Okay, given the deluge that will follow from a certain Irish priest living in Japan at the mere mention of the name that you mentioned, I, Anonymous, greatest of the Anonymi, officially declare your blog renamed:
Musings of an Impertinent Semi-Papist, Being the Former Blog of Dr. Philip Blosser, Now Under the Management of Fr. Joe O'Leary
With deference to Mr Anonymous, I must point out that since St. Josemaria mentions the four winds, he must in fact support the animist/naturalist/ wiccan philosophies espoused by the great theologians Curran, Schillebexxs, Kung, Fox, O'Leary and Mahony.
Dr. Phil,
Sorry to write something here, but I forgot your email. Can you go to my blog and comment on it? It's about sola scriptura.
Oh, so Escriva and Opus Dei mean FREEDOM in the same sense as the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence? Is this Orwellian or what?
I am really frightened at the rise of ultra-reactionary thinking, especially among the young -- those dubbed the "JP2 generation" by TIME. Like other demagogues, JP2 ignored and passed over an entire generation of liberal and educated people to propagate a reactionary message to gullible youth (it all began in Ireland, and was denounced in the Irish press at the time as an exercise in mob manipulation and brainwashing). Are the JP2 generation the current equivalent of Khomeini's young fanatics, Mao's Red Guard, the Hitlerjugend? Is Catholicism. in a nightmare throwback to the era of crusade and inquisition, about to enter on its first truly evil period, as Islam has? The conscious spread of hatred against gays, in defiance of science, democracy and dialogue, is the telling symptom here, as the hatred of Jews was for Hitlerism and perhaps Stalinism.
"Musings of an Impertinent Semi-Papist, Being the Former Blog of Dr. Philip Blosser, Now Under the Management of Fr. Joe O'Leary"
Yes, anonymous is right.
I'll abstain from comments here while Fr.Nipo-Celtic learns how to moderate the sheer volume of his texts.
Can any of you believe that generations of Irish and Japanese Catholics suffered for this...? That laymen have once again to defend themselves against relapsed clergy 470 years to the day of the execution of my patron saint, St. Thomas More?
Sancte Thoma, ora pro nobis.
Neocaths should not be too cocky -- saints and popes have done terrible things in the past and can do so again. More was a martyr of liberty of conscience, and so was Cranmer; study the story of his last moments to see why. Today the martyrs and confessors of liberty are where the Vatican does not want them to be -- the Jesuit martyrs in El Salvador, Archbishop Romero, Ernesto Cardenal, persecuted theologians like Curran and Kung and Drewermann, courageous truth-tellers like Joan Chittister and Jeanne McGramick and John McNeill. John Paul II was the idol of our time.
Two true words: THE PRICE OF LIBERTY IS PERPETUAL VIGILANCE. LET HE THAT THINKETH HIMSELF TO STAND TAKE HEED LEST HE FALL.
Apolonio Latar III -- you post on your site that homosexuals are mentally ill. Someone has been brainwashing you.
I see adults, professors, drooling over the brilliant high school student Apolonil Latar III. I do not see them giving him any warning. He is fodder for their ideological mill. They could be described as corrupters of youth.
"Gays are mentally ill!" says Apolonio. "Good boy!", says Professor X, "You are brilliant! We expect great things of you!"
Fr. O'Leary,
You are a disgrace to your vocation. Quit your voluminous liberal-bitching and leave this website, for both the sake of your soul and sheer patience.
Thank you and have a nice day.
Unexpected quote here from Cardinal O'Connor (NY): "No violence or EXPRESSION OF HATRED, VERBAL or physical, against homosexual persons can be justified by anyone purporting to act on behalf of the Church". Yes, I know that the Blosser tactics are too refined to issue in "kill a queer for Christ" rhetoric, but his flirting with expressions like "fags" and "queers" would be felt by many gays as an expression of hatred and contempt. He also scoffs at the notion of "hate crimes" despite the plain evidence that homophobic rhetoric such as he practices uninhibitedly leads to crimes including murder. Is this the legacy of John Paul II? Did the Pope who had nothing to say create an army of youthful jellybrains ready to be imprinted with the homophobic meme by ranting ideologues like Dr Blosser?
Other than Dr. Blosser's title of his old post, "Juvenal vs. the queer guys," I'm not aware of Dr. Blosser using the term "queer." The only person who has brought up the terms "queers" and "fags" here is Fr. O'Leary.
So, Fr. O'Leary, when exactly were you planning on joining the Episcopalian Church?
"Oh, so Escriva and Opus Dei mean FREEDOM in the same sense as the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence?"
Of course not. Who said they did? St. Josemaria Escriva and Opus Dei mean "freedom" in the Catholic sense. But the occasion that the U.S. has for celebrating its declaration of independence from the United Kingdom is certainly a fitting time for Christians to think about the spiritual freedom we have in Christ.
Jordan:
You have quite a talent for cutting to the quick. I hope you and I don't end up at loggerheads. I'm impressed by your postings.
Apolonio:
As I think you know by now, Father O'Leary and I agree only when we are unable to go on disagreeing, and only then by accident. Nevertheless, I think he may be on to something. As a man almost twice your age, I have been properly taken down a peg or two by intelligent, well-meaning folks over the years. I urge you to have caution in publishing how much human respect you have earned.
Fr. O'Leary,
I'm almost tempted, tongue-in-cheek, to beg your permission to let me comment here on "your blog"!
Your knee-jerk tirades are so far beyond belief as to nearly cause me to forget whose blog this is! I haven't had time to delve into all the comments on these posts -- not even half of them. But reading even half of them serves up a diet of over 90% O'Leary in a continual barrage of often thoughtless reaction that falls far short of the high professional standards you hold aloft for myself and others. You accuse me and others repeatedly of ad hominem arguments.
Well of course you've never been guilty of that, have you! What's calling Apolonio "brainwashed" and a "high school student"? How is that supposed to play into any kind of argument?
You've repeatedly insisted on your fidelity to the Church and to Catholic tradition. But you refer to SAINT Josemaria simply as "Escriva," painting him as a Franco-loving "fascist," and call the late Holy Father, John Paul II, whose case for Beatification was just opened, a "demagogue" and the "idol of our time." I would expect better manners from a Buddhist.
And you put Cranmer and other Catholic-hating dissenters in the same category as the martyr, St. Thomas More!? What kind of discernment does that show? Cranmer was a purjurer (like Clinton) who had his German wife smuggled into Canterbury and lived with her clandestinely even while openly maintaining and holding his own priests to the Church's traditional discipline of clerical celibacy. What kind of integrity is that? And painting the likes of Charlie Curran as persecuted
And -- I have to bite my lip as I write this -- you decry "hate-speech" and "libellous language" (which, in light of the foregoing remarks about John Paul II, is flat-out laughable), but accuse faithful Catholics (other readers of this blog) such as might assist faithfully at your own weekend masses if they were in Japan, "brainwashed," "demagogues," "reactionaries," "bigots," "homophobes," and perpetrators of "hate crimes" for their fidelity to Catholic teaching on faith and morals? If I or any of my other of our readers have been guilty of perpetrating "hate" towards homosexuals, or, for that matter, pederast priests, please show us how. It's from the love of Christ and truth that we pray for the deliverance of our actively homosexual brethren from their bondage to disordered sexual addiction. I don't know about the rest of my readers, but I count among some of my good friends a number of sexually active (and non-active) homosexuals with whom I am very frank and open about my convictions. I love them and pray for the deliverance of those who are active and addicted, and for the fidelity of those who seek to cultivate the virtues of purity and chastity. How is that "hate"? Perhaps you find descriptions anal sex and homosexual fallatio demeaning and disgusting. I agree. But how is that ...
Fr. O'Leary (continued ...) But how is that a reason for accusing us, or other supporters of faithful Catholic ministries to gay and lesbian persons such as Courage, perpetrators of "hate crimes"?
If there is anyone stirring up passions of animosity here, I would suggest you re-examine your own vocabulary and watch your own manners. Please. I haven't had time to review many of your comments of late, but be advised: on other occasions we've been compelled to impose a block and exclude individuals from the conversation who refused to extend the courtesy of respect toward others (and the Church and her clergy) in their discussions. Thanks, Father. --PB
For what it's worth, one of my coworkers and friends is a lesbian. In past years I have both worked for and with active homosexuals. I have hated and I hate none of them, but I pray that they all find deliverance from their bondage to this sin.
"You have quite a talent for cutting to the quick. I hope you and I don't end up at loggerheads. I'm impressed by your postings."
Thanks. From what I can tell, you and I will probably find ourselves more often in agreement than in disagreement.
Fr. O'Leary,
Where did I say that homosexuals are mentally ill? Please show me the quote and its proper context. For those who actually want to see what I have written on the issue of homosexuality, see:
http://
cultureofchrist.blogspot....st_archive.html
As for me being "brainwashed," those kinds of statements distract those who are willing to engage in meaningful dialogue on difficult issues. And I know they are difficult issues. They are difficult because they are personal. With regard to homosexuality, I know people who are homosexuals and I have always been careful in my language. I may offend them in some way, but I have always tried to say things that will make them understand my position. And yes I admit, there are times when I am uncomfortable when I am with a homosexual. There are also times when I am uncomfortable when I am with an alcoholic. It's something I have to "fix" and only Christ can do it. We all have our flaws. Some are bigger than others. But God is merciful. His divine anger lasts but a moment and His favor lasts a lifetime. And I think *that* is what all of us sinners can rely and put our trust on.
Thank you PB! Perhaps now a real discussion can begin, which those previously put off may joyfully enter.
Jordan Potter, you will find the queers and fags piece in the Blosser archives. I dearly love the Anglican Communion and have found more meaningful liturgy there, again and again, than in the RCC. Like Paul VI I see Anglicanism as our sister church and find your snideness about it inappropriate.
Apolonio, it is true that you did not directly say gays were mentally ill, but one of the links you give on your website, answering questions on same-sex marriage, has this statement near the beginning.
PB, read the posts before scotching them please. I called Apolonio a high school student because that is what he is, according to his own website. It was not intended as any kind of put-down.
Apolonio, you compare gays with alcoholics and say they have to be fixed. Not very far from a mental illness diagnosis, I would say. Here are some pieces on the Bible which show that there is NO biblical teaching on homosexuality. http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bi.../
section01.html
and http://www.melwhite.org/biblesays.html
Oops, misread Apolonio's statement -- it is his own discomfort with gays (and alcoholics) that he has to "fix". Sorry.
I know gay couples who have live together for 25 and 30 years -- I admire their stable and creative lives, whether they call it marriage or not. Who am I to go round lecturing them on their "bondage to sin" or their quasi-alcoholic "addiction"? Who am I for that matter to lecture heterosexual married couples on their bondage to contraceptive methods or on their sinful use of the rhythm method to avoid having the number of children that would be suitable to them (referring to what JP2 said on this in 1987)? The rage of Catholic women and of Catholic gays against JP2's obtuseness, which he transmitted successfully by unscrupulous demagogery and repression, is a prophetic rage that springs from the depths of the sensus fidelium. Dr Blosser does not want to hear this (hence my imminent expulsion from his site!) but is it the mighty roar of the Holy Spirit!
Yes, Cranmer was a weak man, but his final hour made him a martyr for freedom of conscience. He had prepared a recantation, but the sermon he had to hear said, "Today we are executing a good man, but that is only right and just, for they executed good men like More and Fisher, so we should do the same". Cranmer rose to read his recantation and changed the words, denouncing instead the Roman Catholic claims. Then the ran to the pyre, followed by enraged clergy anxious to undo the damage, and thrust his hand into the flames. (The exact story can be found in D. McCullough's life of Cranmer; the same author has now written a huge and apparently put-downable book on the Reformation as a whole.)
"Jordan Potter, you will find the queers and fags piece in the Blosser archives."
You mean "When is a spade a spade," from Jan. 22, 2004? That seems to be the only time he has used the word "fag" (or rather, the plural of that word) in one of his blog posts. Here's what he said:
"On the uses of language
"I have often wondered about the proper balance between decorum and honesty in language, whether it's possible to be honest yet tactful and decent, without losing the substance and force of what I want to say, or whether I must consign myself to forever surf the cusp of the curling wave between accuracy and decency, never saying quite exactly what I mean in the interests of civility, if not congeniality. Most of us are well acquainted with the experience of the husband who is called upon to respond to the wife's question: 'What do you think of my new dress, honey?' Few of us, even if we thought it, would likely respond: 'My dear, at best it looks the color of rotting algae, at worst like the vomit of a sow who's gorged herself on spinach.'
"Recently Dale Vree, editor of the New Oxford Review, has suggested that in view of some of the disgusting acts homosexual men involve themselves in, we ought to quit abusing the otherwise denatured and erstwhile cheerful word 'gay' in our references to them and just call them 'fags.' Vree even did a sort of brief etymological analysis of the term to justify his usage of it, as I recall. Anyway, we all know how completely horrid such words sound in our ears when we hear them. Vree's question, however, was one about accuracy and honesty. . . ."
I mean "unputdownable book".
Please look at Ratzinger's Dominus Iesus (2000); I recollect that there is something in it about the role of the Reformation in the history of salvation.
"I dearly love the Anglican Communion and have found more meaningful liturgy there, again and again, than in the RCC. Like Paul VI I see Anglicanism as our sister church and find your snideness about it inappropriate."
I can well believe that you dearly love the Anglican Communion. In fact, judging from how positively you speak of it, and how negatively you tend to speak of the Catholic Church, I thought I'd come right out and ask when you were going to jump ship. You seem to be pretty miserable here in the Catholic Church, and your conscience apparently conflicts with several irreformable teachings of the Church. In Anglican/Episcopalianism, on the other hand, no doctrine is regarded as irreformable, which is why they were able to reject the Apostolic Tradition and begin to ordain women, and now even unrepentant, practicing homosexuals.
A little more from Dr. Blosser's Jan. 22, 2004, post:
"On the one hand, I find words like 'fag' and 'pervert' tactless and offensive, and I doubt that I would ever want to use them as ad hominems. On the other hand, after spending a semester in England amidst the oppressive 'propriety' and ubiquitous 'understatement' of the Brits, and amidst the pussy-footing political correctness of our own media spokes-HUMANS, I have to admit that a part of me admires an 80 year old curmudgeon [NOTE: he means Gustaaf Cardinal Joos] who can say to hell with his reputation and call a spade a spade."
PB is not a postmodernist, so when he sports words like "queer" he is not giving a nod to queer theory.
His entire rhetoric on gays, as he himself admits, is calculated to make any homosexual person's blood boil. Of course he is quick to add, "some of my best friends are gay".
Cardinal Joos's remarks were a mortal embarrassment to the Belgian church and his elevation by JP2 showed again how obtuse reaction distorts judgment.
Btw, the church teachings on contraception and homosexuality and women's ordination cannot be called irreformable -- that is your wishful thinking.
Obviously you would love to see me leave the RCC so that you and your like could have it all to yourself! But I think I have the mind of the Church every bit as much as you if not more. Indeed, on the topic of the primacy of conscience it is you who contradict the teaching of the Church.
"PB is not a postmodernist, so when he sports words like 'queer' he is not giving a nod to queer theory."
When he referred to "Juvenal versus the queer guys," he was referring specifically about the television show, "Queer Eye For the Straight Guy," in which four (or was it five?) flamingly homosexual men offer fashion, decorating, and cooking tips to a normal man to help him court a woman.
"His entire rhetoric on gays, as he himself admits, is calculated to make any homosexual person's blood boil."
As he himself admits???
"Cardinal Joos's remarks were a mortal embarrassment to the Belgian church and his elevation by JP2 showed again how obtuse reaction distorts judgment."
Well, I hope the Belgian church is not in as bad a shape as you say it is.
"Btw, the church teachings on contraception and homosexuality and women's ordination cannot be called irreformable -- that is your wishful thinking."
It's not I who am indulging in wishful thinking, Father. The Church will never adopt your beliefs on contraception, homosexuality, and women's ordination, any more than she will tomorrow announce that Jesus was not really born of a Virgin.
"Obviously you would love to see me leave the RCC so that you and your like could have it all to yourself!"
Don't be a fool if you can help it, Father. I don't want you to leave. I want you to embrace and teach the Catholic faith in its entirety.
"But I think I have the mind of the Church every bit as much as you if not more. Indeed, on the topic of the primacy of conscience it is you who contradict the teaching of the Church.
Actually I rather suspect you believe you are the only person on the planet who has the mind of the Church. "Fr. O'Leary -- a Catholic Church of One."
But seriously, though, if you really care for your conscience, why not consider hopping over to one of those so-called "sister churches"? Surely they'd be more accommodating to your conscience, hmm?
Fr. O'Leary,
First of, I am not a high schooler anymore, but a college student. That statement by Dr. Kreeft was 3 years ago.
Second, yes, I do have discomfort with *some* homosexuals which I have to fix. But, as you well know, I still believe that homosexual acts are wrong and intrinsically disordered as the Church teaches. I read the links you gave and find them unconvincing. We read in Romans 1: "Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity." Here, we see that males **burned with lust** for one another. So they definitely had inclinations toward their own sex, contrary to the articles you gave. Also, I find it unconvincing for a Jew of the second-temple, either in the Hillel or Shammaite tradition, to accept homosexuality. Jesus seemed to have a Shammaite understanding of marriage and divorce. The Jews knew that sexual acts are acceptable only within marriage, nothing else. With regards to St. Paul, it's the same (I don't think we need to get involved with the grammatical argument of "arsenokoites"). Now, along with the scriptural support, we also have Tradition. Catholic Tradition has always taught that marriage should be between a man and a woman because the primary purpose is to have children (this does not mean it is the only purpose or even the primary meaning of marriage. See von Hildebrand's book on marriage). God created man and woman so that they can be a father and a mother. That has been Catholic teaching ever since.
Finally, as far as women priesthood and contraception is concerned, that is definitely irreformable. JPII even said that Humane Vitae was an expression of the supreme magisterium. And Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is the same (from my study, the supreme magisterium and the ordinary and universal magisterium are the same thing).
Oh dear, Jordan and Apolonio, you need a subtler hermeneutics than that. The Bible cannot decide on a moral issue which was not raised in its time and on which there was no discussion in its time; quoting biblical obiter dicta is insufficient - for on that basis you could prove a million things you would not really want to prove. As to the irreformability of Humanae Vitae, the very circumstances of its promulgation - the language of Paul VI and his reception of the Episcopal Conferences's various interpretations of the encyclical -are not such as to suggest irreformability. On the ordination of women, the fact that 65% of Canadian Catholics are in favor of it is only one indication of the sensus fidelium here. I am aware that some CDF document tried to make the non-ordainibility of women out to be an infallible, therefore irreformable, doctrine, but that ploy obviously fell flat.
Sorry for my high school confusion, Apolonio -- good look with your studies.
In discussions of contraception and other such matters it is simply a waste of time to invoke meta-dogmas of infallibility and irreformability. They have no purchase on the debate and are mere red herrings. Very few Catholic moral theologians invoke them -- people like Grisez perhaps. So why burden your argument with eccentric, minority claims?
Humanae Vitae was an expression of the supreme magisterium, or the ordinary and universal magisterium -- well that would be more believable if it were thrown open to the universal magisterium for ratification. In reality the Pope reserved the topic for himself at Vatican II, so it is rather odd to now claim that it is a decision of the universal magisterium. The Canadian Bishops in their reception of Humanae Vitae, which you should read, strongly hinted that Humanae Vitae was the Pope's view, to be considered respectfully, not their own.
If bishops continue to be appointed on the basis of their adherence to Humanae Vitae, then it will become the view of the universal magisterium. But is this a convincing way of establishing a dogma? And in fact the attrition even among episcopal ranks thus appointed is very great. A free Council or Synod on the issue could easily see the bishops reject Humanae Vitae outright! The faithful have of course massively rejected the encyclical, and the sensus fidelium and ecclesial reception are still mighty forces which no Catholic ecclesiology can dismiss.
Cardinal Koenig said that the Vatican had "painted itself into a corner" with Humanae Vitae. You could call it the Vatican's Vietnam.
Moreover, the fact that something is taught by the universal magisterium does not of itself ensure its irreformability. At one time every bishop in the world would have recommended the cult of St Philomena, for example; but when it was discovered that she never existed the Church abolished this cult in the sixties (needlessly in my opinion). It might be argued that the licitness of slavery was taught by the universal magisterium (slavery as punishement for original sin), but that was before the issue was raised for serious discussion. We see the same thing happening now in regard to the human rights of homosexual people and the sanctity of mutual love between gay couples.
There was no serious discussion of the ethics of homosexuality in the Church until the end of the twentieth century -- for proof of this read Mark Jordan, The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology, and see also his deconstruction of recent Vatican statements in The Silence of Sodom.
One may also say that there was no serious discussion of the ethics of slavery -- what discussion there was was heavily loaded with outdated presuppositions. In face of the avalanche of new thinking on democracy and human rights since the 18th century Christian defenders of slavery soon found their position untenable. The same thing has happened in regard to gay rights. Hence the last recourse of homophobic demagogery, which will soon have spent its force.
"homosexuals have the mental illness of being attracted to people of the same sex", says Seth Brotherton on Apolonio's site.
Let me think, is masturbation also the sign of a mental illness? The "mental illness of being attracted to sexual pleasure in the absence of a lawful wedded spouse"? Adulterers also suffer from mental illness, the "mental illness of being attracted to a person not one's lawful spouse".
And those pesky contraceptive cafeteria catholics -- they clearly suffer from the "mental illness of being attracted to their wife on days when she is fertile".
Someone ready to find the whole world to be suffering from mental illness raises doubts about his or her own sanity, I would say.
O'Leary, I'm really, really, curious: what do you do all day long? Are you a parish priest, or a college professor, or a college chaplain? How come you've got all this time to read and write here.
I ask this because I barely have time to read what you write; actually, in this message box, I really had to scroll down past your posts -- I just scanned them and saw that there was nothing new or wholesome.
Hi Blosserites, come and argue with me at http://josephsoleary.typepad.com....com/my_weblog/
Latest offering is JAPANESE BUDDHISM: THE DIALOGUE WITH OUR SISTER RELIGION
"The Bible cannot decide on a moral issue which was not raised in its time and on which there was no discussion in its time."
So you're one of those extremists who reject Vatican II as an invalid council? Because that's not what Dei Verbum says about the Bible.
"As to the irreformability of Humanae Vitae, the very circumstances of its promulgation - the language of Paul VI and his reception of the Episcopal Conferences's various interpretations of the encyclical -are not such as to suggest irreformability."
And yet the Church has always said that contraception is immoral, and continues to say so.
"On the ordination of women, the fact that 65% of Canadian Catholics are in favor of it is only one indication of the sensus fidelium here."
Truth is not determined by majority vote. But then we can also consider Chesterton's "democracy of the dead" -- the sensus fidelium is diachronic, not just synchronic.
"I am aware that some CDF document tried to make the non-ordainibility of women out to be an infallible, therefore irreformable, doctrine, but that ploy obviously fell flat."
Really? Then why do all faithful Catholics accept that the Church does not and will never have the authority to ordain women?
"Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone *has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents*, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that *this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.*"
That includes you, Fr. O'Leary. In fact, it especially includes you, since you are a priest and have sworn a solemn oath before God to uphold the Professio Fidei. Surely you're not an oathbreaker!
"In discussions of contraception and other such matters it is simply a waste of time to invoke meta-dogmas of infallibility and irreformability. They have no purchase on the debate and are mere red herrings. Very few Catholic moral theologians invoke them -- people like Grisez perhaps. So why burden your argument with eccentric, minority claims?"
You really need to get out more. All faithful Catholic moral theologians invoke the doctrines of infallibility and irreformability. How could they not? Catholicism wouldn't even exist without them.
"One may also say that there was no serious discussion of the ethics of slavery -- what discussion there was was heavily loaded with out
with outdated presuppositions. In face of the avalanche of new thinking on democracy and human rights since the 18th century Christian defenders of slavery soon found their position untenable."
Oh, no, Fr. O'Leary, you've got that all wrong. The Pope tried the ploy back in the 1500s of forbidding Catholics from participating in the slave trade, but as you have said about Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, that ploy didn't work. The faithful refused to receive that doctrine. Therefore, by your logic, slavery is just fine and dandy.
"At one time every bishop in the world would have recommended the cult of St Philomena, for example; but when it was discovered that she never existed the Church abolished this cult in the sixties (needlessly in my opinion)."
Then how come my diocese still has a St. Philomena Church and shrine? Anyway, nobody even knew St. Philomena existed until the discovery of her tomb in 1802, with an inscription bearing her name (PAX TECUM FILUMENA) and symbols that were thought to indicate her to have been a virgin martyr. That is literally all that has ever been known about her, besides the fact that she is apparently a powerful intercessor. She certainly did/does exist -- archaeology shows that she probably lived in the 100s A.D. She may not have been a virgin martyr as originally had been thought, but her cult certainly has not been suppressed.
Father:
If you are willing and able to answer these well and concisely, I think I can help draw some fire away from you.
1) Does the Holy Spirit always direct the Church, or did it only do so in the last forty years and sporadically throughout history?
2) Why do you attack the person of the pope? [You repeatedly refer disparagingly both to the late Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict]. I recognize that one is not required to assent to his pastoral decisions or follow a bad example, but isn't he still Peter?
3) What part, precisely, do you appreciate in Anglican liturgies? I'm a former Episcopalian, so you may be very specific? What do you make of the 39 articles?
I propose the following ideas for your consideration.
1) Is the fact that Jesus is not present in the same way what appeals to you? He's present in the "two or three" gathered in His name in the Episcopal Church?
2) Why do you encourage Holy Hours among your flock in Japan? Is it so that they can worship the community? Do you expose Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament during these Holy Hours or do you merely have prayers services?
3) What did you mean when you said you accepted the "new version" of the scriptures? Did you mean the one put together by ICEL?
4) Since you try to be careful with language, doesn't it bother you that the ICEL translation continually misrepresents the Vulgate?, or don't you believe, as the Church teaches, that the Vulgate is the standard against which all translation is to be measured?
Off-topic:
# TELEGRAMMA DEL SANTO PADRE
TO HIS EMINENCE CARDINAL CORMAC MURPHY O’CONNOR
ARCHBISHOP OF WESTMINSTER
DEEPLY SADDENED BY THE NEWS OF THE TERRORIST ATTACKS IN CENTRAL LONDON THE HOLY FATHER OFFERS FERVENT PRAYERS FOR THE VICTIMS AND FOR ALL THOSE WHO MOURN. WHILE HE DEPLORES THESE BARBARIC ACTS AGAINST HUMANITY HE ASKS YOU TO CONVEY TO THE FAMILIES OF THE INJURED HIS SPIRITUAL CLOSENESS AT THIS TIME OF GRIEF. UPON THE PEOPLE OF GREAT BRITAIN HE INVOKES THE CONSOLATION THAT ONLY GOD CAN GIVE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES.
CARDINAL ANGELO SODANO
SECRETARY OF STATE
[00869-02.01] [Original text: English]
[CAPS in the original]
Let's see now: there was the lesbian I shared an office with back in grad school days. We became quite friendly, much to the dismay of her girl friend - life partner - main squeeze, an associate professor in medieval literature. She gave me the evil eye constantly because she thought I was hitting on her little friend, who we -- my newly-wed wife and I -- thought was a very sweet and very mixed-up girl. This made it somewhat uncomfortable when I took her Chaucer course [the final exam impromptu interpretation of the Knight's Tale's Constance as an ironic inversion of the pardoner -- her constricted VIRTUE brings calamity upon everyone she encounters -- did not endear, either].
Then there was the grad staffer who used to scout his freshman English classes for new "recruits" like a chicken hawk. And two other office "roomates", both of them homosexuals. Heterosexual grad staffers were not exactly an endangered species, but they were not a dominant majority either.
I don't believe I tarred and feathered any of them, although, personally, I liked some, disliked others, and thought them all victims of a besetting moral and psychological disorder.
hey Fr Joe i say cut it off lest you burn with lust be a reaL MAN without it for the Kingdom of God
Fr. O'Leary,
You seem to be attempting some sort of reductio ad absurdum strategy against the notion that sexual sins (heterosexual or otherwise) could involve some form of "mental illness" as suggested on Apolonio's website. I don't think your strategy quite works.
For one thing, anybody who has struggled with some form of addiction -- whether an eating disorder, a gambling habit, alcoholism, or sexual habit -- knows that something like this is true. The affliction is a profoundly spiritual (one could also say "mental") one, even if it is something as mundane as eating food (as it is for the anorexic or bulimic). The will is engaged in a profound spiritual tug of war with spiritual and forces of appetite and habit that border, at times, on something like insanity. I have a friend from school days who is a gambler, who is now over a year's salary in debt. He "can't quit." You might say he could simply will himself to avoid the race track. He can't. It is a form of spiritual bondage. Now this guy is brilliant. I would not call him "mentally ill" in any other respect, but he can't stay away from the track, even though by any rational canon of human behavior, one would think he could see that there's no hope of a future for him in gambling.
Father O'Leary, you write:
"The rage of Catholic women and of Catholic gays against JP2's obtuseness, which he transmitted successfully by unscrupulous demagogery and repression, is a prophetic rage that springs from the depths of the sensus fidelium. Dr Blosser does not want to hear this ... but is it the mighty roar of the Holy Spirit!"
How do you figure this, father? Exactly what canon of judgment do you use to determine this? Even has inhospitable as Jesus was toward the Pharisees, calling them "whitewashed tombs" and "hypocrites," he never faulted them for their doctrine. In Mt. 23:2-3, Jesus speaks in the imperative mood of those like the Pharisees who "sit on Moses' seat," saying: "practice and observe WHATEVER they tell you," adding only: "but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice."
Yet you suggest not only that Pope John Paul II was a repressive demagogue (perhaps like the Pharisees were), but that his official teaching runs in diametric opposition to the "mighty roar of the Holy Spirit." And to whom are we to listen to find the roar of the Holy Spirit? To Catholic women and Catholic gays in open rebellion against Church teaching! This is Korah's rebellion, father. You must know how God responded to that!
"Oh dear, Jordan and Apolonio, you need a subtler hermeneutics than that."
Father, listen to yourself. There's nothing patronizing in your tone here? More importantly, what are you saying? What "subtler hermeneutics" translates into, in every case you use it, is the counsel of the serpent in Genesis 3: "Did God say, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of any tree of the garden?'" And when the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but God said 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die,'" the serpent said to her: "You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Oh no, Dr. Blosser, you forget that Korah's rebellion never happened. There probably never was a Korah, and probably never was a Moses and Aaron for that matter. 
Father, on your suggestion, one would be as likely to find the sensus fidelium in the adult Sunday School class reportedly offered in the Metropolitan Church of San Francisco (or was it Seattle?) devoted to "Fisting for Beginners," as in the CCD class offered as St. Agnes Church in Arlington on Dietrich von Hildebrand's book entitled Purity.
Linking the gay issue to slavery is as popular (I just received another student paper culled from the usual websites offering that "link") as it is a logical non sequitor. One is a matter of relative prudential judgments in response to changing social arrangements and definitions as to what constitutes an affrontry to human dignity. The other is a matter of unchanging human nature and natural law (neither of which you seem to believe in -- but I suppose here, too, the sensus fidelium lies in the opinions of those Democratic members of Congress who derailed Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court and those who nearly derailed Judge Clarence Thomas's nomination becauce of his adherence to natural law).
When I re-read the story of Korah's rebellion against Moses, in my youth years, I had one of the first anti-Protestant "clicks" in my head.
Korah and what happened to him and his rebel group are the absolute opposite of what the Reformed-Congregationalist system of church government, doctrinary definition, and conflict resolution advocates.
This would be the subject of a good blog article, Dr. Blosser, if you could elaborate (not a job for me: I'm theologically and philosophically incompetent).
Father O'Leary, you wrote:
"[Blosser's] entire rhetoric on gays, as he himself admits, is calculated to make any homosexual person's blood boil."
Here you apparently assume prerogatives I hitherto assumed belong only to God: judging the motives of a person's heart. I've admitted to wanting to make any homosexual person's blood boil? That's news to me, father. Frankly, I don't think I consciously aim to make anyone's blood boil, least of all those suffering from the loneliness, alienation, and affliction of same-sex addiction. But if there were anyone I wouldn't mind provoking, it would probably be liberals such as yourself, father, who I think are completely deluded and living in a fantasy world -- though if this disposition on my part were a sin, I trust you'll be the first to pardon me.
Father O'Leary,
There's a thread running through several of your comments suggesting that you believe the Church's condemnation of contraception, masturbation, homosexuality, and sodomy are somehow something new. You keep referring to Humanae Vitae as though it's teaching were something new. Likewise, you state that there was "no serious discussion of the ethics of homosexuality in the Church until the end of the twentieth century."
Well, duh! That's because nobody in his right mind sought programmatically to justify these vices until recently. It was only in 1973 (same year as Roe v. Wade) that the board of the American Psychiatric Association voted to change the classification of homosexuality in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. And please don't suggest that the impetus beyind this vote was the "roar of the Holy Spirit" and sensus fidelium. That's idiocy. The members of the APA who specialized in the treating of homosexual persons protested the board's decision. But immediately before a general referendum on the issue, a letter went out in the name of the board, urging APA members not to reverse the board's decision. It was not known until after the vote that this letter was in fact written and paid for by the National Gay Task Force, and the final tally in the referendum naturally upheld the board's decision to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder. The 1973 decision was based not on any advance in scientific or medical knowledge. It occurred instead as a direct result of successful gay lobbying -- and therewith a considerable body of psychological data on homosexuality was dimissed (for political reasons) as no longer relevant. It is ironic that gay activists and their supporters now often claim the authority of the APA for the view that homosexuality isnot a psychological problem.
The Church's position on homosexuality is nothing new. It accords not only with Catholic tradition but also with the mainstream of secular history (even Plato condemns homosexuality in the Republic and in his Laws).
Likewise with contraception. A Protestant author, Charles D. Provan, published a book some years ago entitled The Bible and Birth Control, in which he traces the massive consensus classic Christianity on this issue from the early condemnations of "Onanism" down through Catholic history and through the early protestant Reformers like Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and many more recent theologians and writers. The point he makes is that there was a massive consensus of all Christians -- a sensus fidelium if you will -- against contraception, until 1930 when the Anglican Church was the first to break ranks with this consensus in its Lambeth Conference and to allow for contraception in certain, strictly circumscribed circumstances....
(Continued ...) Within a generation the floodgates were open, and after Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which lifted all civil and criminal sanctions against contraception, birth control became the ticket of choice to widespread recreational sex. And this is what you, father, want to call the "roar of the Holy Spirit"?
Fr. O'Leary recommends we listen to those who wrest Holy Scripture as they blind themselves to God's condemnation of homosexual activity. But I much prefer the teaching of God's Holy Catholic Church:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
141 Cf. Gen 191-29; Rom 124-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10.
142 CDF, Persona humana 8.
On the errors and fatal flaws of the original version of the non-magisterial and non-binding document, "Always Our Children":
http://www.wf-f.org/
alwaysourchl...rchldspr98.html
http://aquinas-multimedia.com/ca...herine/
aoc.html
Here's another response to "Always Our Children":
http://www.rcf.org/press/
release...NDSTOAOC_sb.htm
That is clearly a prophetic rage that springs from the depths of the sensus fidelium. Fr. O'Leary does not want to hear this ... but it is the mighty roar of the Holy Spirit!
Fr. O'Leary,
"The Bible cannot decide on a moral issue which was not raised in its time and on which there was no discussion in its time; quoting biblical obiter dicta is insufficient."
Okay. Let's say that a friend of mine stole my car. I then took a gun and shot him. I murdered him. But wait a minute, the Bible doesn't speak anything about the circumstance of someone stealing someone's car and if that justifies the killing of the person who stole it. Are you then saying that it's ok that I kill the person who stole my car?
You said, "the language of Paul VI and his reception of the Episcopal Conferences's various interpretations of the encyclical -are not such as to suggest irreformability."
The reception of an encyclical is not a condition for irreformability. Many Eastern bishops rejected the teachings of Nicaea. It doesn't mean it wasn't irreformable. The Arians, semi-Arians, etc could have spoken of a "sensus fidelium," but any teaching that is not constant with Scripture, Tradition, and the mind of the Church is does not have the sensus fidelium.
"Let me think, is masturbation also the sign of a mental illness? The "mental illness of being attracted to sexual pleasure in the absence of a lawful wedded spouse"? Adulterers also suffer from mental illness, the "mental illness of being attracted to a person not one's lawful spouse". "
Yes, masturbation is a sign of mental illness. The intellect naturally desires God and anything which goes against the will of God is contrary not only to the nature of God, but the nature of man. I would say that any type of concupiscence is a mental illness because it is a "dysfunction" of our cognitive faculties. Anything which acts contrary to the nature of the intellect is a mental illness.
"Oh dear, Jordan and Apolonio, you need a subtler hermeneutics than that."
I approached the scripture from the historical context, its grammar, theologically, and read it in light of Tradition. I think I did fine.
Concupiscence is a mental illness? Well in that sense we are all mentally ill, and Buddhists would agree with you on that. But why then invidiously single out gays as suffering from the mental illness of same-sex attraction? Is it your way of contesting the medical and psychiatric authorities who in their vast majority dismiss such an idea as itself pathological and pathogenic?
As was pointed out by another poster reception is not CONSTITUTIVE of the authority of infallible papal or conciliar statement but is HEURISTIC in identifying such statements. That is also the position of Ratzinger.
An authoritative statement rejected by the whole Church ipso facto loses its authority. Yes, I agree that initial rejection may be overcome by ultimate reception, as in the case of Nicea (the teaching of 325 was finally and universally accepted only in 381). But initial reception may be overcome by ultimate rejection as in the case of Unam Sanctam. In the case of Humanae Vitae there seems to be a very wide initial rejection which has not diminished in the 37 years since the encyclical was published. This MAY yield to ultimate reception or it may not. In general such ethical teachings best persuade when their grounds in natural law are rationally transparent. Constant harping on the note of authority actually undermines their intrinsic credibility.
The Bible does not address the ethical questions raised by homosexuality, because it does not even have the notion of constitutive homosexuality. The Bible condemns adultery, theft and murder, but there are many issues connected with these that the Bible does not address. For example, is usury (lending money on interest) a form of theft? Is slavery legitimate? Can the Church dissolve marriages in favor of the faith? The Bible does not give the answers to many such questions and it is fundamentalistic to read the answers into the biblical text at any cost. Worse still, the Bible seems to give answers to such questions that go against what we not consider natural law -- in the case of slavery for example. The basic thrust of the Bible is anti-slavery, as the American black slaves grasped in an act of imaginative hermeneutics, "Let my People Go!", but the slave-owners were able to appeal to the letter of the biblical text. Gays are practicing the same imaginative hermeneutics today.
Phil Blosser would insist on having homosexuality classified as a "mental disorder"? I have heard the anger of CATHOLIC WOMEN and GAYS, and their stories are harrowing, and have nothing to do with rejecting the purity of the Gospel. The agonies caused to Catholic married women by the Humanae Vitae regime cannot be scoffed at by jeering sexist clerics. The helplessness and suppressed anger that one can feel in Catholic congregations, which are predominantly female, is something I have never felt in Anglican congregations; the Church has got a big problem in its relations with women. Power is one aspect of it; intrusive teaching on sexuality is another. Many horrendous puritanical attitudes of the past have never been apologized for and continue to poison the consciences of Catholics. As to gays, a teaching that drives vulnerable adolescents to suicide or self-hatred, that forces many gays into marriage at the cost of great pain to their wives, cannot be the teaching of Christ. John Paul II was aware of this anger, which is the reason he NEVER held a dialogue with women or gays. The one woman who challenged him to such dialogue, Sr Kane, was treated as a naughty girl and certainly not invited to the Vatican to continue the discussion. After that there was NEVER an occasion on which the faithful could address uncensored questions to the Holy Father -- the controls were even tighter than in Bush's White House. And the anger grew.
The difference is that the imaginative hermeneutics of the blacks drew them closer to God. They identified with the truth of the text. People who want to alter the biblical text, or people who want to justify the bastardization of clear teaching don't speak or think with the Church.
Phil Blosser now says I do not believe in natural law, though I have invoked it regularly in the posts he did not read and in the essay on morality, universal and local, on my website. Natural Law is the foundation of Catholic ethics, and is the Church's surest safeguard against both biblical fundamentalism and what I call magisterial fundamentalism. The case for acceptance of gays is based soundly on natural law.
Phil Blosser rightly says that any addiction can be considered a "mental illness" is a wide and loose sense. But that is not what the issue was. The issue was the Gays are supposed to suffer from the "mental illness" of same-sex attraction. That is, even a pure and chaste gay person (say G. M. Hopkins, to put a face on the notion) is suffering from mental illness from the age when he is drawn to the same sex (and perhaps dislikes the other sex). In short, all gays are mentally ill since childhood. Addiction is a complete red herring here. What Phil Blosser needs to argue is that same-sex attraction as such is a mental disorder. The invocation of the completely unrelated notion of addiction suggests that he is having trouble finding good arguments for the claim that gayness is a mental disorder.
G-V's questions are a bit too complicated for me today. I have no opinion on the 39 articles. I believe in the real presence and I believe that Christ is really present in the Anglican Eucharist too. I do not organize Holy Hours but I am always happy to adore the blessed sacrament. But like Rahner and Ratzinger I try to square that with modern and biblical eucharistic theology by regarding the reserved sacrament as an extension of the eucharistic event and eucharistic adoration as a prolongation of the mass and holy communion.
Oops, G-Z I mean of course.
Fr. O'Leary,
Yes, we are all mentally ill by the definition I used. You said, "But why then invidiously single out gays as suffering from the mental illness of same-sex attraction?" Because it was an article on homosexuality.
"The Bible does not address the ethical questions raised by homosexuality, because it does not even have the notion of constitutive homosexuality."
I think you need to read up on modern scholarship, especially the scholarship on "arsenokoites". I have argued the contrary to what you said and I have not seen a single interaction. I have showed that Romans 1 speaks of men lusting for other men. I have also spoke of the historical context of it. To think that Jesus, who seems to have a Shammaite understanding of marriage, would allow homosexuality is a terrible interpretation of the Bible. Everyone knew that when Jews spoke of Sodomy (see especially Ezekiel), they were talking about homosexual acts. It was considered an abomination. Even Bishop Spong recognizes this. Except for him, he simply disagrees with Scripture. Scripture is the living word of God because it came from the Logos. It applies today as it applied 2,000 years ago. And yes, as I have showed, they did speak of the ethical question of homosexuality. No civilization accepted such a behavior.
And please answer this question which you did not address,
Okay. Let's say that a friend of mine stole my car. I then took a gun and shot him. I murdered him. But wait a minute, the Bible doesn't speak anything about the circumstance of someone stealing someone's car and if that justifies the killing of the person who stole it. Are you then saying that it's ok that I kill the person who stole my car?
Finally, there is no support from the magisterium or Tradition for homosexual acts nor can there be any such developments.
There's also no support for homosexual acts in the natural law.
I prefer the Church's interpretation of the biblical texts that teach that homosexual activity is immoral and homosexual attraction is disordered, rather than the novel, strained interpretations offered by pro-homosexuality mouthpieces.
Apolonio, did you not even notice that I answered your question?
The Bible of course condemns theft and murder, but there are cases where it is not clear that a given activity is theft or murder -- the case you gave is a clear one -- but what of lending money on interest -- is that theft? The Church used to think so. And what about capital punishment -- is that murder? The Church is beginning to think so. These obscurities can be resolved by natural law debate not by quoting isolated biblical texts.
As to contraception, if it was always so clearly wrong, why did Paul VI agonize so long over it and summon a commission to discuss it? Answer: because it is a tricky natural law issue. For the variety of the Church's attitudes to contraception over time, see John Noonan, Contraception. His historical studies of Catholic morality (also on abortion, usury, slavery) are mandatory reading for anyone who does not want to make a fool or himself or herself in declaring what the Church has allegedly always thought.
Polycarp, "I prefer the Church's interpretations of the biblical texts" -- and you have every right to your preference. After all that would have been my opinion too for more than half my life!
At least you do not declare me a heretic for espousing the other viewpoint, as most of those on your side of the argument have been remarkably quick to do.
Apolonio, would you say equally that heterosexuals need to be cured of the mental illness of attraction to the opposite sex?
Fr. O'Leary,
"The Church used to think so. And what about capital punishment -- is that murder? The Church is beginning to think so. These obscurities can be resolved by natural law debate not by quoting isolated biblical texts."
First of, on the issue of usury, I would suggest Shawn McElhinney's post on it as well as Fr. William G. Most's. Also see David Palm's. As far as capital punishment is concerned, the Church hasn't condemned it. See Cardinal Dulles's articles on that issue. Also see Patrick M. O'Neil's article on Noonan. The old usury, slavery, etc tricks are not going to cut it for those who know Catholic history and Tradition.
Also, you have no showed that the acceptance of homosexual behaviors can be accepted through natural or historical or theological grounds. Can you give me one "acorn" in the Bible that would allow such a thing?
Fr. O'Leary,
Those who lusts over another sex, yes because that's an example of conscupiscence.
Fr. O'Leary,
As for Paul VI "agonizing" over it, so what? Even if he did. The Pope is human, but the Spirit guides him. As we can see, the Spirit *did* guide him. If the modern world only listened to Paul VI, men today wouldn't treat their bodies as machines and treat women as objects. And don't tell me that it is not because of contraception. If contraception wasn't accepted today, do you think there would be many teenagers having sex? I know many people who had pre-marital sex and they are in agony because they were treated as objects. That's what happens when we take away the primary purpose and the primary meaning of sex.
Yes, Apolonio, a man lusting for a woman is indeed a bad thing, but you were not talking about same-sex lust. You were talking about same-sex attraction, which you say is a mental illness. Gay men who were not lustful, such as JHN or GMH, were still mentally ill according to you. I find it significant that like Dr Blosser you have shifted the ground of the argument by bringing in a red herring.
Acorns in the bible? The convenantal friendship between David and Jonathan; the celebration of sexual love in the Song of Songs; the word "It is not good for the man to be alone" in Genesis 2; the primacy of love as preached by Paul and John; everything the Bible says about marriage, which is reflected in an analogical participation by gay couples; the biblical doctrine of the goodness of Creation -- lots more could be found. Just as the Bible is a charter for liberation from slavery though on the surface it seems to approve of slave-ownership, so it is a charter for liberation for gay people. But it is the Spirit that gives life, the letter kills.
Jordan Potter says the Pope condemned the slave trade in the 1500s. I wonder is he thinking of Gregory XVI's condemnation of 1839? I thought the Vatican had galley slaves of its own back in the 1500s. http://www.catholic-forum.com/sa...s/
pope0254j.htm
Ah, I see Paul III did condemn making slaves of the Christian converts in the New World in 1537. I must look this up.
Benedict XIV (1740-5
, as expected from that flaky liberal, also condemns this.
In the sixteenth century galley slaves seem to have been an essential part of sea warfare -- at Lepanto 1572 or so, the Turkish slaves liberated some of their Christian counterparts. The Spanish Armada had lots of slave oarsmen, some condemned to it by the Inquisition.
Who are all those people you say refute Noonan on usury? Just internet cranks? Have you any respectable sources to quote?
http://www.iol.ie/~duacon/wompr1.htm
Scroll down to "the theology of slavery" in this article for some rather shocking information.
Scroll to the statement of Cardinal Hyacinthe Gerdil in the following and tell me what you think it means: http://www.christianitytoday.com...3/128/
53.0.html
http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEO...GY/
FRNOONAN.HTM
This author commits a howler when he has the Bible "specifically condemn" coitus interruptus. The sin of Onan in Genesis 38.9 was refusal to fulfil his duty in a Levirate marriage.
Hardly the kind of scholar to take on Noonan!
The author admits that church teaching on usury changed, but claims that it upheld the right principles all along, only their application changed in light of more advanced economic theory. I would say that the church upholds the right principles in sexual ethics but that their application in the case of homosexuality may be changing in light of more advanced psychosexual theory.
Another of your referees argues that it was not church teaching but the nature of money that changed. http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/a...om/
assissi.html
Hmmm, but the Jews in Venice were perhaps the initiators of modern capitalism, and they were the targets of the Christian anti-usury teaching.
http://www.geocities.com/
frcoult...troduction.html
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRI...UR/
MATTHEWM.TXT
Looks like Fr William Most is also very feeble on this topic.
So a string of names is Apolonio's answer, and when I look up those names I find... NOTHING!
I'm very glad that we've got a very, very bright young man here, like Apolonio.
What I wonder is how many undiscerning young people have had the terrible misfortune of encountering O'Leary.
Reverend Father, may I ask you something? If a hipothetical young man or woman confesses to you sins against the 6th or the 9th commandment related to the same sex, what do you say to that man or woman?
New Catholic:
He can't answer that question. Hypothetical people don't go to confession. Only sinners who recognize the need for forgiveness go, and we don't exist -- since everyone is going to heaven.
"Hypothetical people don't go to confession."
Very true!
Here is Shawn's treatment on this subject.
http://rerum-
novarum.blogspot.co...e.html#93000704
I have went over the issues of slavery and usury with so many people that I got sick and tired of debating about it.
Fr. O'Leary did have some arguments I would like to respond to.
He said,
"The convenantal friendship between David and Jonathan; the celebration of sexual love in the Song of Songs; the word "It is not good for the man to be alone" in Genesis 2; the primacy of love as preached by Paul and John; everything the Bible says about marriage, which is reflected in an analogical participation by gay couples; the biblical doctrine of the goodness of Creation -- lots more could be found."
I don't mean any disrespect, but David and Jonathan as an acorn? Seriously? I mean, all of the examples of "acorns" you have given can justify incest. If a father and daughter really love each other, are you saying it's okay for them to get married? Or what about if I want to have sex with my dog and marry it? I mean, we do have dominion over animals and Genesis says so. And there is primacy of love. And there are new developments on the intelligence of animals, even to the point of belief. So why not?
The fact is this. Yes, love has the primacy in the Bible. But there are different kinds of love. When we speak of conjugal love or marital love, the Bible and Tradition always put it in the context of between a man and a woman with the potential of having kids. Now, you said,
"I would say that the church upholds the right principles in sexual ethics but that their application in the case of homosexuality may be changing in light of more advanced psychosexual theory."
Catholic sexual ethics always consist of sex inside of marriage. A marriage between a man and a woman should always have a sexual life in the sense that they can celebrate their union and intimacy through THE marital act. Even if we take out the issue of reproduction, of which Catholic sexual ethics says there should always be a potential of, it doesn't make sense in a homosexual union. Homosexuals can't have sex. Take a look at the human body. It's commonsensical to see that the man's body is made for a woman's body (of course, all bodies are ultimately made for God and that's why celibacy is such a blessing since the priest sacrifices human love for divine love). So it seems to me that we *can't* apply Catholic sexual ethics in homosexual cases. Even if we take a look at all the psychological, biological, etc advancements we have, we still can't justify homosexual acts. Can a homosexual be in the same room as a homosexual even though he has an inclination towards that person? Yes. But that's about it. I don't see how we can do more. If Catholic sexual ethics is right, according to Fr. O'Leary, then it seems to me that we can't justify any homosexual acts.
Apolonio, you trampled on the acorns -- mere seeds of oaks. Your reasoning on sex acts is simply crude. The church recognizes sterile sexual acts with no potential for the transmission of life as holy in that they express the mutual love of spouses and symbolize Christ's love for his church. Gay love can be expressed in chaste gestures such as hugs and kisses, and according to the testimony of gay couples also finds fitting and deep expression in sexual acts. The church disapproves of the latter as it disapproves of any sexual acts between unmarried people, but that is not a good reason to deny the phenomena or the witness of those who know what they are talking about. The church has not yet listened to this witness of gay couples and is confining itself to a regime of a priori pronouncements, notably in the documents produced by the Vatican in 1975 and 1986 and in the Catechism. In contrast, Humanae Vitae and the episcopal responses to it did make an effort to hear the testimony of married couples.
As to usury, parsing the utterance of the Lateran Council does not help much. If I were to lend money for interest today, without any serious risk or effort on my part, I would be committing a sin according to the Lateran Council, but I do not think that is current Catholic teaching. Also the teaching against usury was applied to moneylenders in the modern capitalistic sense, notably the hard-working and much-risking Jews.
"The church has not yet listened to this witness of gay couples"
And your point is? She also hasn't listened to the witness of murderers, thieves, adulterers, blasphemers and idolaters.
As your brother in our shared baptism, Jesus has placed upon me the duty to warn you that, by your belief that homosexual activity is not sinful and that homosexuality is not disordered, you have put your soul in grave risk of eternal damnation. Return to your Father's House before it's too late, Fr. O'Leary.
The church teaches that homosexual activity is always objectively immoral, but that it can be subjectively defensible, diminished in guilt or inculpable. See Paul VI and Jan Visser, co-author of Persona Humana.
Pastorally, the church accepts provisionally the arrangement of a gay couple as the lesser of two evils.
The idea that homosexuality is disordered strikes me as very ill-defined. Same-sex attraction is found in many animal species and in a huge number of men and women. Exclusive homosexuality is a common trait of many individuals from their earliest years. If you had a gay son or daughter, Polycarp, would you feel happy telling him or her that his or her entire psychosexual make up was disordered? And that he/she better believe or he/she will go to hell just for questioning it?
Is hell the last resort of the theologically bankrupt?
Curiously, as the alleged biological and psychoanalytical reasons for considering homosexuality a disorder have proved fragile, a circular argument is now set up: "As an orientation to immoral acts the homosexual orientation must be disordered!" But the reverse argument is equally tenable: "As the expression of a natural sexual orientation, the acts in question are not necessarily immoral".
"As the expression of a natural sexual orientation, the acts in question are not necessarily immoral".
Homosexual activity is just as natural as cannibalism. Do you advise that the Church listen to the witness of cannibals?
"Is hell the last resort of the theologically bankrupt?"
No, it's the destination of those who die in a state of mortal sin or unremitted original sin.
I think we've admonished and reproached you more than enough. Time to shake the dust.
I'll stand by what I said on the so-called acorns. Again, anyone can try to justify sexual acts with animals or incest with that kind of reasoning and I find the argument invalid.
"The church recognizes sterile sexual acts with no potential for the transmission of life as holy in that they express the mutual love of spouses and symbolize Christ's love for his church"
If anyone has been reading my statements, one can easily see how I already took into consideration couples who cannot have children. The fact is, they can have sex. That should always be a possibility in marriage.
"Gay love can be expressed in chaste gestures such as hugs and kisses, and according to the testimony of gay couples also finds fitting and deep expression in sexual acts. The church disapproves of the latter as it disapproves of any sexual acts between unmarried people, but that is not a good reason to deny the phenomena or the witness of those who know what they are talking about."
Well, I think it is. You even said that Catholic sexual ethics is fine. Catholic sexual ethics says you should have the possibility of sex. Homosexuals have no such thing. And as you said, the Church disapproves of sexual acts between unmarried people, therefore one must be married before you can do such things, and so you have to show that homosexuals *can* get married within Catholic sexual ethics.
I think this would be my last comment on this thread. So God bless to all.
Father O'Leary is evidently unaware of a book called Love and Responsibility. He is further unaware of Wilton Wynnn's glowing summary of John Paul's address on the subject of sex: he says that Paul VI consulted theologians, but John Paul consulted married persons.
Facts. Such inconvenient things for the heterodox.
Now, let's see the logical leaps he must go through to get to his conclusion.
1) He assumes that homosexual sex is natural. If it were, why could no new life be generated by it. [Please, Father, we're talking about humans here].
2) He assumes that homosexual sex is blessed by God. In making this assumption he must categorically state that what the Church has taught for 2000 years is utter bunk.
3) He assumes that the Church until she agrees with him is simply wrong.
4) He assumes that hell is a mere construct designed to keep some people scared enough to obey.
5) He assumes that something can be against the law of God and still be perfectly moral.
Don't most homosexual activists argue that they don't choose to be perverted sodomites? They say it is merely a natural urge which they are too weak to overcome, and so it must be good. They further argue that, IF THEY COULD CHOOSE, they would choose not to be gay. Why would so many of them say they didn't choose to be gay if there were nothing inherently wrong with it? [Please, Father, recognize the difference between this case and the case of blacks in this country, who can't "choose" to be white. The one is an actual reality with which there is nothing inherently evil. See if you can figure out which one.]
Chirs
He has not answered my question:
Reverend Father, may I ask you something? If a hypothetical young man or woman confesses to you sins against the 6th or the 9th commandment related to the same sex, what do you say to that man or woman?
Fr O'Leary is evidently unaware of a book called Love and Responsibility.
UNTRUE -- see my review article on this book in The Furrow, December 1978.
Now, let's see the logical leaps he must go through to get to his conclusion.
1) He assumes [UNTRUE] that homosexual sex is natural. If it were, why could no new life be generated by it. [MANY FORMS OF NATURAL SEX DO NOT GENERATE LIFE -- STERILE OR POST-MENOPAUSAL COUPLES]Please, Father, we're talking about humans here SO WHY REDUCE THE DISCUSSION TO THE ANIMAL LEVEL?].
2) He assumes [UNTRUE] that homosexual sex is blessed by God. In making this assumption he must categorically state that what the Church has taught for 2000 years is utter bunk. [NOT UTTER BUNK, BUT THE MISTAKEN APPLICATION OF MORAL PRINCIPLE as in the cases of usury, slavery, "error has no rights" and the papal power to depose secular rulers]
Paul VI consulted theologians, but John Paul consulted married persons. PAUL VI'S BIRTH CONTROL COMMISSIONS HAD MARRIED COUPLES. JPII probably consulted only right wing groups.
3) He assumes [UNTRUE]that the Church until she agrees with him is simply wrong. I ARGUE FOR CHANGE, AS IN THE CASE OF ARTIFICIAL CONTRACEPTION. CHANGE HAS OCCURRED IN THE PAST AND CAN DO SO AGAIN.
4) He assumes that hell is a mere construct designed to keep some people scared enough to obey. NO, I ARGUE FOR THE REALITY OF HELL AS THE POSSIBILITY OF FINAL LOSS, QUOTING RAHNER AND RATZINGER. THE NT SCENARIO OF DEVILS, ANGELS, HEAVEN, HELL IS PERSIAN APOCALYPTIC, BUT THE REALITY OF SALVATION (ETERNAL LIFE) AND OF POSSIBLE LOSS IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THESE REPRESENTATIONS. WITH RATZINGER AND JP2 I BELIEVE THAT ONE CAN AND EVEN SHOULD HOPE THAT HELL IS EMPTY.
5) He assumes that something can be against the law of God and still be perfectly moral. NO, NATURAL LAW IS THE LAW OF GOD AND ANYTHING THAT IS AGAINST THAT IS OBJECTIVELY IMMORAL. WITH PAUL VI I SAY THAT OBJECTIVELY IMMORAL ACTS CAN IN SOME CASES BE SUBJECTIVELY DEFENSIBLE, DIMINISHED IN GUILT OR INCULPABLE.
Don't most homosexual activists argue that they don't choose to be perverted sodomites? They say it is merely a natural urge which they are too weak to overcome, and so it must be good. TOO WEAK TO OVERCOME is a falsification. WOULD YOU SAY YOUR HETEROSEXUALITY IS AN URGE YOU ARE TOO WEAK TO OVERCOME OR NOT RATHER SOMETHING THAT YOU WERE BORN WITH? YOUR FALSIFICATION HERE IS ROOTED IN HOMOPHOBIA, A PATHOLOGY ACCORDING TO THE BEST PSYCHOLOGICAL OPINION. They further argue that, IF THEY COULD CHOOSE, they would choose not to be gay. I HAVE NEVER HEARD A GAY PERSON SAY THIS, BUT IS SUPPOSE HOMOPHOBIC BULLYING BY PARENTS AND PEERS WOULD LEAD MANY AMERICAN KIDS TO SAY SO. TO HATE ONE'S OWN SEXUALITY IS ALREADY A STEP IN A SUICIDAL DIRECTION. Why would so many of them say they didn't choose to be gay if there were nothing inherently wrong with it? BECAUSE THOSE WHO ARGUE THAT IT IS WRONG DO SO ON THE BASIS THAT IT IS A PERVERSE CHOICE.
GAYS KNOW THAT THEIR SEXUALITY IS NATURAL AND NOT A MATTER OF CHOICE, JUST AS HETEROSEXUALITY IS. [Please, Father, recognize the difference between this case and the case of blacks in this country, who can't "choose" to be white ANY MORE THAN GAYS CAN CHOOSE TO BE STRAIGHT OR VICE VERSA. BECAUSE OF RACIST BIGOTRY SOME BLACKS MIGHT CHOOSE TO BE WHITE -- AS IN THE "THE HUMAN STAIN" BY PHILIP ROTH -- DOES THAT PROVE THAT BEING BLACK IS BAD AND SHAMEFUL? The one is an actual reality with which there is nothing inherently evil. SO IS THE OTHER.
Mr G-Z, if one of your sons turn out to be gay, I greatly fear that tragedy will ensue.
In response to New Catholic's questions, I would urge penitents tempted to sin against chastity not to do so. If a penitent claims that he or she is not convinced by church teaching on contraception etc., I would urge them to follow their conscience.
Well, I already said I would stop posting on this thread. I won't comment on the issue of homosexuality.
I agree somewhat to what Fr. O'Leary said:
"NO, I ARGUE FOR THE REALITY OF HELL AS THE POSSIBILITY OF FINAL LOSS, QUOTING RAHNER AND RATZINGER. THE NT SCENARIO OF DEVILS, ANGELS, HEAVEN, HELL IS PERSIAN APOCALYPTIC, BUT THE REALITY OF SALVATION (ETERNAL LIFE) AND OF POSSIBLE LOSS IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THESE REPRESENTATIONS. WITH RATZINGER AND JP2 I BELIEVE THAT ONE CAN AND EVEN SHOULD HOPE THAT HELL IS EMPTY."
I do believe that fallen angels are in hell. That's a dogma of the faith. Hans Urs von Balthasar also acknowledges that in his book Dare We Hope. I defended those who hope that all men be saved here:
http://apolonio.blogspot.com/
200...io_archive.html
and
http://apolonio.blogspot.com/
200...io_archive.html
Although I have a problem with universalism, I don't have a problem with hoping all men be saved. I wasn't sure that His Holiness Benedict XVI held to such a hope, but I do know that Cardinal Danielou did hold to it in some fashion (Balthasar quotes him in his book).
As far as the other points Fr. O'Leary mentions...Well, he's wrong
Nice to see some agreement from Apolonio. Don't see what he means about gays not being able to have sex -- does it mean that they are angels? or that standard (vaginal) intercourse is the only form of sex that exists?
I wonder will Polycarp be back again, after his latest performance of "shaking the dust from his feet" --his flattering description of his huffs and hissy-fits!
Cute anecdote from Apolonio's site:
"I emailed philosopher Alvin Plantinga on this issue. I sent him basically the same thing I wrote above. I asked him if it was rational to have hope for the salvation of all men within these situations and context. He replied: "That hope sounds good to me" (email, 10/25/04 3:05 PM)."
"NO, I ARGUE FOR THE REALITY OF HELL AS THE POSSIBILITY OF FINAL LOSS".
So to you, Father, hell is only pain of loss, no pain of sense.
Is this correct?
"In response to New Catholic's questions, I would urge penitents tempted to sin against chastity"
What is a "sin against chastity" in O'Learyspeak?
Any kind of sexual activity outside of marriage (Marriage, that is, between a man and a woman) is a "sin against chastity"; would you agree with that?
---
A merry and holy Day of the Lord for you in the land of the rising sun.
"I wonder will Polycarp be back again, after his latest performance of 'shaking the dust from his feet' --his flattering description of his huffs and hissy-fits!"
"Latest"? When have I announced before that I believe I've fulfilled my duty to correct an erring brother?
You can call it "huffs and hissy-fits" if you like. I can assure you I've not lost my temper or anything -- I'm in a pretty calm mood, a mournful resignation. You really have no idea just how sorrowful it is find a priest of God espousing doctrinal errors.
I will continue to post comments here -- just not any comments that involve "dialogue" with you and your errors.
Pain of sense? That is a mythological representation, and no, I do not think in those terms. I recall that Hans Urs Von Balthasar denied this too, and that when he died two days before receiving the red hat it was deduced, by a doctor of theology no less, that this was the Lord's punishment of his error. If New Cath can find any serious theologian of the twentieth century who insists on the pain of sense I will read him with interest. Polycarp, it's OK to argue about this, since the alleged error is Von Balthasar's not mine -- something similar is true of all my other alleged errors.
New Cath, how would YOU answer the following penitents:
(a) Father, I made love with a boy, and we are not going to meet again. But it was a wonderful experience and I don't feel there was anything wrong with it; I just can't say I am really sorry.
(b) I am 30 years old have five children, two of them born despite practicing Natural Family Planning. My husband and I have had enough, and the Pope did say that conscience is the final judge. So may we now at last resort to the pill?
(c) I am a man who has lived with a man for twenty years. If I break up with him we would both suffer a debilitating loneliness and temptations to sexual promiscuity. What should I do?
These are the kind of conundrums faced by priests in the confessional. Many priests are uneasy with the role of sexual policeman and also feel that the confession scenario in the old form is infantilizing (and the new rite of reconciliation does not seem to have really taken root). It is significant that in one of his early documents John Paul II urged PRIESTS to hear confessions, recognizing a great disaffection to the sacrament among its ministers.
Is Pain of Sense in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example? It is not mentioned in Ratzinger's chapter on Hell in his Eschatologie.
The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created. THE NOTE, 617, REFERS TO OLDER MAGISTERIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN DENZINGER. Balthasar, a disciple of Origen, probably interpreted the fire as a spiritual rather than a sense one.
The Catechism is very hospitable to mythological representations and has been severely criticized by theologians on that account. It is a document beloved of the Neocaths, but probably damaging to the well-being of the Church.
"These are the kind of conundrums faced by priests in the confessional."
Contradictions are faced by every person, including those who are most judgmental. Sometimes, though, a person in put in a situation where they have to face their contradictions.
I have an Evangelical friend -- very devote Christian. He openly claimed to have a perfect relationship with Christ, as he tells the story, and his family was like nothing you've could ever imagine. Devoted children and all. He was also very bright.
One evening he called. We talked for over three or four hours, as he told me his wife wanted a divorce. She was leaving him within a week. He was crushed.
Contradictions were at work in his life. And yet, his piety was always joyous!
Now its split asunder. The truth has emerged.
Strange.
Incredible...
This entire thread is incredible...
I feel the need to quote a Church Father:
To be sure, those five books are not enough to deal with all the extravagant folly and perversity of our opponents - nor would any number of additional books suffice. That is clear to all. Stupidity glories in never yielding to the force of truth; that is how it effects the ruin of anyone who is under the dominion of this monstrous moral fault. It is a disease proof against all efforts to treat it, not through any fault in the physician, but because the patient is himself incurable. But those who understand what they read, who reflect upon it and weigh the arguments without any obstinate adherence to their old errors, or at least without excessive and exaggerated attachment to them - such people will be ready to conclude that in the five books already completed our discussion has been more, not less, than the question demanded. The ignorant try to bring odium on the Christian religion in connection with the disasters to which human life is subject, and the calamities and catastrophes that beset human affairs; and the learned not merely connive at this but even support those slanders, in defiance of their own conscience, possessed by a raging madness of blasphemy. These judicious readers cannot doubt that such attempts are utterly devoid of any clear thinking or right reasoning and are composed of nothing but irresponsible frivolity and malignant spite.
St. Augustine - City of God - Book VI Preface
I just want to make clear that I asked Plantinga if it was *rational* to have hope that all men be saved. Rationality does not mean it's true. As for the issue of the pains of hell, that's a toughy. I do believe that there is literal fire. Whether it is physical or not is another matter. Dostoevsky (and others) says that it is the incapability of love which seems to me makes sense since a person suffers without love. An Eastern Orthodox explained once that God is present in hell, but God's presence is fire to them and it makes them suffer because they reject them. I simply don't know. Hopefully, I will never experience it.
As for Fr. O'Leary's questions.. (I am thinking about priesthood so this may be a good "exercise")
(a) There are a lot of things that feels really good and make us think that there is nothing wrong with it. But a Christian is one who does not follow their own desires but God's will. God came into this world to give mercy and the concept of mercy means that there is such a thing as sin. We know what sin is from the commandments which is properly interpreted by the Church. Following His will is really dificult but we still need to abandon everything even if we think it is good for us. That's the Christian life. Abandon your past actions and follow His will. Carry your cross and your reward will be great in heaven. Pray to God that He will give you the grace to see His will better and to be sorry about your sin.
(b) Remember that children are gifts from God and that it was through and in your love for you wife and her love for you that you brought this great person into being. Now, if you will, imagine a scenario for me. Imagine that you are 80 years old and you only have 5 children. You are proud of them and you did your best to make them grow into great men and women. You could have had more, but you didn't feel like it. You used contraception. Okay. Now, imagine a scenario when you are 80 and you have 9 children because you did not use contraception. You had struggles. Many struggles. You did not know how to pay for them, feed them, or buy them the toys and clothes they wanted. But in some miraculous way, everything turned out to be fine. There were times when you were mad at God, but you never lost your faith. You depended in God and God provided for you. There may be times when you had to sacrifice some things. You may not have gone to Disney World. But now, you have 9 great children you love and who loves you back because of your faith in them. You did not lose faith. Now that you are 80, you are not alone. You brought them up in a great way and they did not divorce themselves from you. They realized your hard work and now they honor you as they should. Though you may have had difficulties, solitude was never your friend because of your love for these children. And even today, even when you are old, you are still not alone.
Think about it.
(c) Welcome to being a Christian. A Christian faces loneli
(c) Welcome to being a Christian. A Christian faces loneliness and temptations all the time. Have faith and abandon everything for God.
Thanks for very interesting replies, Apolonio. But is a Christian life one of "loneliness and temptations all the time" -- I suggest that a sexually fulfilled life is not incompatible with Christianity, and that God himself said "it is not good for the man to be alone". Religious celibacy is supposed to be at the service of loving community. Mandatory celibacy of the secular clergy often has no such communal correlate and is then perceived as a cruel imposition. Many gays end up in lifelong temptation-besieged solitude because they miss the boat of friendship due to the church's teachings. Why not advise the penitent in the third case to pursue his friendship as a brother-and-sister arrangement, with chaste loving gestures such as St Augustine calls indicia benevolentiae?
Mike J., I did not notice that I was whammed by mighty arguments like those of Augustine -- I guess it's in the eye of the beholder?
Ah, Spirit of Vatican II, I did not assert that you were "whammed" by the likes of St. Augustine. I do believe the whamming/slapping department is headed by St. Nicholas.
Yes, it is quite in the eye of the beholder who is playing the part of incurable stupidity here.
Thank you for reading your own assumptions into my post about who is and isn't playing which part here.
Mike J. -- I did of course think your post better fitted the other party, but knowing that such snideness is a specialty of that party I refrained from doing the faux-naif boomerang trick.
Why waste time with these silly tactics?
Got anything to say?
Is Escriva the model for Freedom for our times? Or is this Orwellianism?: SLAVERY IS FREEDOM, WAR IS PEACE.
"New Cath, how would YOU answer the following penitents"
I'm not a priest (the only ones who have always been able to hear confessions, which is why I do not understand the "PRIEST" you wrote in caps)-- but I could never take as lightly as you do the awesome and terrifying divine power of forgiving sins and of pronouncing the words of consecration and Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
The Passion the holy Bride, sine ruga et sine macula, is going through is also almost incomprehensible -- but a servant is not greater than his Lord. If you are happy in your position as a thorn in the Church (very tiny, naturally, but present), as a small part of this immense army of the "silent apostasy", what can I do? Rejoice yourself in your own heretical egotrip, in your intellectual onanism.
May God have mercy on this wicked age.
"If you are happy in your position as a thorn in the Church (very tiny, naturally, but present), as a small part of this immense army of the "silent apostasy", what can I do? Rejoice yourself in your own heretical egotrip, in your intellectual onanism."
Well roared, Lion! But you have yet to provide a single argument against any of my positions. You have fretted, fumed, frothed and fulminated, yet on every concrete point you have offered I have given a patient, reasoned answer. And your consistent resort to abuse -- calling people intellectual wankers is the usual terminus of incompetent reasoners -- suggests that you need to reflect a little more on your tenets and presuppositions.
New Cath read my post carelessly, missing the point of my underlining of PRIESTS -- that was that the POPE addressed not the LAITY but PRIESTS as the key target audience in his quest to revive the sacrament of penance. Priests are deeply frustrated with this sacrament, it seems; its demise is due just as much to this as to lay indifference; if priests were enthusiastic about the sacrament they would have started a drive to share their convictions and draw the faithful back to it. I do not say this is a good situation, but it is the way things are at the moment.
New Cath has denounced me, more than anyone else here, as a heretic, an apostate and an intellectual onanist, more even than Dr Blosser -- yet his insistence on such exotic items as the sensible pain caused by the flames of hell has led him to denounce equally such unimpeached bastions of Catholic theology as Rahner, Schillebeeckx, Balthasar and the early Ratzinger. I can take comfort in such good company, I think, especially as New Cath admits that he himself is philosophically and theologically incompetent (why? if all this means so much to him, surely he should do a course of study?)
Oops, sorry, New Cath says that Balthasar was orthodox, so should be corrected but not condemned for his optimism about the number of the elect (an optimism shared by John Paul II and Benedict XVI, btw). New Cath has probably not read much of Balthasar or any other major theologian, since he holds up as outstanding luminary figures such eccentrics as Amerio and the author of The Rhine flors into the Tiber, form whom he has learned that Vatican II was an "anomalous" Council, infiltraated by evei man and who misled gullible bishops imbued with the optimistic spirit of the 1960s and forgetful of the wisdom of Pius XII, Humani Generis and the condemnation of Teilhard. Of course those bishops were appointed by Pius XII, and had ample opportunity to realize the Pius XII did not have all the answers. The Neocaths now clamoring for a return to the good old days of Pius XII will in their turn discover the limits of that world.
correction: the author of "The Rhine Flows into the Tiber," from whom he has learned that Vatican II was an "anomalous" Council, infiltrated by evil men who misled gullible bishops.
I never even mentioned ONCE "the author of 'The Rhine flors into the Tiber'". You are probably confusing me with one of the other commentators here.
Back from Holy Mass, I do not wish to keep this going. I fully recognize my incompetence in philosophical and theological matters, but at least I do not camouflage such incompetence with "progressive" heretical babble.
As for your eternal soul, Chris has already done what had to be done. The rest is up to you and to the infinite mercy of Almighty God. May you have a happy life.
"Progressive heretical babble" is what any modern theology would sound like to your ears I imagine. This terrific, panicky defensiveness is unnecessary. Of course the study of theology always involves a certain Stirb und werde! (Die and become!), but that should not terrify believers in the paschal mystery. A little less fear and anger, a little more teachability and openness to learning, would work wonders. Ignore me, but please do some proper study of theology at a recognized institution -- not reading ideological screeds etc. Just begin with basic, widely recognized texts -- old stuff like Michael Schmaus if you want, or Walter Kasper, and standard works of modern biblical scholarship -- the Anchor Bible and companion volumes for example -- it represents a wide spectrum of opinion. Too narrow a vision of faith can do immense damage -- can make the Faith seem repulsive and creepy to those you would preach it to and can produce neurotics riven with sexual guilt and the fear of hell (see the recent lead essay in Stimmen der Zeit on Ekklesiogene Neurosen, ecclesiogenic neuroses). Reach out ecumenically as well, to the Greek church and the traditions of the Reformation but above all to the Jewish heritage. I think you dismissed the late Jacques Dupuis, but I would recommend his books on world religions for their wide ecumenical vision, based on the Greek Fathers. Carmelite mysticism is fine, but needs to be linked up with the ordinary bread and butter of down to earth theology. Teresa herself, with her unfailing common sense, preferred well-educated spiritual guides to holy ones. Theology is not a torture chamber but a banquet hall -- the most beautiful of the sciences said Barth, the one in which the greatest discoveries remain to be made said Teilhard.
"Got anything to say?"
To you? No.
I have other people on whom to spend my time. The Augustine quote was meant more for the benefit of those who are probably quite frustrated with this entire affair right now.
"I fully recognize my incompetence in philosophical and theological matters."
That's a beginning.
"Got anything to say?"
"To you? No."
The question remains:
Got anything substantive to say?
Father O'Leary is clearly under the mistaken impression that his volume compensates for his lack of reasoning. I have come to the conclusion that the reason God allows nonsense such as O'Brien, Schillebecxx, Kung, Curran et al is so that there may be fertilizer for otherwise barren soil. This occurred to me during this morning's Mass. There not being enough manure, God allowed it to be created by them.
But Chris Garton-Zavesky, have you actually read anything by Schillebeeckx, whose name you cannot even spell? And by O'Brien you surely mean McBrien. It is so easy to dismiss people out of hand, as you dismissed the Bishops' pastoral ALWAYS OUR CHILDREN though you are exactly the person the bishops were thinking of when they wrote it (with Vatican approbation). You complain that Catholics, in massive revolt, are dismissive of church teachings on contraception, abortion, homosexuality, masturbation, and are being punished for it with AIDS etc., but you yourself give the example of dismissing other church teachings.
Chris,
Fr. O'Leary is not under that impression that volume is a substitute for poor reasoning. Not at all. Such judgment is another of your pietistic mumblings.
The simple truth is that you have yet to address intellectually the issues he has raised. You've addressed none whatsoever. It's just that simple. You've said nothing that engages his challenge.
O'Leary's positions are reasoned. Yours are not. Your method is to claim he doesn't measure up to some vague notion of the teachings of the Church. But you always fail to show why your judgement are valid and why.
The real truth is that you don't understand the teachings of the Church. You know enough to receive the sacraments, but that's all. You spin out this spiritual cotton candy that is pure sugar. But it won't survive the first rainfall. Just piety.
Among other things, Fr. O'Leary is trying to get it through your head that Çatholicism is not a mindless religion. It is not to be mistaken for some pietistic ritual. Piety may make you feel comfortable. But it is not the full measure of Cahtolicism. Catholicism is profoundly intellectual, among other things. It grows with new insight and methods. It is not static.
Clearly, literature, philosophy, and theology are not your strengths! Yet they are critical to the core of Catholicism.
Awhile back, I mention Conscience. Weeks have gone around and you have yet to reconcile your views with the primacy of conscience. Until you do, nothing you say transcends YOUR OPINION. You just as well be out of your mind for all the weight your judgments carry.
Egoism? Is that what this is all about? If the truth be told, you're not any more on the side of God than anyone else. You speak as though the dispensation of Divine Mercy depends upon the dictates of your Will. Wow. Come to think of it, that explains everything. No wonder there's little room in Heaven for the likes of O'Leary and me!
If it weren't for Jerry's comment here, I might have been tempted to doubt that anyone could be so hideously arrogant and self-righteous. Those who disagree with Jerry and Father O'Leary are collosal ignoramuses -- just ask 'em, they'll tell you.
"If it weren't for Jerry's comment here, I might have been tempted to doubt that anyone could be so hideously arrogant and self-righteous."
Jordon, you should doubt your own statement. Afterall, you yourself are wearing the Yellow Shirt!
I notice your strengths are not philosophy or theology! They seem to rise increase when expressing anger and spreading maiice. Not bad, my friend -- for being so pious.
Such are the ingredients of our poisoned chalice!
Fr. O'Leary,
The saints'lives had experiences of loneliness and temptations. There are many times when are egoism comes in the way and blocks our confidence in God and His Church. I'm pretty sure you're familiar with Balthasar and therefore the Christian life as having loneliness and temptations wouldn't be a problem with you. Now, I'm still an agnostic when it comes to the Godforsakeness theology of Balthasar (he has an interesting perspective but I'm not sure if he goes too far), but reading John of the Cross, Therese the Little Flower, Mother Teresa, Teresa of Avila, Ignatius, etc shows that a Christian life is a struggle.
As far sexually fulfilled means, it must always be in the context of giving one's total self for the other. To use contraception destroys that self-giving love.
Now, as far as gays being in solitude because they "miss the boat of friendship," let me remind what your third hypothetical question was...
"(c) I am a man who has lived with a man for twenty years. If I break up with him we would both suffer a debilitating loneliness and temptations to sexual promiscuity. What should I do?"
Now, when you say "break up with him," you are not simply talking about a "friendship relationship." I'm sure that's not what you're talking about because I know that many homosexuals can have a healthy friendship relationship without living as if they are in (conjugal) love with each other. For any sensible, educated person who knows about the psychological factors when it comes to homosexuality, who would think that letting homosexuals live with each other would simply form a "friendly relationship"? Fr. O'Leary, you and I know the psychology of homosexuality and you know as well as I know that such would be a very very rare thing. So I am not buying such a thing and I think you are smart enough to know that.
Finally, my advice would be to "break up" with the guy. It's better that one loses his right arm than lose his whole self in hell. It's better that they suffer now than in hell.
Biblical Interpretation and The "Sin of Sodom" 12/14/04.
What about Leviticus and Paul?12/15/04.
Homosexuality and Natural Law 12/16/04.
"The Sin of Sodom" Revisited 12/17/04.
Leviticus and St. Paul Revisited 12/18/04.
Homosexuality and the Catholic Tradition 12/19/04.
Given the nature of this discussion I thought I'd offer up for the education (or perhaps entertainment?) of Dr. Blosser's readers a debate I participated in with another blogger on "the sin of Sodom" and various aspects of the biblical / Catholic condemnation of homosexuality.
Question: What does Fr. O'Leary do for a living . . . besides trolling my father's blog?
Is he a real priest? -- If so, perhaps his bishop should be informed regarding his clear and unhealthy addiction to the internet and personal obsession with Dr. Blosser . . . it's more than a little creepy. =)
Apolonio, but in scenario (c) the probability is that if both cut off their right arm by breaking up their stable relationship both will end up body and soul in hell by relapsing to a self-destructive mode of life. That is exactly why Jan Visser, co-author of the Vatican document Persona Humana, told the press that Catholic pastoral practice in such a case would provisionally accept the continuance of such a relationship as the lesser of two evils. Similar pastoral accommodation is recommended in the case of contraception.
Christopher, you have no need to make such snaky comments.
I have not time to read your links, I presume they go in the direction of biblical fundamentalism. For a less fundamentalistic perspective see the essays by Robin Scroggs, Walter Wink and the Osservatore Pieces I gave links to earlier.
It's kind of telling that you dismiss Christopher's pieces without reading them. Don't you think it a bit pompous?
Christopher, you have no need to make such snaky comments
No more snaky than your equating the enthusiasm of Catholic youth for their beloved Pope John Paul II at World Youth Day to Nazi enthusiasm for their fuhrer in your post on "neo-Catholics".
Although I have to admit, I know quite a few bloggers who are members of the clergy, but few priests so disposed to spend so many hours commenting on another's blog as you . . . why the obsession with my father? Is this some kind of "evil arch-nemesis" fixation?
Seriously, your quip about the PJPII rally and Riefensthal's Triumph of the Will -- come on now, really.
I assume by the time and effort you put into that article you don't mean to simply "preach to the [liberal] choir" but wish to engage the minds of Apolonio Latar III, Jeff Miller, Jimmy Akin, Oswald Sobrino, et al. . . .
If you have any hope of retaining an audience, I recommend lay off the allusions to Hitler. Otherwise readers are likely to write you off as another demented lunatic aka. Matthew Fox. And I know you're better than that.
I do not have any obsession with your father. That is nonsense. You may have noticed that apart from my indignation at his libelous article, my debate here has been mostly with new cath, g-z, polycarp and jordan potter. I cannot read your links, as they do not come up, but I'll try again. Meanwhile look at this if you haven't already.http://www.melwhite.org/biblesays.html
Christopher, have you seen television footage of the Pope's address to youth in Ballybrit, Co. Galway, 1979? Have you seen Triumph of the Will? I challenge you to do so and to deny an unnerving resemblence between the two scenes, each lasting twenty minutes. "Boys and girls, boys and girls, the Holy Father has something more to say" were Fr Michael Cleary's words of interruption of the roaring masses; "Sie sind Deutschland, Deutschland ist die Partei, die Partei is der Fuehrer" was the equivalent in the German event. But the dynamics of crown control were exactly the same. No one knows how to build a crowd like John Paul II, was Clinton's opinion.
crowd control I meant
None of the 6 links work.
Meanwhile read this http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bi.../
section01.html
Misposted this above: Recall that at the very time he was building up his youth magisterium the Pope was an ardent supporter Ronald Reagan's dirty war in Nicaragua, the Contras, death squads etc. Reagan hailed him a his moral supporter in that shameful war, and the Pope never disclaimed the connection. I think that this is the blackest mark on JP2's record, more than sufficient to put the indecently hasty canonization plan in question.
Ok, Christopher, I'll give your dad a break, though why he should be so upset at my posts I don't know. I supposed he is disappointed at his disciples' total incapacity to answer even a single one of the points I have made.
Meanwhile I have just taken a look at your own blog and I notice you have no one to discuss with you. I would be more than happy to take on your shameless whitewashing of American crimes and lies in Iraq, if I had the time.
That's funny, all the links work for me.
Jerry, right back at you: I notice that your strengths are philosophy and expressing anger while spreading malice, and heaping derision on Catholics who seek to be faithful to the teachings of the Church. I don't know just what to make of you -- you're capable of some remarkable, impressive and thoroughly orthodox (if somewhat verbose) expositions on Catholic philosophy, especially Thomism -- but then you haven't seen fit to object when Fr. O'Leary says the Church should stop saying homosexual acts are sins and homosexuality is objectively disordered, nor have you criticized his past statements that the Church may be able to ordain women. Lately it seems about all you've done is to stand on the sidelines and snipe at those who object to Fr. O'Leary's dissent from Church teaching.
What does Fr. O'Leary do for a living . . . besides trolling my father's blog? Is he a real priest? -- If so, perhaps his bishop should be informed regarding his clear and unhealthy addiction to the internet and personal obsession with Dr. Blosser . . . it's more than a little creepy. CHRISTOPHER BLOSSER
EXACTLY THE POINTS MADE BY NEW CATHOLIC EARLIER.
When I told Phil Blosser in an email that I was a priest in good standing, as when we first met in 1982, a message immediately appeared on one of these threads accusing me of concealing my priestly identity -- this can only have been from Christopher Bloseer -- but was it signed Christopher? I don't remember. Or was it signed New Catholic? I do remember that New Catholic made the accusation at this time. So my question is ARE NEW CATHOLIC AND CHRISTOPHER BLOSSER ONE AND THE SAME? Note the New Catholic, alone of contributors here, is singled out for praise in Phil Blosser's Philippic against me.
Father O'Leary,
ARE NEW CATHOLIC AND CHRISTOPHER BLOSSER ONE AND THE SAME?
In a word, NO.
Jordan,
Thanks for the reply.
First, let me say that I believe Fr. O'Leary deserves respect as a priest. When he is called names I take that personally. This is the way I was raised. Sorry about that. Perhaps you were raised that way too.
Second. there may be legitimate criticism of Fr. O'Leary's stand on certain issues. But when that criticism is presented, it should be about ideas, not about persons. I'm absolutely certain he would welcome a healthy exchange of views. As for me, I would welcome anything that is thoughtful, whether I agreed or not. I would particularly welcome a thoughtful disagreement because it would lend itself to growth.
It is at this point that there has been a major failing on this site. Major. There could, and should be a spirited debate on any number of issues -- on the nature of sin, or homosexuality, or women in the priesthood, or on and on. This could be very beneficial to everyone -- if the dialogue were about ideas. But this would also require a respect of persons at the core of the dialogue.
Take, for instance, your statement above that homosexuality is objectively disordered behavior. Even apart from the social stigma, this is what I was taught since my first classes in Thomistic ethics. It was a truth ingrained in me apart from any teaching of the magisterium. Logical arguments were presented as part of a reasoned discourse.
But, even from the beginning of my studies, homosexuality [and all moral issues] was presented as a bit more complicated than that. To stop analysis at the level of principle -- apart from circumstances and intention -- is to reduce Thomistic philosophy to a kind of engineering . That is not adequate. Nor is it correct. St. Thomas is rich and profound thinker, not abstract and detached. While he can lend himself to formulaic thinking, such is not the spirit of St. Thomas. His doctrine is existential -- roooted in the act of being, not in the essence.
How we address issues like homosexuality as a Church and as a society -- and how we relate to one another in absolute respect of the human person -- is a highly complicated matter. It cannot be trivialized. It cannot be reduced to forumlas. An individual, society, and the Church can only discover the CONCRETE path ahead slowly. For instance, how can one respect the dignity of the person, the primacy of conscience, and the theological virtue of Charity at one and the same time if our response to homosexuality is merely one of condemnation, or of abstract principle, or of natural law? One can't. The most overlooked quality of Christ was his concreteness. A homosexual is also concrete. Statements about a person that are generalized can only be erroneous and misleading. They are simply wrong.
Read any standard textbook of Thomistic ethics, or a Church document, and you will get a sense of what this means. When a thoughtful person has finished reading, they will have thousands of quest
(Continued)
Read any standard textbook of Thomistic ethics, or a Church document, and you will get a sense of what this means. When a thoughtful person has finished reading, they will have thousands of questions. Most questions will not be answered by the document. Not even the most important points will be addressed. Even more, myriads of contradictions will make themselves present to the critical viewer. I've already mentioned the contradictions between dignity, conscience, and charity in our treatmenbt of homosexualls. The simple truth is: much is going on. There are conflicting ideas everywhere. The question is: what to make of it all -- that is the challenge. That is what dialogue addresses.
Going further, to say that homosexuality is an objective disorder says little. And it does little for the homosexual, for the observer, for society, or for the Church. Let me illustrate.
Greed, like homosexuality, is an objective disorder. So is anger. So is envy. And on and on. But look at our American lifestyle. There are MacMansions that dot the landscape of America. Is that Greed? Is that an objective disorder? You bet it is. But what do we do about it? Do we abolish MacMansions? Do we send their owners to hell because they are committing a mortal sin? No, we don't do that. We fuss, maybe. But the MacMansions are being built even though they reflect an objective disorder. They are signs of materialism, greed, hedonism, utilitarianism. And they stem from notions of the autonomous individual, spiritual fragmentation, Ego, and so forth. Despite all this, the MacMansions will continue to be built. You might even own one of these MacMansions yourself!
Homosexual disorder should be accorded the same careful treatment. The reason why we demonize homosexuals has more to do with the dynamics of our national psyche than it has to do with the fact that homosexuality is an objective disorder. If objective disorders were that significant to us, we'd reevaluate the entire range of the American lifestyle.
Thus, the problem of any objective disorder is more profound than anyone realizes. It is certainly more complicated than what is being discussed on this site -- or anywhere else for that matter.
Ultimately, all these issues are a struggle for mutual understanding and "hearts and minds" in our common struggle to realize the promise of the Gospels. Like it or not, we are saved together. Salvation is social, not just individual. And one doesn't win this kind of struggle simply by pointing fingers at people or casting people into hell. There is much serious work to be done here on earth.
Ok, Christopher, sorry. I see that in reality neither you nor New Cath was the one to pounce on me as supposedly concealing priesthood, but a certain sissa, and the one who first called me "Father" was G-Z, based on a post of Phil.
"I'm absolutely certain he would welcome a healthy exchange of views." Jerry
Jerry, you are 100% right. The trouble is I have been shot down as a heretic from day 1. What you write about homosexuality is excellent.
I have a confession to make.
While I have labored over theology, I have spent more of my life on literature, and I have learned more from literature than from theology.
Now one of the things you learn from literature is the IMMENSE VARIETY OF HUMAN SEXUALITY.
Not only subversive writers like Marlowe, Wilde, Lawrence, Nabokov, but central establishment classics like Shakespeare, Balzac, Goethe -- especially Goethe -- are eye-opening revealers of the depths that Eros plumbs. And all of them write with empathy of the sexual world even in its most perverse forms. Meanwhile Catholic novelists like Mauriac lament that "the Church does not do justice to the flesh" (Mauriac was lauded highly by Paul VI).
I think that this exposure and sympathy makes me quite an understanding confessor, even if it may also make me rather lax -- something I worry about.
In future if anyone wants to argue with me, I shall answer in Latin unless their arguments are expressed in a civil form!
Fr. O'Leary,
You said, "I think that this is the blackest mark on JP2's record, more than sufficient to put the indecently hasty canonization plan in question."
Well, there were many people in his funeral who said that he should be canonized right away. Churches were filled with people saying prayers for him. And when I talk to people, even though they may have disagreements with him, they still believe he was a saint. So it seems like the sensus fidelium is saying, JPII was a saint.
JPII may well be a saint. My personal opinion is that he is as good as it gets.
But, to do honor to JPII, the process should proceed without a sense of urgency. My instincts tell me he personally would feel a little awkward at all the haste.
So, let his canonization happen in due course, and let those whom he touched savor every moment.
I watched this happen among Opus Dei friends who prayed for and experienced the canonization of St. Josemaria Escriva. The entire lengthy process was for them a joy to relish and behold.
There is no urgency.
Fr. O'Leary says:
"One of the things you learn from literature is the IMMENSE VARIETY OF HUMAN SEXUALITY."
This is so true. Literature contributes in so many ways to our effort to understand ourselves, and our relations to others and God.
I'm firmly persuaded there is a need to develop a full blown ontology of beauty -- an ontology where truth is radiated in the concrete (beauty). Art, music, and literature would be central to that effort.
An ontology of being and an ontology of beauty are not at cross purposes. They are support each other. They are complimentary. One views the concrete from the inside out (logic) and the other views the same concrete from the outside in (beauty). JPII speaks to the spendor of truth. The word "Splendor" is akin to beauty. [It's analogous to the relationship of God the Father and God the Son.] Such a synthesis can go a long way toward bringing truth into the open light. For too long truth has been hidden under a dark and heavy stone.
For example, looking at creation, or the Fall, or sin, or penance, or temptation in the concrete is much more revealing than abstract logical disputations. To be sure, logic is critical for an ontology of beauty. It provides the architecture. For this reason, St. Thomas will always be relevant. He will continue to stand as the beacon on the summit of the mountain. But now we must explore the other transcendentals (beauty) and merge our work with what has gone before.
The Sermons at the end of The Brothers Karamozov, or the Diary of a Country Priest, or the great dramas of Calderon, or Paul Claudel, or Brecht, or the music of Mozart and Beethoven. These works help contribute to our understanding, just as have the works of the great painters that adorn the Vatican.
Even if we were to think about Christianity in terms of drama rather than simple narrative we would unleash tremendous opportunities for revealing truth and teaching truth in the concrete.
There is much to do. It is all exciting. The future is rich with possibilities.
Jerry:
I'm sorry that my attempts to respond to you have met with such righteous anger. It is as if you dismiss the message and therefore besmirch the person of the messenger. If it is the other way around, i.e., that you loathe me and what I say so much that you will reject the message if spoken by anyone, I will therefore withdraw from this comment stream, immediately.
Just a final comment before I go.
Indeed I am a sinner. I hope in the mercy of God. Absent that mercy, there is no hope for me to go to Heaven. Indeed I am barely out of diapers in matters of faith and doctrine -- but you err when you think that more reading will drive me in to the arms of Matthew Fox and Father O'Leary. -minded-sounding theology is quickly becoming easier for me.
God calls us, not to be innovative, but to be faithful.
"God calls us, not to be innovative, but to be faithful."
And that's what needs exploring -- what does it mean to be really faithful?
No, I don't loathe you. Quite the contrary. I know you'll do fine with or without me around. Remember, the primacy of conscience! Even if you're wrong, but in conscience judge you're right -- you'll do OK. I agree with St. Thomas and Maritain. Your just fine.
To be honest, Christ, I bet you and I agree on more than you realize. And I bet that you and Fr. O'Leary agree more than you realize.
And who knows what this exchange we've had over the past few days will reap. It might well represent the workings of the Holy Spirit -- for us all. Who knows.
If my comments were a little harsh, it was only to make a point. They weren't meant to wound you.
Certainly I have much to learn from the attitude Jerry commends. On the topic of aesthetics I am less Balthasarian than he is, because I am more exposed to literary modernism than Von Balthasar ever wanted to be. Think of Rilke, a man with an immense treasury of European aesthetic feelings and experiences in his mind, along with a treasury of religious vision as well -- he was especially touched by the world of Russian Orthodoxy. What Rilke realized was that his rich traditional sensibility was mismatched with the world of industrial urban modernity. He rethought and reshaped his heritage in the context of modern civilization, and in this way TRANSMITTED it to the people of his time. In theology, people like Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann, Paul Tillich attempted and partly achieved something similar. The old values of beauty, goodness, truth -- the link with Being, as act, not abstract essence -- cannot die; but their expression must be revolutionized if they are to find persuasive articulation in modern times.
Fr. O'Leary, as you know from your domination of the comment boxes on my posts on this blog, I tolerate a lot of opposition, even abuse, from you. You cannot fault me on intolerance of yourself. However, If I catch you ever again referring to the Venerable John Henry Newman or Gerard Manley Hopkins or Pope Paul VI as "gay," I will ban you from this site. These godly men would be appalled at a NYC "Gay Pride Day Parade." They would be horrified if they found themselves classed with those promoting "gay" and "lesbian" lifestyles today or sanctioning "same-sex marriage." Only an extremely warped mind would even consider claiming them for the "gay lobby." They had personally very dear friends who were men, but they were not "gay." So please cease & desist.
"Phil Blosser now says I do not believe in natural law, though I have invoked it regularly ..."
No, Father, I was speaking of "unchanging human nature and natural law (neither of which [you] seem to believe in)," which is not the same thing.
"The case for acceptance of gays is based soundly on natural law."
Oh, really? Natural law says we should treat things according to their nature. So we put gasoline into our automobiles and pour water on our tomato plants. We don’t pour gasoline on our tomatoes or put water into our gas tanks. Natural law assumes things have natures and obliges us to treat them in accordance with their natures.
How does this apply to sex? Well, what’s a penis for, besides urinating? For procreating. And what’s a vagina for? Again, for procreating. That’s what they’re designed for. That’s their principal purpose, besides urinating. And, what do you know, a by-product of copulating, is pleasure. God wanted us to be fruitful and multiply, and facilitated the activity by making it pleasant. Just as in eating. The purpose of eating is to live, but a by-product that God provided is the pleasure that accompanies eating. Copulation has two inherent purposes: (1) babies, and (2) bonding, much as eating has the purposes of (1) sustaining life and (2) social bonding.
Now, of course it’s quite possible to use things in ways that are not in accordance with their natures. Some of these are benign -- like cleaning the wax out of one’s ears with a pen. Others are horrific -- like using the cremated bodies of Jews to create lamp shades, as the Nazis did. No matter how “useful” this may have seemed, it is a hideous violation of the respect due to our fellow human beings by virtue of the inherent dignity of their nature.
How about homosexuality? I have no doubt that same sex copulation can lead to bonding as emotinally enmeshing as in any heterosexual marriage. That was never in question. What is in question is whether homosexual bonding is good for people, whether it accords with our human nature as men and women. The question is whether a penis is used in accordance with its proper nature when it is inserted into a man’s anus or mouth. It certainly does not conform with the procreative design of the penis, whatever bonding may ensue. One wonders, then, how "the case for acceptance of gays is based soundly on natural law," as Fr. O. says.
Yes, homosexual bonding is good for people -- at least for several gay couples I know. Talking to one such couple last night -- together for more than 20 years -- I thought of the unreality of the ideas expressed here. Even the Church in its pastoral ministry generally realizes the value of such relationships, even if only on the rather stingy basis of the lesser of two evils. And remember the core teaching of Jesus -- that Love is the essential, that Love covers a multitude of sins, that Love is the fulfilling of the law, and that her sins, her many sins, are forgiven her because she has loved much etc. The couple I speak of are more rich in love than most people -- and that is surely a Good Thing.
The main thrust of Thomistic ethics does not allow one person to use natural law to judge another person in such detached fashion. It provides a beginning of analysis, but nothing more. it treats of the form, not the person. It fails to recognize the important contribution of the act of being.
There is much more to St. Thomas' ethics than natural law -- which is really little more than Aristotelian physics. The four causes are important. Yes. But a Catholic philosopher must also address questions about the nature of the concrete person (rooted in the act of being) conscience, and charity -- the list is quite long and involved. While natural law provides important principles of understanding, as Dr. Blosser says, the nature of the person, conscience, and charity are way's in which natural law must of necessity be transcended.
As such, the natural law constitutes only an elementary basis for understanding ethical questions. While not unimportant, it certainly should not provide the capstone of any ethical argument.
To reduce ethical questions to biological/social/natural functions and purposes (even the four causes) seems to diminish the seriousness ethical questions have for everyone.
I agree that biologism is an ethical error, but I do not think any serious natural law thinker would countenance this error. Contemporary understanding of natural law has integrated the reality of conscience and the sacredness of the person. However, I advance rather timidly here as I have only a rudimentary understanding of the natural law tradition or traditions.
Yes, that is correct. Current natural law analysis has advanced far beyond its Greek origins.
But, when I hear natural law arguments used in the public forum -- particularly on sexual matters (the US obsession) -- they generally do not have a high level of sophistication. As a result, arguments are presented as cold and indifferent. This makes serious work more difficult -- especially if one is in the business of winning hearts and minds.
"To reduce ethical questions to biological/social/natural functions and purposes (even the four causes) seems to diminish the seriousness ethical questions have for everyone."
Response:
You speak of how "natural law" must be transcended and that "proper function" (to borrow a phrase of Plantinga) is not sufficient for ethical issues. What transcends the natural law but the divine and eternal law? If we want to know the divine and eternal law, we must know God's will which is written in Scripture and transmitted through the Tradition of the Church with the Magisterium's interpretation. God is love and we ought to love God. To love God means to obey His commandments and that which is contrary to His nature and divine plan is to turn one's self away from God. Homosexuality has always been considered a sin and a sin is that which turns away from God. Ergo...
Even if we take it to the "personalistic norm" homosexuality is still not acceptable (see JPII and von Hildebrand's work on this issue). I agree that the natural law must be transcended, but again, the divine and eternal law is what transcends it.
The question is whether Scripture reveals an ethical code that is other than natural law? Ethical monotheism is more a thrust toward the ethical than a detailed set of ethical directives. There are indeed many such directives in Scripture, but very often they need to be corrected in light of natural law. The herem, for example, would not generally be regarded as contrary to natural law, but that is not the way the ancient Israelites saw it. Your application of the argument to homosexuality is circular and begs the question on every front. Read again the essays by Scroggs and Wink on the limitations of biblical teaching on sexuality in general. The Bible offers some basic values, rooted in its core vision -- e.g. the goodness of creation and thus of sexuality; the imperative of mutual respect, justice, love, which sanctify sexual relations; the refusal of idolatry and selfishness -- but to argue from their to a concrete ethic of homosexuality is a long, long trek and natural law thinking would be part of the argument.
"And remember the core teaching of Jesus -- that Love is the essential ..."
So Jesus meant by what you here call "love" the "bonding" that results from sexual copulation between gays? What posh!
(1) "Ok, Christopher, I'll give your dad a break, though why he should be so upset at my posts I don't know."
"Upset" at your posts? Here you go again, assuming the prerogatives of God, assuming you know what's going on in other's hearts and imputing emotions to them (as you regularly impute motives to them) you have no way of knowing.
(2) "I suppose he is disappointed at his disciples' total incapacity to answer even a single one of the points I have made."
Not only is this utterly patronizing toward other readers of this blog, it is so far beyond arrogant as to be simply luny. Not one of Fr. O'Leary's points has been answered??? Why, from the drift of discussion in these comment boxes, I would surmise that even if God in lucidly intelligible speech were to answer Father through the medium of Balaam's Ass, he would hear no more than a bit of incoherent braying. The shoe is on the other foot, Father. You have poured fourth avalanches of logorrhea, but you have rarely if ever answered directly an intelligent question, let alone a knock-down rebuttal, by anyone else on this blog. Your miopic and narcissistic self-obsession is astounding.
Fr. O'Leary's "reply" to my remarks about natural law illustrate my point. Smoke and mirrors. Baffling with bullfeathers. I rest my case. Q.E.D.
The only point worth considering in the responses to the "natural law" remarks is Jerry's: to effectively change hearts and minds, not only truth is needed, but compassion and charity. We pray for that.
"Yes, homosexual bonding is good for people -- at least for several gay couples I know."
How can it be good in any way for a man to place his genital organ into the orifice from whence feces are expelled from another man and then masturbate inside that man's rectum, or to invite a man to place his genital organ into the orifice from when he expels his own feces and allow that man to masturbate inside his rectum? How can it be good in any way for a woman to dishonestly impersonate the sexual role of a man and to masturbate another woman, or to allow a woman to impersonate a man and masturbate her? You seem to have a very different understanding of the meaning of the word "good" than the Church has.
Anal intercourse seems to have the bonding function for some gay couples, giving them the sense of being "one flesh", as vaginal intercourse has for many straight couples. I guess "love has pitched his tent, in the place of excrement" as Yeats has it. The question is a phenomenological one, and I suggest we listen to the testimony of gays in life and in literature.
And yet the fact remains that "from the beginning it was not so." Rather, male and female created He them. It is impossible for two men or two women to become "one flesh." It is only possible for them to masturbate each other in extremely perverse ways.
I suggest we -- especially Catholic priests -- listen to the testimony of Jesus and His Holy Catholic Church.
This discussion has reached the lowest degree. But that is exactly what "'gay' love" and "'gay' bonding" are: debasing and inherently perverse.
Spirit of Trent, you tell my gay friends to their face that their love of 20 years standing is debasing and inherently perverse.
Jordan Potter, do not forget that until very recently Catholics spoke of marital sex as intrinically sordid and degrading, and as tolerable only for propagation and as a remedy for concupiscence. The unitive significance of sexual intercourse was discovered as quite a revolution in Catholic thinking in the 1940s or so. I have wonderful quotes from St Robert Bellarmine, the most influential post-Tridentine theologian, on the impossibility of avoiding filth in the marriage bed and the need, therefore, for a celibate clerical caste. I suggest that gay couples share analogically in the blessings of marriage, and I am prepared to listen respectfully to their witness of the role of sexual activities in bonding them in closest intimacy. A priori biologistic argumentation, laced with homophobic nastiness, is not what will help the church today -- rather we need to apologize for centuries of persecution and treat gays as Christ would have -- with respect and love.
Joseph O'Leary, do not forget that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to suggest that homosexuals are capable of sharing in the blessings of marriage.
I'm well aware of the long tradition of Catholics viewing sex as irreparably dirty or tainted. It's probably true that, because of concupiscence, sin will frequently "infect" marital sex. However, I'm also aware that the Church has always known and believed the Holy Spirit's words, "The man and woman shall become one flesh." The unitive significance of sexual intercourse wasn't some revolutionary discovery of the 20th century -- unless you believe that before then nobody in the Church had ever read or understood Genesis, Matthew, I Corinthians, etc.
Nonetheless, views on the sacredness of sexual union as unitive were a great revelation to Catholics in mid 20th century. The celebration of sex as unitive seems not to have been part of Catholic moral and pastoral theology at that time. But look it up for yourself. There has certainly been a huge development in Catholic thinking on marriage, and I believe the more positive appreciation of gay relationships is in line with this.
http://www.americamagazine.org/g...796&
issueID=336
This article is typical of many that see a breakthrough in Catholic appreciation of the unitive significance of marital sex in mid 20th century.
I, on the other hand, can see that a more positive understanding of marriage can only result in a clearer understanding on just what sorrowful things homosexuality and homosexual activity are.
So homosexuality is intrinsically sorrowful? Well, Jordan Potter, what would you say to a gay son if he asked your advice? Resign yourself to a sorrowful existence?
I would encourage him to seek the merciful, loving arms of Jesus, who alone can heal the soul of all its maladies.
"The unitive significance of sexual intercourse was discovered as quite a revolution in Catholic thinking in the 1940s or so."
I'm not sure this is quite right. Phenomenologically, to use a term you like, I think the rank-and-file have always been well aware of the unitive significance of sex. Joe Six Pack didn't have to wait for some encyclical to tell him that. Further, you can find at least oblique attestation to it amply in the medievals, such as Aquinas. There all sorts of silliness associated with thinking that we invented the wheel yesterday.
"Well, ... what would you say to a gay son if he asked your advice? Resign yourself to a sorrowful existence?"
Jordan's reply is amply sufficient for the overt question here. But there's something else at issue: Fr. O'Leary's apparent assumption that the homosexual disposition is not habituated or environmentally conditioned, but nearly always naturally inherent or genetic. First, that assumption is so far from being a matter of established consensus as to be nearly dismissable. Second, even if it were true, there is ample data showing that the active habituation of behavior based on that disposition can be prevented (Steve Wood's Family Life outfit down in Florida has literature to help parents prevent children from growing up with SID--Sexual Identity Disorder) and ample data showing that it's possible, though not always easy, for practicing homosexuals to "unlearn" their disordered behavior (check out the Catholic support group, Courage).
Homosexuality: Learned disorder or genetic disorder. Is that a complete parsing of the landscape?
So Fr. O'Leary asks Catholics to respectfully listen to the testimony of gays who pitch the tent of their love "in the place of excrement" (as he said, quoting Yeats) and find a sense of being "one flesh" through anal intercourse. Lovely. And those who might demur at so ebullient an embrace of anal love he accuses of "a priori biologistic argumentation, laced with homophobic nastiness." He likes that word "homophobic." I count 4 times he's used it in this box alone. The other word he likes is "biologistic." Whenever you see "biologistic," just as whenever you hear "biblicistic," you should be suspicious. Usually something is being pulled over on you. Just as those critical of "biblicism" are usually trying to avoid some uncomfortable implication of some message clearly found in the Bible, so those critical of "biologism" are usually trying avoid some uncomfortable implication of some message clearly found in our biology. It's really not all that difficult. Penises obviously aren't meant for anuses (Click here, if in doubt). Now what was that "nuanced" and sophisticated "hermeneutic" that was supposed to make sticking penises in anuses so blessedly sacramental and sublime?
"Homosexuality: Learned disorder or genetic disorder. Is that a complete parsing of the landscape?"
Like any human disposition, I would hesitate to say strictly either/or. Most likely it's a combination of each, as in most other cases. Wouldn't you agree?
" ... some message clearly found in our biology."
Like Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body," for starters, which, from my brief survey of it, has implications that have only begun to be tapped.
Dr. Blosser,
I'm not fully persuaded that homosexuality can be reduced to material causation -- which I believe is another way of putting the learned or genetic disjunction. I believe the question cannot be resolved by social or biological science. Neither methodology discusses cause and effect. They only describe correlations, i.e., observed associations.
I think there must be other reasons. Perhaps, for purposes of discussion, there is an existential dimension to homosexuality (not ala modern existentialists, but St. Thomas).
Notice, I'm not arguing morality here. I'm strictly focusing on causation.
JPII's Theology of the Body is fascinating and needs study. It offers a penetrating explanation why homosexual behavior if pursued to its logical extreme -- i.e., if it shapes the entire life of the person -- remains incomplete.
I find The Acting Person worthy of a great deal of reflection -- although it makes one cry out for Advil and Jack Daniels.
There is a mystery at the core of the human person (act) that lies hidden under a rock. St. Thomas' act of being (insofar as it is the 'act' of the person) needs flushing in this regard. How does the act of being (not form) stand to Original Sin -- is there a dimension to Original Sin that is unique to the person? How does the act of being stand to unique existential qualities? What would those qualities mean relative to homosexuality? Is homosexuality merely a social/moral or genetic disposition? Or could it possibly be an existential disposition -- part of a person's original equipment rooted in the person itself? If so, the morality would not change but the entire context would change. Can homosexuality be explored along these admittedly very vague, possiblly flawed lines?
Even if this path is flawed (if it can be called a path), it would be helpful to know precisely why and where it is flawed.
Once again, I'm not discussing the morality, but the causation.
Are we born with unique crosses to bear? If 'mission' is central to the architecture of the person, why not 'a cross', i.e., an intrinsic quality that is a contant burden in one's journey with others to God. If talents are unique to the person, why not crosses? Is homosexuality such a cross -- a cross unique to a person? If so, the person would not be able to eliminate this cross? But they would reconcile it within the totality of their life.
The question then would be: how do we stand before this cross? How do we reconcile in the fullness of our relations with others and God?
Anyway, have at it! I'm heading for the medicine cabinet.
Jerry,
Your questions are great for discussion. Sin is personal because it is an action of the human person. It is something which the person made or caused and therefore it belongs to him in a certain way. In a sense, sin is a "property" of the human person.
Because God is infinitely loving, He sent His only beloved Son to the world so that in a way, He can take sin in Him (although He did not commit any sin) and win against it. He did not come to the world with a cross, but He came to the world with a cross ready for Him because of our sins against God. Because of His sufferings and resurrection, He was victorious and He also put value in the cross. The cross, which is in a sense, "sin incarnated," has a new meaning, a new value because if His suffering *love*. We too much imitate Christ and the only way to do so is not simply carry it, but let Christ work within us so that we too can overcome it. Everyone has a different type of cross. Whether it be sufferings of our loved ones, scrupulosity, or homosexual tendencies, one must overcome it. If sin or conscupiscence or sufferings is a cross, we must carry it not let it put us down to the ground (and even down to hell). We must carry it only by loving the Father in Christ with the Holy Spirit. That is why a homosexual cannot simply have a conjugal relationship with another homosexual. Homosexuality is an intrinsic disorder and it may be a cross to him, but only obeying the commandments of Christ, only by overcoming it can he see God the way God sees Himself.
Apolonia, good to hear from you.
Let me raise some questions with regard to your first paragraph. I'll have to come back to your other comments later.
In your first paragraph, you appear to make sin to be a personal choice. Good. But let's move back a bit from sin as choice and raise questions about original sin.
I'm sure you'd agree. We come into this world burdened by sin. Okay. But what does this mean? Luther thought the intellect was more affected by sin than St. Thomas. Hence, philosophy goes out the window. That's part of what it meant for him.
Each of us have been taught things like that -- maybe not so philosophically. I remember the nuns using black and white milk bottles to explain sin.
But anyway, the point is that sin has an impact on the human being -- on the intellect, the will, the affective life, the sense life, , on personal decisions, etc. And we are also taught that Christ died to bring grace into our lives so we could be set free from sin and that the sacraments are the instruments that give grace.
All this is very loose langage. I apologize. But here's comes the main question:
What does that original sin mean in the concrete? What does this mean for the unique person that I am? How is this original sin present in Apolonia, or in Jerry? Can it, or does it mean anything specific to me, to you, to my person, to your person? Or is it that every man is affected by original sin in precisely the same way? Do we all have the same dark smudge written over our face? Or does original sin impact us in the order of essence AND at the level of the unique person?
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
I am suspicious of attempts to draw empirical conclusions from Original Sin. The Catechism teaches that death is one empirical result of original sin. But death existed in every living species for millions of years before humans appeared on the scene, so how can it be ascribed to original sin? Homosexuality also pervades the animal kingdom, so how can it be seen as a disorder due to original sin?
"the homosexual disposition is not habituated or environmentally conditioned, but nearly always naturally inherent or genetic." I think for most gays it is felt to be just as inherent as heterosexuality is felt to be for most straights. That is just a phenomenological observation. I am not pronouncing on recondite scientific issues here.
"First, that assumption is so far from being a matter of established consensus as to be nearly dismissable." That is news to me!
" Second, even if it were true, there is ample data showing that the active habituation of behavior based on that disposition can be prevented (Steve Wood's Family Life outfit down in Florida has literature to help parents prevent children from growing up with SID--Sexual Identity Disorder) and ample data showing that it's possible, though not always easy, for practicing homosexuals to "unlearn" their disordered behavior (check out the Catholic support group, Courage)." What this means is that gays can learn to control their sexuality and lead chaste lives -- which I would never dream of doubting! What it does NOT mean is that sexual orientation can normally be changed, by will power, aversion therapy or whatever. Fr Harvey's group, Courage, is not the zany NARTH and does not believe in sex-orientation change. Masters and Johnson have scientific reports on the disastrous failures of sex-orientation change "therapy".
Further thoughts -- the gay issue must be seen in historical perspective. For centuries sodomites were burned at the stake or executed in other ways -- many innocents were martyred in this way, sometimes loving couples. Now at last gays are speaking up in their own voice, like Jews and blacks before them, and they are establishing a totally unexpected perspective. They have recently formulated the desire to have the equivalent of marriage, in contrast to the centuries of brainwashing by parents and pastors to the effect that their sexuality necessarily condemned them to solitude or to clandesting promiscuity. To refuse to hear this voice would be to take the side of the cold-hearted hypocritical executioners of the past, even of the Nazis who made gays their targets of choice alongside Jews. Clinging to the letter of its laws the Church has wrongfooted itself many times recently, failing to give a convincing demonstration of respect, understanding and love toward those who find its language offensive (and in such cases it is not the offender but the offended who will make the final judgment). There cannot be respect, understanding and love where there is a refusal of listening and discussion.
"The Catechism teaches that death is one empirical result of original sin. But death existed in every living species for millions of years before humans appeared on the scene, so how can it be ascribed to original sin?"
Uh-oh! Are you denying that the mortality of man is a consequence of the Fall?
"Homosexuality also pervades the animal kingdom, so how can it be seen as a disorder due to original sin?"
J. Akin has an interesting observation about this. He writes:
"It's true that some animals do display homosexual behavior, but that doesn't mean that it is morally justified for humans to engage in it. Black widow spiders try to kill and eat their mates after copulating, but I assume that you're not in favor of that among humans.
"Further, in many species copulation amounts to rape. A male will capture and force himself on a female. Or sometimes a group of males will do it. I also assume that you're not in favor of that among human beings.
"The fact is that humans, of all the creatures on earth, are rational beings aware of the moral dimension of their actions. For this reason alone (and there are other reasons), you cannot point to the existence of something in the animal kingdom and say that it is therefore justified among humans as well."
Jerry, I appreciate the sensitivity, tone, and insight in what you've written. I don't know that I have anything that helpful, but let me respond with a few observations.
"There is a mystery at the core of the human person (act) that lies hidden under a rock."
I think the personalist phenomenology of the kind found in Edith Stein, Dietrich von Hildebrand, John Paul II, and their disciples has gone some way toward beginning to address this mystery. For example, I think John Crosby's Selfhood of the Human Person does a remarkable job of supplementing the traditional objectivistic metaphysical language of Aquinas with a more intuitive phenomenological exploration of that mystery he refers to as the "unrepeatable and unique interiority of the human selfhood." It's a start anyway.
"St. Thomas' act of being (insofar as it is the 'act' of the person) needs flushing in this regard. How does the act of being (not form) stand to Original Sin -- is there a dimension to Original Sin that is unique to the person? How does the act of being stand to unique existential qualities? What would those qualities mean relative to homosexuality? ... could it possibly be an existential disposition -- part of a person's original equipment rooted in the person itself?"
This calls for far more careful reflection and comment than I'm afraid I'm able to offer here. These are really very good questions.
First of all, how does the act of being (my unique act of existing), as opposed to form (my specification as a human being) stand to Original Sin. Wow. Without chasing that rabbit all the way down into his hole, I would simply say that I think I would be inclined to assent to what I think you're suggesting here -- namely this: that Original Sin isn't simply a matter of a sort of generic fallenness that afflicts all Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve (our species), but that it takes a unique shape in the existence of each of us.
Speaking rather loosely, I view the Fall as having kicked up a certain amoung of sludge in each of us (as to our individual being). In some cases, the effects of original sin are physical deformities, in other cases one could speak of psychological disorders -- even neuroses.
Again, like you, I'm not speaking as to morality here, but simply as to causation or being. According to the biblical story, disease and suffering are results of Original Sin; so I don't see any problem in drawing this sort of inference.
What does that mean for the homosexual? Probably no more or less than it means for anybody. People with congenital physical disabilities have to learn how to live and cope with these. People with bi-polar psychological disorders have to learn to deal with these -- either through medication or other coping means....
Those with various addictive disorders have to learn to cope with these too -- like my best friend, who is an alcoholic and can't seem to stay on the wagon, but sincerely wishes he could be a better Catholic.
Here's where I like your language about these ontological characteristics being like "crosses" that we must bear. I have mine, you have yours. But when all is said and done concerning causation and the act of being, we have to also talk honestly and compassionately about the obedience we owe to Christ and His commandments, which are to be found in the precincts of Mother Church. Our individual "crosses" are never excuses for spiritual or moral capitulation. Here's where we should worry if our confessors never challenge us with Christ's demand of a righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees. We are called to purity, to chastity, whether or not we are called to the married or celibate life. Christ's compassion is ever before us in the ministers of His Church who, as the spiritual garbage collectors of the world, are ready to hear our confessions and absolve us no matter how many times we return as repeat offenders. But what kind of compassion would it be for a priest in the confessional to tell us, "It doesn't matter, my son, if you've been lying in the gutter with Oscar Wilde or your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, for we are charitable here and nobody will judge you or draw away from you. Enter into the joy of AmChurch"?
I've been meaning to respond to Jerry's comments from the other day, but they got buried under all the new comments, and I forgot which comment box they were in. Anyway . . .
"First, let me say that I believe Fr. O'Leary deserves respect as a priest."
Certainly he does. I don't think that rules out challenging him when he violates his oath to hold and teach the Catholic faith in its integrity, but his priesthood must be respected.
"But when that criticism is presented, it should be about ideas, not about persons."
Agreed.
"It is at this point that there has been a major failing on this site. Major."
That's true -- both sides of the debate have resorted to un-Christian personal attacks. You've been especially good at it, and even Fr. O'Leary has engaged in it, though you two are probably not as bad offenders as others here. I've probably taken part in that too.
"Take, for instance, your statement above that homosexuality is objectively disordered behavior. . . ."
To save space I've snipped out several paragraphs of your comments and observations. I don't disagree with anything you say -- but I question how relevant they are to the specific question of whether or not homosexuality is, as the Church says, objectively disordered. I'm not sure they do much to advance our understanding of the Church's teaching on this specific subject, though they raise a lot of other subjects that are worth exploring.
"Going further, to say that homosexuality is an objective disorder says little."
It says what it says. Though it is a simple declarative sentence, it speaks to the whole doctrine of human sexuality and matrimony that the Church received from Jesus and the Apostles.
"And it does little for the homosexual, for the observer, for society, or for the Church."
Then why does the Church say it?
"Greed, like homosexuality, is an objective disorder. So is anger. So is envy. And on and on."
They are all objectively disordered (although anger is sometimes not objectively disordered), but they are not all the same kind of disorder.
"But look at our American lifestyle. There are MacMansions that dot the landscape of America. Is that Greed? Is that an objective disorder?"
Probably.
"You bet it is. But what do we do about it? Do we abolish MacMansions? Do we send their owners to hell because they are committing a mortal sin?"
Their owners may not be committing a mortal sin. Homosexual activity, however, is always objectively a mortal sin, though subjectively it is not always. This example is really not in the same category as homosexual activity, because building nice homes is not always objectively a mortals in, though subjectively it often can be.
"You might even own one of these MacMansions yourself!"
Nope. I live in a $65,000 two-bedroom house with one bath, an unfinished basement, and a detached garage that really needs some maintenance. It was built about 1920.
Continued --
It's humble, but is in pretty good shape, and we like it.
"The reason why we demonize homosexuals has more to do with the dynamics of our national psyche than it has to do with the fact that homosexuality is an objective disorder."
In the United States, the culture no longer demonizes homosexuals - quite the opposite, homosexuality is forced upon us as almost the most wonderful thing mankind has ever discovered. Okay, that's a slight hyperbole, but you probably know what I mean.
The reason Christians believe homosexuality is objectively disordered is because of the witness of the natural law, Holy Scripture, Church teaching, and 2,000 years of unvarying Christian tradition.
"If objective disorders were that significant to us, we'd reevaluate the entire range of the American lifestyle."
That's for sure. American culture is sick from head to toe -- it's a terminal disease, but Jesus is the Physician, and He works miracles, so I don't despair, though realistically there is good cause to expect things to get worse before they get better.
"What does that original sin mean in the concrete? What does this mean for the unique person that I am? How is this original sin present in Apolonia, or in Jerry? Can it, or does it mean anything specific to me, to you, to my person, to your person?"
Yes it is something specific for each. I would just say that it affects us because it takes away the communion we have with God. Also, we *suffer* in many ways. Original sin brought about suffering. It's not the animal type of suffering, but it includes the suffering of our interior lives. Say a mother died. We don't just cry like some animals may do. We carry the thought, the picture of her dead face. It makes us suffer interiorly. And one's suffering is different from another. My friend's mother may have died and I might suffer, but my friend is suffering for me. I cannot know how he is really suffering. Only God can. It's because the human person is a self, an "I" and therefore it is unique.
Again, at the same time, we must carry our crosses. We must not let it put us down, even down to hell. We must put our obedience to Christ and His commandments.
pb, you answer an argument I never made. My question was, if homosexuality and death are products of original sin, how can they have pre-existed the human species throughout the natural kingdom?
"In some cases, the effects of original sin are physical deformities, in other cases one could speak of psychological disorders -- even neuroses." To derive individual traits from original sin is a very risky enterprise; Augustine derives generic traits of the entire race, notably those traits that place us in radical dependence on grace. Some Christians used the derivation of particular individual traits as justification for slavery -- slaves were in that condition because of original sin, whereas their masters were not (their freedom being a sign of election perhaps). Today the same mentality sees gays as bearing a particular mark of original sin which heterosexuals do not.
"According to the biblical story, disease and suffering are results of Original Sin; so I don't see any problem in drawing this sort of inference." In reality, however, all known living creatures of all periods have been mortal, long before humanity, and therefore exposed to disease and pain, so to talk of "causality" here is to wander in a highly obscure realm.
Pb is sure that gays are called to celibacy. But gays have been silenced by a homophobic and mystificatory culture for two millennia. Sexual activity between two males has been a capital crime in Christian States, including the New England Puritian communities to which Phil Blosser wants to bring us back with his enthusiasm for Sodomy laws. Now that gays have spoken up and have demonstrated other possibilities of living their sexuality (sometimes integrating the Christian ethos of marital agape into their sexual relationships), the ancient bastions are being rattled. Arguments from authority, whether Sodom 'n Gomorrah biblical fundamentalism or "no change" magisterial fundamentalism do not hold water. The Church will have to dialogue with gays sooner or later -- they are not going to go away, and they are being born into Catholic families just as much into any other, so you cannot have an inquisition to weed them out. Of course when such dialogues have taken place, as in the Episcopalian Church or the United Church of Christ, it has led to dramatic developments, up to the recognition of gay marriage. Note that gay marriage is advocated by the ethically most serious gays, and is not to be equated with libidinous libertinism as in Dr Blosser's posting about Nero, Petronius and Juvenal.
"My question was, if homosexuality and death are products of original sin, how can they have pre-existed the human species throughout the natural kingdom?"
Is there any evidence that human death and human homosexuality pre-existed the human species?
The Church teaches that our disordered nature and death are the result of original sin. Do you doubt that?
Fr. O'Leary keeps talking about burning homosexuals at the stake. Has anybody here advocated such a thing, or is it just another case of Fr. O'Leary distorting the views of his opponents?
Is there any evidence that human death and human homosexuality pre-existed the human species?
Death, certainly. Otherwise the dinossaurs would still be roaming our planet!
Fr. O'Leary keeps talking about burning homosexuals at the stake. Has anybody here advocated such a thing, or is it just another case of Fr. O'Leary distorting the views of his opponents?
Answer: Polycarp claims that Catholic States have the right to execute heretics. Historically this has always gone hand in hand with the execution of sodomites, even in Goa and Manila... Phil Blosser, at leas in his emails to me, defends the Inquisition, one of whose principal activities was burning sodomites at the stake; he also posts a piece mourning the partial demise of American sodomy laws.
"The Church teaches that our disordered nature and death are the result of original sin. Do you doubt that?"
I ask only that the notion of original sin be more clearly defined. Death pre-existed the human species by milliosn of years. It does not seem to make sense to ascribe it to original sin as LITERALIST readings of Genesis and Romans understand original sin.
So you're saying that human death preceded the existence of human beings?
"Polycarp claims that Catholic States have the right to execute heretics. Historically this has always gone hand in hand with the execution of sodomites, even in Goa and Manila... Phil Blosser, at leas in his emails to me, defends the Inquisition, one of whose principal activities was burning sodomites at the stake; he also posts a piece mourning the partial demise of American sodomy laws."
Well, that's a terribly wordy way of saying, "No, nobody here has advocated the burning of homosexuals."
Here is an extract from the Catechism of Vatican II's exposition on original sin. Note that last sentence in paragraph 400.
III. ORIGINAL SIN
Freedom put to the test
396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.
Man's first sin
397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.
398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God".279
399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281
400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul's spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay".284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will "return to the ground",285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286
I am well aware of the Catechism on this; it has been widely criticized as fundamentalist by Catholic theologians, and Cardinal Schoenborn has been blamed for it.
In any case, it does not answer my query very convincingly. Death was common to all animal species, including the immediate ancestors of man. It is absurd to imagine that man emerged in this evolutionary context as a being totally different from surrounding nature. How can there have been a paradise of light and sweetness amid those primeval birth-throes of the species? And how can man have had a body immune to death when all other bodies were not? Qohelet darkly assures us that men die like beasts, that there is no difference. Mortality is of the essence of man. The immortal soul of the Phaedo was gladly welcomed into Christian thought, but it is not biblical. Demythologization is evidently necessary here. You may say that unlike all the other animals the first humans would have been glorified at the end of their lives instead of dying. But how does such a picture fit into cosmic evolution as we know it? Recall what Paul Ricoeur says about le croyable disponible, and do not bring the faith into discredit by making it a fairy story.
Creation became "alien and hostile to man" -- so this supposes that all the wild beasts in existence when the first humans emerged were friendly to man? I suggest that William Golding's novel The Inheritors gives a more convincing picture. Man must have killed off rivals, imposing himself by violence. Mild, harmonious, edenic humans would not have stood a chance in the struggle for existence. It is this violence at the birth of man, the Aggression described by Konrad Lorenz, that acts most convincingly as our original sin; Hegel is good on this.
You assume that we actually "know" about the evolution of life -- in fact, what we have is a collosal interlocking web of data and inferences based on those data. If a few of those key inferences turn out to be wrong, the whole structure will collapse under its own weight.
You don't intend to, but you make a very good case for the incompatibility of modern evolutionary speculations with the testimony of Holy Scripture and the teachings of Holy Church. Pius XII reminded everyone that it is by no means apparent how much of modern science's evolutionary speculations -- particularly polygenism -- can possibily be reconciled with what God has told us about original sin.
But it's nice to have you on record as having rejected what the Church believes about original sin. When Catholics criticize your non-Catholic beliefs, you readily pull out your favorite rhetoric club, the cry, "Fundamentalism!!!!" as you raise your shield of Kung and Curran and Silly Beaks, etc., etc. ad infinitum et nauseam (there's some of the tiny dab of Latin I know -- it's not an invitation for you to start posting in Latin again, though if that suits your fancy, knock yourself out). And now, when the Church herself presents her teaching on original sin, again you do not hesitate to blurt out, Fundamentalism!!!!" Well, it may be "fundamentalism," but it's in agreement with Holy Scripture and 2,000 years of Apostolic Tradition and definitive Magisterium. I'm not aware that any Catholic theologian has yet successfully found a way to reconcile evolution with the Church's doctrine of original sin, though the Church allows wide leeway in these matters. I personally wouldn't be averse to some kind of evolutionist theory, though I think the jury is still out on it. I's blazingly obvious that Gen. 1 isn't to be taken in a strictly literal way -- after all, Gen. 2 describes events that would have happened the afternoon of the sixth day, but which could not conceivably have happened in just a few literal hours -- and if Day Six wasn't a literal day, then the others should be expected to be literal days either.
I know Grisez has tried to arrive at a new understanding of original sin that fits both polygenist speculations and Church teaching, but his proposals leave me unconvinced. So, until there's better evidence to support evolutionist speculations, and until there are convincing Catholic theological approaches to original sin that can mesh with evolutionist speculations, I'll stay with what the Church already knows to be true and leave the sticky details to the big name orthodox theologians to work out.
Commenting by HaloScan
