanism of some sort. I find it entirely boring. Besides, you'll end up being an old, bitter tart. Everyone who can't be happy for someone elses baby is a frustrated spinster.
I am also a straight, female reader so I'll try and offer something of my experience.
Through my growing up my parents had gay friends who we spent time with, though as a child I confess I didn't know they were gay.
One in particular had been a friend to my parents since they were all kids and his sister is my sister's godmother. I confess, I did not realise he was gay until I was 13 and had a school friend over one day when he came to visit. After he left my friend did an imitation of his voice and mannerisms - it hit me. They were very obvious really but I had never noticed! I then asked my parents and they confirmed yes, he was gay. I just find it interesting though that since I had known him my whole life I just never noticed how effeminate his mannerisms were. Even the fact that his was a huge ABBA fan did not mean anything strange to me!
He's still a great friend of our familys and often visits my grandmother to help her with any odd jobs she needs to be done, have lunch with her and keep her company.
I have also encountered the "bitchy queens" , mostly at university but hopefully they will grow out of that!
Bec
Thanks Xpat, I'll read more widely in the Paglia vein.
Well, at least either a troubled or a nasty person Vincent - we shouldn't generalise too harshly. I once heard 'Confessions' played in the foyer of a workmans' bar interspersed with other, less pop-like offerings: she's omnipresent.
Thanks for your contribution Bec. I suppose we all have different experiences and it's hard to generalise. You had bitches at college, Louis during her motherhood.
I guess the lesson is to avoid bitches, regardless of their sexual inclinations.
I know there are silent guys reading. I'd encourage SSA men who aren't 'out' to let me know how they're doing. Is it harder or easier to be SSA now than it was? What pressures do we face? Have you been attacked/bullied?
OK, don't ya hate it when you slave over a post and haloscan eats it??? Grrrrrr.
That'll learn me not to save it elsewhere first.
In summary then:
Thanks for feedback everyone.
I have a blog Xpat - all welcome - warning: may encounter rants/crankiness.
John, thanks, this is bringing some healing to me.
My friends probably were just silly; lesson learned.
Conclusion: cannot possibly say whether or not SSA men are more sensitive - not really my experience in the end.
PS: proud to be a DREADMOMMY
[*saves to Word first*]
"I know there are silent guys reading."
I guess its always me clicking your blog to see if You finally have removed your selfpic with that disgusting expression....
Very honest and nice post Louise.
I am a straight male reader of this blog.
My wife an me have two children - and yes most certainly some of our dear friends (gays and single heteros, married without kids heteros) do not exactly get 'children'.
As far as some of these friends are concerned kids are "untidy suckers of our energy and attention". And sure enough, as you know kids do indeed require a lot of love and tender care - and yes they take a lot out of us.
I try not to take those friends opinons too personally - IMHO they are just their honest thoughts but otherwise they are still great friends.
On the other hand, my wife and me also know many wonderful gay couples that are very much interested in children and that often have adopted and naturally conceived children.
Indeed we find that some of our gay friends make the most splendid parents - probably exactly because they gave it some much more serious thought and consideration compared to us us natural heterosexual ''breeders ".
In today's Age:
"Auschwitz: where was the church?
Pope Benedict XVI asks on his visit to Auschwitz why God allowed such "unprecedented horror" ( The Age, 30/5).
The 78-year-old German pontiff, however, should know far better. Roman Catholic bishops in Germany at the time were openly supportive of Hitler's policies towards the Jews, to the point that many were photographed offering him the customary Nazi salute.
Moreover, when Hitler declared to the assembled masses that "I have been sent by God and I have come to complete Jesus' mission", where was the Catholic Church to condemn such an anti-Semitic reading of the Christian New Testament?
The truth is that this is not a question of why God allowed such "unprecedented horror", but a question of why the church still fails to confront the fact that it was complicit in the greatest crime in human history.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin, Rivett, ACT"
I'd prefer if you contributed something you'd written yourself Ron.
Anyone interested in the truth about the Church and the Nazi regime might care to take a look at this helpful collection of articles, papers and texts, or this article from the 'Washington Times'.
You might also want to take another look at the pics I posted. With such leaders I'm so happy, simply happy, to be a Catholic.
I'm pleased Louise! Rant here anytime
Really Etienne, try to keep on track mate.
I'm not sure mere serious thought about parenting makes a good parent Grega. Sometimes the most scrupulous parents are useless/smothering. I'm not even sure being financially secure makes someone a good parent. Without a mommy or a daddy a child is at a disadvantage that all the care, play-dates and good-intentions cannot easily rectify. How can they?
I've received a number of emails from 'closeted' SSA guys. Keep them coming
What's with all this 'mommy' business?
We're Australian; it's 'mum' and if you want to be naff, 'mummy'.
Sheesh...
Who are the 'we' in your 'we're' Georgina?
Upwards of 78% of DREADNOUGHTERS are from the United States.
Again, please comment on the post topic.
I've not heard from any SSA guys in country/rural areas yet, I'd love to hear from you.
John:
you wrote:
" I'd prefer if you contributed something you'd written yourself Ron. " and then you go on in the very next sentence too link to other peoples sites.
What's up with that.?
I very much agree with Ron .
As a German I find it rather offensive and shameful with what concoction Benedict came up with for parts of this important speech.
Benedict must certainly very much know that antisemitism had also very strong religious, christian roots along the line of the 'Murderes of Christ' - the Catholic Hitler certainly did not come to his views just out of nowhere.
For the German Pope to wash his hands off like this ... I can not understand what is going on.
"What's up with that?"
DREADNOUGHT is all my writing. It's rather strange to claim I don't contribute my own ideas.
Also, I'd noticed that 'Ron' posted the same comment on a number of blogs. That's close to spam. I'm interested in robust debate and fresh ideas, not sloganeering.
He didn't wash his hands at all. No wonder you're confused Grega. You should read his speech and his many many papers on the Jewish people and their relation to the Church.
One of my posts on the sidebar, should give you an idea, it's called 'The Pope: A Jew-Lover'
I'd just like to point out that people are so often taking the high moral ground with "anti-semitism" and I'm not entirely sure why, really.
Just as an aside, surely it's more accurate to say "anti-Jewish", isn't it? Given that Arabs are also semites.
Anyway, presumably the power of the word "anti-semitic" comes from the horror of the holocaust.
Thing is, plenty of people dislike plenty of groups of people to which they don't belong. The Left and Right Wings are not overfond of each other I note and often their comments in comboxes are very personal and abusive - we've seen that kind of thing here.
Now, given that those people of Europe who did not like the Jews, didn't know what would happen in WW2 to the Jewish people, is it really fair to condemn them for their nastiness?
It is possible to believe that at least some of these people softened in their attitudes towards Jews after WW2.
And consider this: the atheistic Communists killed far more people, especially Christians, than the Nazis killed in WW2.
So why isn't everyone also up in arms about anti-Christianity?
Why do so many people keep taking the high moral ground?
Seriously people, hopefully none of us is as bad as the Nazis, but none of us is any better than those people who disliked the Jews, but were not actually wanting them to be exterminated.
I don't like anti-Catholics (can't stand them), but I don't want anything bad to happen to them either.
Yes, it seems a little strange to me to point the finger and say, 'you were worse than us', etc. Especially when it comes to the Church which - if the evidence is to be believed - acted reasonably magnificently, if quietly, for the Jewish people.
Much of the nonsense comes from the belief that to convert a Jew is a racist or hate-filled act. If Catholics believe Christ is the centre of the universe and the source of light and hope and love, how can sharing Him with our Jewish brothers and sisters be cruel?
Many people ignore the Post-Vatican II enlightenments too. They'd rather condemn a child, unwillingly conscripted into the Hitler Youth (BXVI) for the Shoah than those who should be blamed (i.e., the German people first, second and third and then the rest of the world for standing back while hate stalked the streets of Europe).
These aren't reasons to bitch about the Rainbow Pope, rather they're good reasons to fight the new Hitlers in Iran and amongst the Palestinians. Indeed, DREADNOUGHTERS should find a Jew to kiss as quickly as they can Only love - and the knowledge that man is not G-d - can ensure the Shoah is never repeated. Never again!
It's good the Catholic Church has acknowledged past mistakes on this issue. Their role now is a very positive one regarding the Jewish people. The last pope and this one showed a loving embrace of the Jewish people, and at the same time modesty and humility for the wrongs Christians have done towards them. This is the only truthful, Christian response. Pope Benedict immediately affirmed Israels right to exist when that Iranian creep attempted to deny the Holocaust. I'm usually very reluctant to say things like this, but in this case: that rainbow wasn't a coincidence.
The Shoah is Europe's biggest trauma. By the way, the 'guilt'-question also haunts societies that were occupied by the Nazis. Why did no one, or so few, protest? Could they have known the fate of the Jews? By remaining silent, didn't that make them accomplices as well?
It is troubling anti-semitism is on the rise again. Recently, two of my co-workers had a conversation and they said we wouldn't have so much trouble with Muslim people if Israel wouldn't exist. Like: 'the Jews are the reason Muslims are hostile towards the West'. It infuriated me and saddened me. It was nothing less than a new variety of classic European anti-semitism like it has existed for centuries. I sometimes think anti-semitism is a cancer, a beast that lies dormant and everytime rears its ugly head again.
So John, finding a Jew to kiss seems a pretty good idea to me .
I'm sure some dear old lady would love a cuddle Vincent!
"They'd rather condemn a child, unwillingly conscripted into the Hitler Youth (BXVI) for the Shoah than those who should be blamed (i.e., the German people first, second and third and then the rest of the world for standing back while hate stalked the streets of Europe)."
This is as stupid a simplification as the comment of Ron. Once more Vincent shows more insight.
Remember the "German people" included for example the Ratzinger family and millions of other NoNazis, who had no knowledge of Auschwitz and would have risked their lifes immediately standing up against the Nazi-amtisemitism.
I know you would have enjoyed to become a martyr Dread at that time....
Sorry for being sarcastic.
Ha ha John, I love cuddling people, old ladies and kids too.
John:
why do you call BenedictXVI the" Rainbow Pope"?
Do you know something the rest of us doesn't not dare to say?
It's not good enough Etienne. You didn't understand my comment.
Give Etienne a hug Vincent, she needs a ray of joy.
Take a look at the pictures Grega.
I understood you very well ... but you usually read careless.
I am not a "She" and stop deriding comments you dont like.
Hi Louise
I visited your blog. Looks nice--though I need another regular blog to visit like I need a hole in the head. I would have left a comment but it was too complicated and I wasn't sure I could maintain my comfortable net anonymity. (Hence, this comment here instead.) I enjoy your comments here, which have a lot of heart and sensitivity, and I will remember to click to your blog now whenever I read them.
Good links on Pius and his steady, vocal, persistent opposition to nazism over at Amy Welborn:
http://amywelborn.typepad.com/
op...e_pius_bea.html
Thanks Xpat. Amy's often on the ball.
though I need another regular blog to visit like I need a hole in the head. I would have left a comment but it was too complicated and I wasn't sure I could maintain my comfortable net anonymity.
Thanks Xpat. If the usual Blogger combox pops up, all you should have to do is type the word verification thingy, to show you are not spam (!) and you can click the anonymous option and just leave your "Xpat" handle if you want.
Etienne: I'm not convinced you're a vastly superior person to anyone else in the world. I'm not sure many of us have the guts to be martyrs, without God's grace. I somehow doubt your behaviour would have been vastly superior to that of the German people during WW2. And do please try to recall that plenty of Catholics, as well as Jews, the disabled and others were killed by the Nazis. Do, please, get some perspective.
Louise, I think what Etienne meant was exactly the moral high ground you were talking about earlier. John said 'the German people' should be blamed for the Shoah 'first, second and third'. That was what triggered Etiennes comment. As most of us are not German, it's easy to blame just 'the Germans'. One can safely point the finger at someone else, while not having to reflect any further. The sad thing is, I think any society is capable of this kind of evil (read Hannah Ahrendt's account of the Eichmann-trial in 'The Banality of Evil' for instance). Many Nazi-occupied people enthusiastically joined the hunting of Jews or supported it, or remained passive. Pope Benedict himself is an example of a German man who abhorred the Nazi-ideology, but even he could not avoid some 'passive' participation during his youth. One of the characteristics of a totalitarian state is that individuals are crushed.
Of course it's easy to 'just blame the Germans', but that doesn't mean one shouldn't do so. The Germans planned, built, operated and hid the concentration camps. The Germans carried out the Shoah. Let's not have silly relativism and equivocation muddy the waters.
Truth, love and honesty demand a proper accounting. That's why the Pope read a prayer in German. A magnificent, healing thing to do in that miserable place.
Arendt is certainly onto something. Something of the same banality strikes me whenever I pass a suburban abortion clinic or read about nice Dutch families who delete their grandparents and call it 'mercy'.
Sadly, one of the characteristics of modern, liberal, democratic states is that the individual is crushed and some individuals (millions of babies) are, literally, crushed as well.
I might add, 'the Germans' refers to those old enough to make a decision for good or evil during the 1930's and 40's.
Certainly modern Germans do not bear the guilt for their murderous parents' sins.
The silly relativism exists in your obvious assertion that Australians could not be capable of atrocities like the Shoah. As long as you are blind to that John, you have not learned shit from the Shoah [...comment deleted...my friends have nothing to do with this thread...] - DN
As you've obviously no idea about European history.
And old people are not 'deleted' in Holland.
[...comment immediately below deleted...name-calling is no longer tolerated...] - DN
Edited By Siteowner
Bother about the record number of infanticides in Latin America instead.
No such assertion was/is made. This has nothing to do with nationalism, other than the National Socialist nationalism of Nazi Germany and the Pope's reference to the same at Auschwitz.
Holland has a 'euthanasia' law. The old, infirm and very small are killed under that law. 'Deletion' was a euphemism, murder/suicide are the correct terms. Holland, however, was mentioned as an aside - it is not the main topic under discussion. Please keep on track.
Name-calling and other vulgarity will no longer be tolerated. People everywhere should feel free to post here. I welcome comments directly related to the post.
The only controversy, as far as I can gather, stems from some Jewish commentators' claims that the Pope was 'too easy' on Germany/Germans.
The 'euthanasia'-law in fact affirms the position of the infirm AGAINST killing. It does NOT legitimize the killing of the vulnerable by doctors.
Before you make any assertions, I have many Jewish friends and I do not accept any reference to Nazism. [...comment deleted...] - DN
Edited By Siteowner
"I do not accept any reference to Nazism."
If we fail to speak about it, it will return to kill us. That's why the Pope's prayer, in German, was such an exorcism.
"Sadly, one of the characteristics of modern, liberal, democratic states is that the individual is crushed and some individuals (millions of babies) are, literally, crushed as well"
There is no evidence to support the first contention above at all - are you a reactionary Dread, what is your model? Would you like to try living under Sharia Law or the Christian version of it? Is that your serious proposition?
The second is very doubtful. Abortion rates (both legal and illegal) tend to be higher in poorer countries like those in South America, India, Russia and China.
Regarding the Nazis, each German soldier had reference to God on his belt and Hitler is reputed to have asserted his Catholicism as late as '43 and throughout he invoked God but who really knows his mind.
Catholic Bavaria was not as keen on him/Nazism as elsewhere and there is evidence that by ’42 when Catholic Bishops where getting noisy that he would have turned his attention on the Catholic Church hierarchy had he been successful in WWII – plans where made.
Totalitarianism dislikes all competitors such is the lust to remake individuals and society in the idealised image. It is now fashionable for Christians to try and cast Nazism as paganism simpliciter which is less than truthful as is the charge that they were atheists.
The Catholic Church's record is mixed (but probably better than the German Luthurans) and is in this regard is like many other institutions/states in Europe. Christianity greatly contributed to a cultural underlay of anti Semitism in Europe – overwhelming Catholic Austria was as bad in this as Germany (majority protestant) was.
The question is not about allocating who is to blame but rather what more could have been done to prevent genocide, what would WE OURSELVES do if facing the choice between resisting or acquiescing in this persecution and what should be done to prevent a repeat? Look at your personal attitudes to others: are they less than you because they differ in some trait or another.
Dread I like ya mate but a blog of censoring (probably in advance of banning) isn't my cup of tea. Cooing and panting in agreement with your every statement isn't my style and it makes very boring reading when others do it. That may however be what you are looking for. Etienne and Vincent are usually good value mate – most unbecoming
If I have indeed misread Etienne's comments as Vincent has suggested, I apologise.
Vincent said: "The silly relativism exists in your obvious assertion that Australians could not be capable of atrocities like the Shoah."
I don't think John said anything of the kind.
Atiyah said: "Regarding the Nazis, each German soldier had reference to God on his belt and Hitler is reputed to have asserted his Catholicism as late as '43 and throughout he invoked God but who really knows his mind."
Are you trying to blame Hitler's evil on Catholicism? The Nazi's "God" is our God? Because last I checked, eradicating peoples was not in the catechism as part of our beliefs.
Atiyah, if John has a policy of no name-calling and general rudeness etc on his blog, then I think people should respect that. Frankly, after some of the filth I've read in John's combox, I don't blame him. Given that it is possible to have a debate without resorting to vicious, personal attacks, I don't think you have good reason to object to John's actions here.
Louise
Did you read my comment at all? This is not an area that should be analysed through the lense of narrow sectarianism. Trying to allocate who is more blameworthy sort of misses the point.
I no more believe that Catholicism is corporately responsible for Hitler than I believe that all Germans are responsible. I dislike such “group think” it is far too easy. Each of us should look to our OWN attitudes to racial and religious difference – our own commitment to pluralism.
God is problematic regarding the Nazis for as far as I know he has not spoken directly on the issue. All sorts of people throughout time have claimed to speak and act in his name - the Nazis did this too. As to how the bulk of German Christians who supported the Nazis rationalised this support with their faith it is not easy to answer. And of course other Christians (both German and others) resisted, fought against, and lost their lives ridding the world of Nazism. My Grandfather didn't return did yours?
Was Tomas de Torquemada’s “God” “your God” when he organised state sponsored terror against the Jews of Spain (the largest European Jewish population at the time – not now of course post confiscation of their property, expulsion, forcible conversion and execution). I guess you would now say no.
As I said Europe has a long history of anti Semitism and this anti Semitism was not limited to Christians, the officially atheist Soviets practised it, as did the Orthodox Tsarists before them in their pogroms. But does cultural milieu absolve any individual from responsibility for their individual actions – of course not.
Mmmm regarding Dread’s editing I agree no need for abuse but the correct response to it is to address serious argument and ignore the rest – abuse usually reflects badly on those who behave this way. However that is not what Dread is doing – he is being a bit too sensitive especially in cases like Etienne and Vincent who comment here consistently and usually make a valid point.
Take your ill considered response to my comments – which I am sure you took to be a narrow attack on your faith probably a bit vicious and insulting and hurtful. Well in the end that’s not my intention or a reasonable interpretation of what was said – should I be censored for being insulting to Catholicism on your say so?
Dread has made sweeping generalisations about Holland practising the “culture of death” and he did likewise for western liberal democratic nations. I am surprised I am not censored for “being off point” because I pull him up on it. The implication that the Dutch are in anyway akin to the Nazis is grossly offensive and reflects more poorly on Dread than Vincent.
The point I was trying to make was that blaming 'the Germans' is a serious misunderstanding. The plan for the killing of all Jews was conceived and executed by Nazis, most of whom happened to be German because they came to power there. However, it is an undisputed fact millions of non-Germans supported and participated in the nazi-ideology (the Baltic states for example were the first to be declared 'Jew-free'). Anti-semitism was alive and well all over Europe. Atiyah is right Christianity (that means Catholics AND Protestants AND Orthodox) has contributed to anti-semitism for centuries. Fascism was popular in many European countries during the Interbellum.
It IS 'easy blaming' to say the Germans did it, because Nazism in whatever variety it may resurface can seduce everyone regardless of their nationality. It has during the second world war. Non-German people collaborated and actively, wilfully participated in Nazi-practices. Instead of all non-German Europeans pointing at Germany and saying 'they did it', we should look at ourselves.
That was all I was trying to say. There was nothing 'relativist' in my remarks, instead I argued for a wider accountability than just 'the Germans'. In fact I praised the Pope for his visit to Auschwitz and his and JP II's earlier contributions for reconciliation with Judaism. If you ever followed the public discourse in Germany, few people in Europe have looked into the abyss of their own darkness as the Germans did, Not a single Nazi-perversion is eufemised, they have shown a remarkable post-war accountability, as opposed to Turkey for example who still denies its genocide on the Armenians.
John, I apologize I crossed the line. That was wrong for me to say. It saddens me however why you so often misrepresent what I'm saying. If you think I should shut up, please say so.
"There is no evidence to support the first contention above at all..."
Are you kidding? Ask a Guantanamo detainee. Ask an Iranian-Frenchwoman who wants to wear a hijab to school.
I reject your evidence for abortions in South America. I think the figures cited are inflated by lobby groups (NARAL, etc.) to make abortion look better. Russia (formerly), China and India are heathen nations. Poverty doesn't increase abortion rates, atheism does (the Philippines and Africa have tiny rates). This is, however, somewhat off topic
Nazism was atheism gone mad or perhaps atheism fulfilled. Anti-semitism isn't a Christian idea, it is an evil growth that attached itself to European cultural-Christianity. The G-d on the Nazi's belts was a man or a demon, not the Most High.
I'm with Louise, it's rather too comfortable to blame the Lutherans here and the Catholics there Atiyah. The Pope's point was that we are all to blame, anytime man considers himself a god he commits the sin that fed the fires of Auschwitz.
God has spoken directly on the Nazi issue: Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not have other G-ds before Me. Etc.
Don't shut up Vincent. I appreciate your on-topic, non-personal, often insightful comments
Nazism didn't seduce the British, nor the Americans nor the Australians, Canadians, Polish, Russians, Chinese, etc, etc. Nazism was a German invention, a cap to that nation's peculiar mixture of cultural hubris and economic vulnerability.
That doesn't mean I am saying that only Germans can be Nazis, or only Nazis are evil. Rather, my point was that the Pope, by emphasising his German-ness while representing - as he does - the universal communion of believers - gathers individual difference up into the collective conscience and maps out a morality of humility - indeed, pietas - that is both instructive regarding the past and timely going forward.
We can all agree: that rainbow was miraculous
John, of course there is no point denying Nazism did originate in Germany. From a European perspective however, it sometimes is a reason for non-German Europeans to claim some silly kind of moral superiority or disdain towards modern-day Germans, purely based on being non-German. A more light-hearted version of this phenomenon can be seen in an episode of the 70's sitcom Fawlty Towers, when a German family visits the hotel ('Don't mention the war!').
Anti-semitism is not Christian at all indeed, although Europe has a shameful record on it. Christianity is made up of people, and people make mistakes. Of course, true faith has also led many Christians to become martyrs in resisting Nazism.
Again, I was deeply moved by the words Pope Benedict spoke, especially considering his German background. The image of that rainbow, right behind the Pope in a place where such unimaginable evil took place, shows that God's covenant with His people is undying and forever.
Mmmm Hitler emerged from nowhere from a complete cultural vacuum to be the worlds most wicked atheist, for “his God” was “a false God” so tidy so very convenient, case closed. But it is a strange short of atheism - Martin Luther was his most admired German.
“Gott Mit Uns” on German military buckles in WWI and II.
“Eternal Nature inexorably avenges the infringement of her commands. Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” Mein Kampf Vol 1 Chpter II.
Thus Hitler is a cultural orphan who invokes God both publicly and privately, but somehow he picked up his anti Semitism from other than European Christianity.
No reasonable person denies that his ideology is a grotesque distortion that resulted in the debasing of humanity generally – who really knows whether he remained a Christian or not – I have the notion that he probably thought he was bigger than religion or God. However painful though it is to admit for some the cultural origin of European anti Semitism was largely the notion that the Jews were the murders of the Son of God and therefore could be treated in a subhuman way. Thus Jews could not avail themselves of the “thou shall not kill” protection as they had rejected Jesus and committed the murder of all murders for which they remained collectively guilty.
Why Dread is only evidence of that all liberal democracies crush individuals is Gitmo and the rapacious secularism of the French (a civil religion). And no mention of President Bush’s launch at the White House urging the Senate to adopt a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? Note the quick shuffle into an anonymous briefing room from the symbolic Rose Garden – did VP Chaney attend I doubt it for he has some class. Oh dear I have to agree with US Democrats: the US has far more important fish to fry. Looks like an empty “at least I tried” attempt for the Republican base knowing full well that he cannot deliver the goods. Well at least he is trying to do right on immigration.
Describing other nations as “heathen” now there is some old fashioned language
Sure is Vincent. Thank you for the context too, your comments make much better sense now. I wasn't claiming that the Germans are uniquely sinful, all men carry that stain. Rather, than their sins were uniquely, indeed, profoundly excessive. The scale of atrocity is, as the Arendt/banality insight demonstrates, mediated by opportunity rather than inherent psychological or cultural/national/religious attributes. If we believed the Germans, because German, are inherently evil we'd be getting sucked into the Nazi racial nonsense. That would be a most unworthy thing to call a remembrance of the Shoah.
Again, thank G-d for the Rainbow Pope and his gentle, profound prayer!
I'll post on Bush later, Atiyah, if at all. No one pretends his effort is anything other than political, given the thing has no hope of passing. At least, however, he's stirring debate. This is not, however, a 'gay marriage' post.
Defending Western secular liberal democracy as some sort of utopia is hardly wise (it does alright but can certainly stand improvements). It's also way off topic.
Martin Luther was an anti-Catholic, anti-Semite. No wonder Hitler liked the heretic.
I have a copy of Fowlers' beside my desk. People are always making fun of my 'archaisms' and antique usage. Often, however, these express the nub of the issue without the accretions/euphemisms that taint modern, politically correct, English. I don't mind sounding a bit gauche as long as my point is obvious. Again, ad hominem. Stick to the issues!
He picked up his anti-Semitism from European culture, much of which was invested with anti-Jewish sentiment by Christians who should have known better. That's not to say, however, that anything in Christianity is anti-Semitic. JPtheG demonstrated the stupidity of that claim (advanced by left and right at various times for different reasons).
No one said he was a cultural orphan, rather, that his ideas are radically alien to Catholicism. Not a distortion note, but totally divorced. Hitler is not to Catholicism as bin Laden is to Islam. You appear to claim otherwise.
Therein lies your error Atiyah.
Sorry D., but your blabla about "the Germans" continues to be disgusting, even if you try to make a point in "favour" of us.
WE ARE 60 YEARS AFTER THE WAR HAS ENDED.
You are talking about us like the British Bullshit Press about "The Huns".
Get rid of your hate and visit Germany.
Each Nation should look into the mirror of their war crimes now - we do it since half a century - but when will the Western War Participants admit that Hiroshima and Nagaski and many other incidents were Major Warcrimes... and the responsible politicians for that should have been executed?? ,,,,
Luther in his time was right in many respects. He is great figure in the history of our language and nation ... and you throw dirt on him! Silly...!!!
Thanks Vincent for your insightful comments while i was away.
Now declare this all off topic ...
It's not off topic, just not particularly intereresting. I've said nothing at all about most of the things you mention.
Indeed, if I am disgusting even when defending some Germans, how can I ever please you?
In other matters, it's clear that a great many opinions still compete to explain the genesis of the Shoah. What no one here has done, however, is doubt that the murder was perpertrated.
All of us can stand united against the kind of hate that's coming out of Iran, the Palestinian territories and other enclaves of anti-Semitism in our age.
Like I said above: kiss a Jew today!
Thank you for "defending some Germans"...
Must be Bach, Beethoven, The Pope... anyone else ?
Mozart (ahhh ..sh... he was austrian like Adolf...)
Not a huge fan of Beethoven. I like Thomas Mann and many others.
"Not a huge fan of Beethoven"
This is the most revolting thing said in a long time
You are a worry Dread.
And I am still waiting for your proposed model in place of liberal democratic states - Sharia perhaps or a Catholic version?
Interesting Fasism where it found expression - Italy, Spain and the Peronists were a bit that way. Now I wonder what these countries have in common?
US Constitutional change fails to get off first base. Victory for Federalism in the US, and the Republican base is still grumpy - I actually don't think Bush's heart was in it at all. Compare and constrast with his passion on the immigration issue.
Saying that liberal democracy can be improved is not the same as saying it isn't probably the best system of government we've yet stumled upon.
I don't want to comment at length on fascism. I admire Augustus' imperium and detest Hitler's. Franco was somewhere in the middle perhaps?
I said Bush was being cynical. Such moves, however, galvanise opinion. This certainly wasn't a victory for 'gay marriage' either.
Mmmm you are being a tad cute Dread. Saying that liberal democracy can be improved is a little different from saying that as a political system it “crushes individuals.”
Regarding fascism, I was thinking more Il Duce rather than Octavian (a small repo Augustus of Prima Porter is a necessary accompaniment to any successful lawyer’s desk along with a Lady of Justice after Mayer and a set of scales).
I of course dislike Stateists of all stripes they want to change the world and so they reach for public power and the coercion that backs it.
An interesting address from His Honour Mr Justice Kirby:
http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/
..._sexuality.html
If you are a reader of Thomas Mann you hopefully understood the irony of my last post.
You're so iron-ic Etienne that you could press my shirts with your wit mate.
Kirby is almost always interesting. Saying something can be improved doesn't mean the whole thing is rotten, Atiyah.
This is extraordinary:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/me...view/
index.html
I don't agree with the politics at the end, but his forgiveness and compassion are spectacular:
"O'BRIEN: No, no. And we have spoken before, and I'm well aware of that. But at some point, one would think, is there a moment when you say, 'I'm glad he's dead, the man who killed my son'?"
"BERG: No. How can a human being be glad that another human being is dead?"
Hurrah!
Remarkably crass to approach the family and to seek a comment. Also crass to compare GWB with Saddam and conclude GWB is worse - some heavy duty transferance going on there - after all it isnt about personal revenge or with respect is it about this man's dead son.
A futher very interesting podcast from Cato on gay marriage and Europe which is well worth listening to.
http://www.cato.org/podcasts/
“Saying something [liberal democracy] can be improved doesn't mean the whole thing is rotten”
Indeed Dread. But saying that any political system “crushes individuals” as a matter of course is surely equal to saying that it is rotten?
Thank you for former Family Court Chief Justice Alastair Nicholson's scholarly paper. Should Her Majesty’s former Judges and current Counsel be anything other than largely secular when dealing with the law? Is that not a virtue for it was not always the case? Surely it is incumbent on those who “knock” the secular State to proffer an alternative? Why would religiously minded not support a secular State?
I must say I am impressed by this new more scholarly Dread. Passion should not always check reason and balance at the keyboard. Sometimes the story tells itself without pushing the point.
Parts of it are rotten. Certainly those parts that countenance abortion/euthanasia, etc. must be mended.
Her Majesty is a Christian, indeed head of a Christian denomination. Her servants make a vow to her, by God. Their authority - indirectly - derives from Christ.
Nicholson's views, almost always protested wherever he speaks in Australia, are on the radical fringe. He was a deeply unpopular Chief Justice and it is remarkable that he is being so vocal now.
We have offered an alternative: it's called justice.
Atiyah wants to know:
should I be censored for being insulting to Catholicism on your say so?
My say-so has nothing to do with it. This is John's blog and if people are being personally abusive towards him, instead of respectfully engaging in debate, then I can't see why he shouldn't censor comments here. Can you - really? I don't think John should put up with someone being personally abusive to him in his own home, so why should he put up with it here?
I don't imagine John is perfect and maybe he doesn't always answer your questions to your satisfaction, but that'sno reason to be personally abusive towards him.
I'm not sure that I said you should be censored for insulting Catholicism though.
I don't find it insulting to my faith that people question what the Church teaches and why, but when people use insulting language towards the Church I do get really angry. If it helps you to understand why this might be the case, may I just say that many Catholics really see the Church as our mother. Just as I want people to treat my mum with respect, so I want people to at least speak of the Church in a respectful manner - while being free to disagree with what she teaches, if they cannot see the reasons for her beliefs.
Surely we all know what it means to respectfully disagree with one another.
Sincere apologies if I have misunderstood anything you've said.
Respect is key Louise. I don't mind people disagreeing, but there's a way to do it. Some of the nonsense hurled after the SBS program was ridiculous.
I think that is fair enough Louise. I dislike incivility, it reflects badly on those who behave in this manner. Usually the best response to it is to let it stand as it speaks. Whether it is wise to widen what is considered objectionable to ideas is another matter.
Take for example Dread’s recent post linking the Trinity (a core Christian doctrine) with homosexuality and marriage. All are a mystery and all have been subject to repeated challenge of these beliefs by those seeking empirical evidence which of course cannot be supplied. Therefore the Catholic position on homosexuality and marriage has the same importance as the Trinity. A considerable upping of the stakes I would have thought – mmmm and somewhat unwise to link em in this way.
Is it objectionable to point out that I have not read a single comment on this blog calling for empirical evidence for Catholic belief. Rather, when the Church’s position is advocated in public policy and specific claims are made that opening marriage to homosexuals or introducing civil union regimes will do damage to heterosexual marriage, evidence of this proposition reasonably and logically asked for. Intuitively the claim seems ridiculous but let’s considers the evidence. The response has been avoidance and silence and if pushed a vague “dangerous experimentation/end of civilisation” proposition. Remember this has nothing to do with Catholic belief per se but the notion that a particular change in the law will have a particular consequence.
The point is this; Christians are free to practice their faith and to believe what they wish. They are not free to impose this via the legal system on others, and at the very least by entering the public arena on such policy areas their contentions like those of everybody else are open to testing.
Consider that the VERY essence of the natural law that Dread claims to support is the non reference to authority or dogma. That is the whole point. Reason not authority prevails. The ‘pagan’ Aristotle who invented it (not Aquinas) did assert the procreative nature of all sexual activity but he provided no reasoning for this – it is simply an assertion or belief and actually a pagan one at that. You should also be aware that his view was that the mind was NOT part of nature – thus the physiological inclination to be homosexual could not have been part of nature in his view. Most of us now regard the old long applied philosophical distinction between mind (elsewhere other than in nature) and body (part of nature) as a false one. It is arguably true that if Aristotle where here today and was considering all the evidence on human sexuality his view might well be different. What we can be absolutely sure of is he would be alarmed at the prospect of natural law being used in the service of religious authority.
Recent research seems to suggest that natural family planning (the rhythm method) as endorsed by the Catholic Church results in greater loss
cont....
Recent research seems to suggest that natural family planning (the rhythm method) as endorsed by the Catholic Church results in greater loss of embryos than other chemical and prophylactic methods contraception.
Thus we are faced with this curious conundrum. The natural law purpose of sex is to perpetuate the species but the natural family planning that we might practice lessens the chance of that. Makes me wonder what is natural and unnatural.
"Therefore the Catholic position on homosexuality and marriage has the same importance as the Trinity."
What? I said nothing of the sort. The post is about epistemology, not politics.
"They are not free to impose this via the legal system on others."
Catholic taxes - shamefully, outrageously - pay for abortions. Catholic taxes will pay for 'gay marriage' if anyone is silly enough to bring the nonsense in. This situation is massively unjust and militates against freedom of religion. You mistake radical secularism - a religion in its own right - for neutrality.
If you believe in the separation of Church and State, get your abortionists out of my wallet.
I don't follow your comments on natural law. Practical reason is, by definition, rational. Natural law is the triumph of reason over chaotic, competing desires. It grounds/founds human authority, but it doesn't derive from the same.
What recent research? The purpose of sex is not just the perpetuation of the species (I think you mean continuation, no man can perpetuate anything), you mistake Darwinism for Christianity.
The sexual act joins male and female in sexual and affective complementarity. Both aspects are key and the source of the Church's respect for the human body and the wonders it channels.
"Therefore the Catholic position on homosexuality and marriage has the same importance as the Trinity What? I said nothing of the sort. The post is about epistemology, not politics”
Well Dread Look to your own post – that is in fact what you argue – I just shed it from all the verbiage. It is you who link the teaching of the Trinity with that on homosexuality both come from the same embers of creation. Am I mistaken in assuming they are of equal weight and import – please set me straight? I am not very quick on the uptake.
“Catholic taxes - shamefully, outrageously - pay for abortions. Catholic taxes will pay for 'gay marriage' if anyone is silly enough to bring the nonsense in. This situation is massively unjust and militates against freedom of religion. You mistake radical secularism - a religion in its own right - for neutrality. If you believe in the separation of Church and State, get your abortionists out of my wallet”
Why are they “my” abortionists? Do those women who seek and receive abortions (and abortionists) in Australia not pay taxes? Are Churches in Australia exempt from income and land taxes as part of the terrible separation of Church and State long recognised in common law? I think there is a swings and roundabouts case when considering incidences of taxpayer funded immorality. There are many shameful things the taxation system does – do you wish to extend this offensiveness to taxpaying homosexuals who desire legal recognition of their relationships?
“I don't follow your comments on natural law. Practical reason is, by definition, rational. Natural law is the triumph of reason over chaotic, competing desires. It grounds/founds human authority, but it doesn't derive from the same”
It is very simple. Aristotle’s natural law was not the handmaiden of religious or other authority. Rationality requires looking to the ample evidence (as Aristotle would now do) concerning the prevalence of homosexuality in humankind since time immemorial, look to the evidence that it is a naturally occurring minority expression of human sexuality whose expression is consistent.
Surely Dread those who advocate natural law would do no less than Aristotle would do himself if asked the question as to whether homosexuality is unnatural.
“What recent research? The purpose of sex is not just the perpetuation of the species (I think you mean continuation, no man can perpetuate anything), you mistake Darwinism for Christianity”
“Perpetuate” verb: “continue” - quibbling Dread. Of course Aristotle was probably more of a Darwinist than the Christian for it was he who viewed the purpose of sex as perpetuating the species. The early Christians did not agree with this of course – sex was entirely sinful and inappropriate. Yes you are right Dread I must be confused.
On natural family planning an interesting article:
http://www.newscientist.com/arti...cle/
dn9219.html
“The sexual act joins male and female in sexual and affective complementarity. Both aspects are key and the source of the Church's respect for the human body and the wonders it channels”
Ditto repeato of course but consider:
Lesbian + heterosexual male (all plumbing intact) are they sexually complementary in any meaningful sense? He can impregnate and she conceive.
Homosexual male + female (all plumbing intact) are they sexually complementary?
Is it respectful of the human body or human dignity to cast the naturally occurring sexual inclination of one each of the above pairing as unnatural or disordered because they are not intended to couple with their opposite above. What would Aristotle say?
Aaaaaaargh! Sorry about the italics.
Check it out Dread - the podcast is better but the transcript is good too:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8...es/
s1657625.htm
Toni Hassan: And even in regards to what Catholics, Anglicans and Uniting church members are saying, you did point to Clive Hamilton tonight. The Australia Institute has mapped homophobia in Australia, and last year a survey it produced showed that Catholics, Anglicans and Uniting church members are the most tolerant, in fact only a third say homosexuality is immoral. So are you out of step, even with mainstream laity? Is there that risk? Do you feel at all that you might be - in this country?
The Australia Institute gosh they are busy at La Trobe:
http://www.tai.org.au/Publicatio...per%
20Final.pdf
Is it objectionable to point out that I have not read a single comment on this blog calling for empirical evidence for Catholic belief.
There is nothing at all objectionable in pointing something out, Atiyah.
I'm not sure I know what you mean by empirical evidence, or why Catholics, in particular, should have to produce any. I'm not sure there have been calls for secularists or others to produce empirical evidence for their own belief. But I may have missed something.
I am no expert in matters legal, political, theological or indeed anything else, but I would like to venture some comments.
Atiyah, you said:
when the Church’s position is advocated in public policy and specific claims are made that opening marriage to homosexuals or introducing civil union regimes will do damage to heterosexual marriage, evidence of this proposition reasonably and logically asked for.
I think it ought to be the other way around. Marriage has been traditiionally defined in societies which were initially based on Christianity as being between one man and one woman. This system has generally served society well, though I am certainly not suggesting that all married people have been good examples of this. I am talking in general terms.
Seems to me, then, that the advocates of gay "marriage" (I'm not sure it's really possible for two men to be married even if the law says they can be) are the ones who must provide evidence that it will *not* further undermine traditional marriage. I say "further" because lots of other things have already undermined marriage to a devastating degree.
Christians are free to practice their faith and to believe what they wish. They are not free to impose this via the legal system on others, and at the very least by entering the public arena on such policy areas their contentions like those of everybody else are open to testing.
You are saying what most secularists believe, namely that faith is "personal" and therefore "private." Faith is personal, but it is demonstrably not private. All citizens have the right to be involved in public life. You have no more right to impose your beliefs on me tha I do to impose mine on you, if what you say is true. The fact is, as John pointed out, secularists are constantly imposing their beliefs on Catholics and others. Why is this ok, but it's not ok for Catholics to do the same?
We all have the right to vote and participate in the public square according to our conscience.
Recent research seems to suggest that natural family planning (the rhythm method) as endorsed by the Catholic Church results in greater loss
Nobody practises the Rhythm Method. Practitioners of Natural Family Planning (including me and my husband) use either the Billings Method or the Sympto-thermal method. The research you mention looks very dodgy. No-one has ever seen (via ultrasound) an ovum which lasts more than 10 hours. There is no way one can con
sorry about the italics.
Louise
It is Dread who claims people want empirical evidence supporting Catholic belief. Actually I am not sure how one goes about testing most religious beliefs on an empirical basis - faith is about taking these matters on .... well.... faith.
As I said I have not seen a request to prove the Trinity here. What I have seen is the call for evidence that backs the notion that a particular public policy change will have a harmful affect on hetrosexual marriage.
No one should object to Catholics or anybody else advocating a position. But an assertion of harm is not in itself evidence of harm.
I don't see why the burden of proof shifts to those advocating marriage open to homosexuals/civil unions to establish that it WON'T be harmful in a particular way merely because someone else claims this to be so.
Lets just look at the evidence - what is the exact causal link between the law change and the harm?
Regarding birth control - I suggest you read the article linked above.
"If gay men are stronger in the arts, it would made sense as male urges to procreate are translated in sensibilities otherwise needed for the family (this sounds silly, I know)."
Not silly at all. It is a very important insight. It is where this discussion needs to focus. I gave up on this website a while back, but came back and saw some good comments, like this one. I didn't read past this comment, but I may be back to read more. Vincent, keep emphasizing this. It is essential to understanding the homosexual person and to understanding why God made some homosexual.
Atiyah, I had read that article on the "Rhythm Method" earlier - it is the unscientific position of a philosopher. The article was incorrect in its assertion that people use the "rhythm method" - which they do not. If they were wrong about something as basic as that, it ruins their credibility. Sorry, but the man just doesn't have his facts straight.
It is Dread who claims people want empirical evidence supporting Catholic belief.
OK Atiyah, thanks for clearing that up. I assume, in that case that the Catholic beliefs John wants empirical evidence for are not so much theological beliefs (eg the Trinity) but moral beliefs, such as not using artifical contraception. I might be wrong, of course.
No one should object to Catholics or anybody else advocating a position. But an assertion of harm is not in itself evidence of harm.
I don't see why the burden of proof shifts to those advocating marriage open to homosexuals/civil unions to establish that it WON'T be harmful in a particular way merely because someone else claims this to be so.
Fair enough. I actually think no fault divorce laws have done more to damage marriage than almost anything else, except artificial contraception. Gay "marriage" will just add to that. I will try to come up with some robust reasons why I think that, but it may take some time.
I think the burden of proof is with same-sex marriage advocates to show why gay marriage is necessary and that it will not damage traditional marriage because traditional marriage had generally served society well. If people are wanting to subsantially change things socially, they should prove that it will be a good thing for society.
Here too, I will try to come up with some more robust reasons for my position. Again, it may take a while.
Atiyah, I don't think ascribing particular, after the fact, beliefs to Aristotle is wise. It would certainly be silly for me to argue them.
The point of the post was not to equate the teachings on SSA with the doctrine of the Trinity in terms of degree of importance. It was to demonstrate that when the Pope speaks his authority rests on many modalities, not merely empiricism.
When discussing life, love and God this makes him more convincing, not less. The kind of empiricism you argue for would mean you'd have to run 'am I alive' tests each morning before getting out of bed.
That Catholics are more loving is not unexpected. I only hope we increase in love for others.
Commenting by HaloScan
