Unable to save comment (key failed)
Dreadnought quotes a REMARKABLE text of our Pope -- if one recalls that the PHAEDRUS is all about homoerotic love.
Certainly, the consciousness that beauty has something to do with pain was also present in the Greek world. For example, let us take Plato's Phaedrus. Plato contemplates the encounter with beauty as the salutary emotional shock that makes man leave his shell and sparks his "enthusiasm" by attracting him to what is other than himself. Man, says Plato, has lost the original perfection that was conceived for him. He is now perennially searching for the healing primitive form. Nostalgia and longing impel him to pursue the quest; beauty prevents him from being content with just daily life. It causes him to suffer. In a Platonic sense, we could say that the arrow of nostalgia pierces man, wounds him and in this way gives him wings, lifts him upwards towards the transcendent. In his discourse in the Symposium, Aristophanes says thatlovers do not know what they really want from each other. From the search for what is more than their pleasure, it is obvious that the souls of both are thirsting for something other than amorous pleasure. But the heart cannot express this "other" thing, "it has only a vague perception of what it truly wants and wonders about it as an enigma".
Ratzinger as preacher is gay friendly (or so at least Dreadnought thinks), but in the various official documents on homosexuality that he has crafted NOTHING of the chaste erotic glow of the Phaedrus is allowed to peep out. That is a tragic lacuna that has make these documents a source of scandal and offense when perhaps they could have served instead to build bridges of dialogue.
Here, by the way, is how Dreadnought "approaches his God in a spirit of radical humility": http://photos1.blogger.com/img/3...4/
DSC022941.jpg
You really are a terribly silly man Fr Joseph O'Leary.
Silly? No, just trying to clear up some inconsistencies.
How can someone who uses an expression like "chaste erotic glow" point to other people's "inconsistencies".
You are a walking inconsistency!
Whatever the "Spirit of Vatican II" may say about a "chaste erotic glow" and where it may be found, the challenge of Dreadnought's original statement about how one receives the Eucharist -- the disposition with which the Rainbow Sash wearer, for example, approaches the Alter -- still stands. How can he possibly surmount that? One needs only to ask the question to know the answer.
"Fuck the Church. Look at me!"
Yes, that does pretty much sum up the narcissism of the Rainbow Sash folk. I love Dreadnought's ability to cut the crap.
Fr, leaving aside the scandalous implications of a holy priest of God posting such a thing, could you please warn us if you are going to link to pictures such as the one above.
You might also want to ask the my friend's (Jason - in the pic) permission to paste him across the internet Fr Joseph. I have it, you don't.
Somewhere in that difference is the heart of the issue about image, pornography and love.
What nonsense, Dreadnought, you publicly posted the uncopyrighted image (just as I post my own pic, reproduced here without permission four times by pb -- as he is perfectly entitled to). Moreover, you have frequently said that the image is totally innocent, a homage to beauty etc. in the manner of Michelangelo. Now you are saying that "quoted" out of context it could seem pornographic.
Interesting how pb can refer us to your site as evidence for his own dark view of homosexuality, and then all hell breaks loose when I simply point out what your site contains in a prominent position.
As to the Rainbow Sash, I know next to nothing about it, and if they are involved in unscrupulous narcissistic ideological exploitation of the Eucharist, I join Dread in saying Boo!
Moreover, dear Dreadnought, I did not paste the photo -- I merely gave the link! Just as pb had earlier given the link to your site.
For squeamish Paul this comes with a HEALTH WARNING -- it purports to represent presidential and vice-presidential -- umm.
http://johnheard.blogspot.com/20...cal-
fiscal.html
Is Dreadnought inconsistent?
He adheres enthusiastically to the magisterium's statements on homosexuality, which however you interpret them say that it is objectively immoral to practice or desire sexual acts with a member of the same sex (such acts being defined minimally as those leading to orgasm).
He seems to claim that as a weak human being, with a partner, this ideal may be difficult to put into practice on the spot. Indeed, on this score too the Church can agree with him, notably in Paul VI's statement that objectively immoral acts can be diminished in guilt, inculpable or subjectively defensible.
His ideal would appear to be a chaste erotically tinged (passionate) friendship.
The inconsistency I think I find here lies in the gap between what the vast majority of Catholic gays will hear when he says "I affirm the church's teaching" and the more relaxed and liberal attitude that he takes in real life and that if he thought gay sex was really immoral he would not be able to take.(We do not take this attitude to something we believe to be really immoral, such as child abuse, for example.)
The critics of Dreadnought on his website accuse him of a deeped inconsistency, but accuse the Church of the same inconsistency: How can you tell a young gay person that they must never seek sexual intimacy and that it is sinful, objectively disordered, of them to desire it, and still claim to be loving, supporting and affirming that person? How can you claim not to be discriminating against that person when you are at the same time telling heterosexual young people that they should seek sexual intimacy -- with their wives -- as one of God's highest blessings (that is how the RCC speaks now, it was much more suspicious and grudging about marital sex in earlier times) and that to desire this is natural?
Musing on the piece above, yes, it does seem profoundly wrong to approach the Eucharist in a spirit of protest, as a sort of Rosa Parks gesture. On the other hand, at a time when blacks and whites were obliged to sit in different parts of the church (as I understand was the case in some RC churches a few decades ago) a black person might rightly sit among the whites as a protest -- or might join them in the queue to communion, on the basis that Christ invited all to his table equally. I don't know what the rationale of Rainbow Sash is or whether they have thought it out theologically. Given the desacration of the Eucharist by some gay activists in New York, it would certainly be wise to keep gestures of asserting one's presence in church quite separate from the Eucharist.
The Rainbow Sash apparently "baited" Cardinal George -- not a good idea for communication within a family: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/
...ash_060604.html
I see the Rainbow Sash phenomenon has confused and divided the bishops in their pastoral response. In a Church that had encouraged dialogue such anomalous forms of protest would not occur. When I think of the huge amount of time and effort that went into such dismal and dead-duck products as the recent "Instruction" I can only regret that the time was not spent on sitting down with each other, talking, and learning, instead.
For the confused response, see: http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Onlin...804/
061804m.htm
I see that in Australia, Abp George Pell is the chief antagonist of Rainbow Sash. He gives his game away when, after saying that his policy has nothing to do with gayness but only with opposition to church teaching, he goes on to utter the homophobic gibe: "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". The Rainbow Sash spokesman sounds more mature when he says: "The Church will practise dialogue". http://www.cathnews.com/news/205/99.php
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/
2...1801638594.html
"to break the code of silence and invisibility" is a laudable aim of Rainbow Sash. But is the Eucharist the right battleground?
The heretical and dissenting "Spirit of Vatican II" appears here to be using these comment boxes to carry on his own private education about the Rainbow Sash movement in public.
The more interesting question, however, is what he says about "inconsistency." "Is Dreadnought inconsistent?" he asks; and he goes on to point out a practical inconsistency he believes he finds between Dreadnought's publicly professed convictions and privately undertaken behaviors. In short, he is accusing Dreadnought of the inconsistency of hypocrisy.
But let's examine this for a moment. People nearly invariably accuse Catholics and others involved in "organized religion" of hypocrisy. When you get beneath the surface and get to know faithful Catholics, however, you see that most of this imputed hypocrisy is simply nonsense: there are many godly souls whose lives I would willingly uphold as exemplars to my children in a heartbeat.
But something else is intended here: the hypocrisy of discrepancy between Christian norm and Christian practice. But even the most devout Christian is conscious of sin in his life. In fact, the more he has advanced along the road of sanctity the more sensitive he becomes to his own sinfulness. "The only difference between a saint and a sinner," one confessor used to tell me, "is that a saint is a sinner who keeps on trying" -- not perfect theologically, I grant you, but scoring a point well taken, nevertheless. Peter Kreeft puts the matter somewhat better when he says: "There are only two kinds of people in the world -- sinners who think they're saints, and saints who know they're sinners."
Let me come to the point: There are two kinds of inconsistency that need to be sharply distinguished here in reply to the heretical "Spirit of Vatican II":
First, there is the inconsistency of the Catholic life of obedient struggle against sin, which admittedly is not always a smooth and steady progress in sanctification but an advance in fits and starts and slips backward into sin that sometimes leaves one wondering whether it is an advance at all. The important thing, however, is that the faithful Catholic never compromises what he professes to be true. He never calls vice virtue. He never says that what the Church calls sinful or disordered is a "beautiful gift from God." He never says "F__k the Church." His is an inconsistency of sin and weakness, not an inconsistency of principle.
Second, there is the inconsistency of professing to be Catholic while rejecting what the Catholic Church teaches. This is refusing to agree with the Church that sin is sin, that what is gravely disordered is so, and insisting that it's something else, something good, simply because one wishes it were so. This is not an inconsistency of sin or weakness, but an inconsistency of dishonesty, an inconsistency of conscious heresy concerning the moral teaching of the Church while still insisting that one is a bona fide Catholic.
Where is the real hypocrisy?
Fr. O'Leary,
You just made 11 consecutive posts with a word count of 829 and 5 links to external pages. It would probably take the better part of an hour to read everything I just mentioned. Do you think many people reading this blog (if any) would be willing to devote that much of their time to your post? I used to read what you said, because getting a drastically different perspective can be interesting. Now, however, I generally skip everything that is followed by "Sprit of Vatican II," becuase there simply isn't enough time in the day.
Amen to that Jacob!! And we really need to find that mutant gene and correct it for everyone's benefit.
"a saint is a sinner who keeps on trying"
Amen!
What a magnificent defense Dr Blosser.
That's nothing though, on DREADNOUGHT he's comparing me to paedophiles.
What to do when darkness tries to exhaust the Christian with verbosity and endless distractions?
*reaches for the hammer of heresy*
Father O'Leary once commented on his own blog that homosexuality only appeared in the Animal Kingdom at the most advanced stages of evolution. Fr. Teilhard de Chardin on absinthe...
I am not at all concerned about hypocrisy in Dread’s personal life. Indeed. I think he will live and love well. Nor am I concerned about the semi naked men and whatnot.
No No hypocrisy is not the word I would use to describe the Church’s attitude to homosexuality.
“Hypocrisy” utterly underestimates the level of damage this teaching does.
This Augustinian sophistry that seeks with a straight face to carve up human sexuality and distinguish between the person and the natural expression of their sexuality. And then to apply it to one of the major expressions of human sexuality that has existed since before recorded time to condemn all acts of homosexual love as immoral. As Desmond Tutu said when addressing the issue of why he would like to meet St Augustine he said something to the affect “well besides being an African Bishop … on human sexuality I would like to ask him whether he as got over it yet.”
“Schizophrenia” is a much much better term for it.
The term is so appropriate on so many levels. A teaching promulgated by a Church in large part served and staffed by holy chaste homosexual men a situation which was probably always been so.
A teaching which ignores the overwhelming weight of best scientific, biological and medical evidence on human sexuality. The scale of this blindness is as breathtaking as holding that the universe revolves around the earth today.
A teaching that will in time change as the world has moved on - especially the young most of whom cannot fathom what all the fuss is about actually. And of course when it changes it will cause mayhem as those gay Catholics who have denied the natural physical expression of their sexuality will ask themselves: what purpose did my misery serve? And those gay Catholics who have walked who say: “well it’s all a bit late really”
And the “hammers of heresy” who say that the Church “has sold me out” and “made me a liar” as it has relented on the sin of homosexuals but really it’s about their particular peccadillo. And consider the vast bulk of pew Catholics who conceptually dislike homosexuality until one of their children comes out and then they love them “regardless”: and of course they quite like their local gay Priest. They’ll just be pleased it’s finally been done. I am only sad the George Cardinal Pell won’t be around to see it – although he will see gay marriage/civil unions in Australia when John Howard retires.
No “Schizophrenia” is a much better term for it than hypocrisy.
@Atiyah:
You are making the usual obfuscation, arguing from the fact that something exists that it also has to be good. Well, I can also name you a lot of rather unpleasant things that have existed since time immemorial...
You know, Christian teaching on sexual morality is not something that popped out of St Augustine's (or anyone else's) mind. It is about truth and the way God ordered the world. Consider for example what the disciples say when Jesus tells them that marriage is meant to be indissoluble. They also think that such a thing cannot be lived.
It is the same for homosexual men and women (or, for that matter, for every unmarried person) with not having sex outside of marriage. First they also may think that they could not live according to Church teaching. It seems impossible. But it is not - because Man is not alone, but has the grace of God and the Holy Spirit. If he lets himself being led by God, listens to Him and tries to discern His will, he is in little danger to go wrong. (This applies to every field of life, not only sex.)
the vast bulk of pew Catholics who conceptually dislike homosexuality until one of their children comes out and then they love them “regardless”
That's just a non sequitur. Do you really think the Church is calling the faithful to hate people with homosexual inclinations - especially their own children? Ever read the Catechism on the issue? You apparently think that telling your daughter/son "I still love you, no matter what" is tantamount to condoning sinful behavior; or that telling them: "I love you, but I hope you will live according to the will of God" is the same thing as throwing them out of the house and theatening to kill them...
You know, it's not about schizophrenia. It's about love and truth. And the one cannot live without the other.
Atiyah,
Your prolixity is surpassed only by your own soaring inconsistencies.
Petra (from a German context) has answered you well, so I will comment only on the irony of your own inconsistencies, which continue to mount up on wings as eagles.
You present yourself here under the name "Atiyah" (previously it has been, in various connections, "Spirit of Vatican II," "Joe," "Joseph O'Leary," "Fr. Joseph O'Leary," etc. -- how many selves do you have???) ... and accuse the Church of "schizophrenia"???
You have previously cited the pederast bafoon and scientific pretender, Kinsey, as an authority on homosexuality, ignored the sordid lies by which the American Psychiatric Association was pressured by the National Gay Task Force into declassifying homosexuality as a "mental disorder" in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1973 ... then accuse the Church of setting forth "teaching which ignores the overwhelming weight of best scientific, biological and medical evidence on human sexuality"???
... And you talk about a "scale of blindness that is breathtaking"???
You are a liar Sir.
Ask Dread if I am one in the same person as Fr. Joe.
In my Country a PhD is usually a sign of intelligence and civility - you lack both. Perhaps you an "out of the cornies box job" - I hear it is a common phenomenon in the US. I have two postgraduate degrees from a major University (30,000 students) in my country … I do not need to masquerade as a Catholic Priest in Japan. I have had the occasion to meet some of the finest scholars and academics in the world and frankly you fall short by comparison. Most would die before engaging in the sort of behaviour in your post above.
However you Sir dress your bigotry up in the language of philosophy but your true colours, your true bigotry is exposed via your tactics now. You attack the person and not the ideas - you play the man and not the ball. Very Christ filled.
I actually disagreed strongly with some of the ideas advanced by Fr. Joe and have debated him on these. He does engage in rhetorical flourishes and can be over the top and even immovable but he has never personally abused me, unlike you Dr Blosser.
I do agree with him on some issues surrounding human sexuality and while both he and I might be out of step with you, we are in company of the best evidence and overwhelming weight of medical/scientific/biological expertise in the area of human sexuality in the western world.
I have gone further I have checked out Catholic teaching on homosexuality with my uncle (Ph D in Psychology from Cambridge that’s in the UK (formerly with is own practice here and before that Chief Government Social Worker for the whole country. Not resting there I have also gone to an acquaintance who is an academic physiatrist at the medical school and another acquaintance who is an educational psychologist who deals in part with adolescent sexuality issues – it was embarrassing – they all completely dismissed it as irrelevant in human sexuality and worse said it was damaging. From these and other enquiries it is clear to me that the Church is in intellectual Cul-de-Sac on this issue which she must find her way out of. In this regard you have little to contribute.
I once disagreed with Fr. Joe’s summation of much American Catholic blogging as being of poor quality, bad on Church history and questionable in its understanding of theological issues. I thought he was way too harsh and negative. That wasn’t my experience. But then I viewed the small character assignation job assembled on your blog regarding Fr. Joe which didn’t appear to me to be “much chop” and reflected more adversely on you than on your target.
But much more importantly I then wondered: what sort of organised religion is it where people who disagree with one another even supposedly learned people, so quickly launch into an assault on the other’s character? You speak of each other with little more than contempt. And now I am the victim of such an assault on my character.
A gentle a
A gentle and wise American Cardinal has recently called greater civility in American life – it is sage advice Dr Blosser you should heed it.
You present yourself here under the name "Atiyah" (previously it has been, in various connections, "Spirit of Vatican II," "Joe," "Joseph O'Leary," "Fr. Joseph O'Leary," etc. -- how many selves do you have???) ... and accuse the Church of "schizophrenia"???
Actually, a quick check of their individual IP addresses reveals they are not the same person.
Whomever Atiyah is, a comment such as "In my country a PhD is usually a sign of civility and intelligence" is a pretentious howler. PhDs can be the least in both categories. And when it comes to going to academic sources for Church teaching, you can be near certain to trust the opposite of what they will tell you. It is amazing that thousands of words on homosexuality continue to be generated by a dissenting priest and his allies, when the Catechism clearly teaches, and the vast majority of humans intuitively know, that homosexuality is a disorder, a potentially dangerous lifestyle choice, and not a behaviour to be encouraged. I hope that does not offend the erotically chaste sensibilities present.
Does that pass for an apology in Roman Catholicism these days?
In all honesty, such rashness and abuse calls into question Dr Blosser’s judgement in all things.
At the very least it illustrates his lack of commitment to open vigorous debate – something that should never be said of any self-respecting academic.
I guess I am used to the standards set in the study of the philosophy of religion under an Oxonbridge PhD but of course he was a high Church Anglican and thus had manners.
Atiyah:
Christopher Blosser is not Dr. Blosser, the blogger here.
I think Dr. Blosser was rash to jump to the conclusion that you were Fr. O'Leary. Everything after that was ADDRESSED to you under the assumption that you were Fr. O'Leary, so I fail to see why you should take umbrage at it. You could easily have said, "I am not Fr. O'Leary. I trust you will take my word for that. Will you retract?"
Instead you said, "Liar!" instead of "Silly mistake." Nothin Dr. Blosser said was anything like as bad as that.
The MAIN problem I have with what you say and what most people who think like you tend to say is that you cannot seem to IMAGINE that you might be wrong or that there is a case to be made on the other side of the issue. It seems to me that nothing is easier than for the assurances of VERY soft science indeed (if it is in FACT science) to be wrong and misguided. How many scientists do you think there are who would be willing to brave the rhetorical onslaught, the professional freezeout, the drying up of grant money, etc, which would result from the merest hint of a possibility of TESTING or QUESTIONING the purported "normality" of homosexuality?
There are too many questions that you fail to ask, too many doubts you refuse to entertain. The tone of your FIRST post--before Dr. Blosser's mistake--is hardly civil and certainly doesn't invite debate. It predicts the future and calls names, it doesn't invite debate.
I think this topic is worth debating, but in Catholic terms, the defenders of homosexuality have the burden of the evidence to bear and cannot take the floor by contemptuously dismissing present teaching, five or six thousand years of Judaeo-Christian tradition, the Epistle to the Romans, and even some scientific evidence as well.
Pb twices calls me "heretical", a libel he has still failed to substantiate.
Dreadnought is indeed all that pb says, and I do not doubt his sincerity on that point at all. He is not a hypocrite. But his interpretation of church teaching still seems wishful to me, and it would not correspond to pb's. He would not say that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, but that the church encourages and values highly same-sex sexual intimacy short of genital acts. I think his position is rather friable.
Jeff incorrectly alleges that I said homosexuality only appears at the upper stages of evolution. It is well known that various forms of homosexuality occur very widely, perhaps universally, throughout the animal kingdom.
Dreadnought says I compared him with pedophiles. That is incorrect. I made a point about the structure of logical arguments that as a lawyer he should have been able to grasp. You can find it at this site http://www.haloscan.com/comments...76212975270204/
An important argument of Bruce Williams OP of the Angelicum and of Dreadnought is that the Church has never said that the homosexual orientation as such is objectively disordered. Rather the "tendency", namely the specific desire for same-sex genital acts, is disordered, since the acts are. This seems to me a farfetched interpretation of the notorious Ratzinger documents, but I admit that it makes them far less offensive if it can be sustained.
What Atiyah says above seems pretty sensible to me.
Jeff
I am well aware that Christopher Blosser is not Dr Philip Blosser.
The son has more manners and appears to be better humoured than the Father.
The Father seems simply unable to apologise for his irrational behaviour. He leaves this to his son to 'sort of' do it.
I worry for Dr Blosser's students if that is the way he behaves. If one puts up their hand in a lecture do they too get attacked.
Serious academics with serious things to say simply don't behave in this manner.
Okay, Fr. O'Leary, I see that I shouldn't have said "only." I apologize. Here is Fr. O'Leary's ridiculous quote verbatim; its self-parodying ersatz-Teilhardian character is unaffected by my slight error:
"Homosexuality is more common in the upper echelons of the evolutionary scale, and in the development of civilization the brute identification of sex with procreation and sexual life with primary anatomical functions is increasingly overcome."
http://
josephsoleary.typepad.com...c.html#comments
Atiyah:
You missed the point. My point was that even if it were TRUE--and I deny it--that Church teaching on this subject is reformable, the presumption is AGAINST you. However, even if it were FOR you, you can't start a decent discussion that way. If you say Church teaching is pathetic, schizophrenic, causes untold damage, is "homophobic", etc., you're not proposing a discussion. You're engaging in vituperation.
It's possible to have a discussion on this issue. But YOU'RE the one who brought up the issue of civility. If you start by flinging around statements which amount to accusations of schizophrenia, responsibility for mayhem and destruction against people for adhering to an utterly uncontroverial teaching of the Church for its entire history, YOU'RE the one who has begun with incivility.
If you want to start with Church teaching and propose a change, be my guest. But don't start out by contemptuosly ruling the teaching out of Court as ridiculous right from your opening statemnent. "Dissent" presumes "Orthodoxy". A right to dissent--if it were to exist--on any issue surely can't mean the right to treat dissent as IF it were orthodoxy and treat orthodoxy as if it's so indecent one can't have a conversation about.
Lay aside "homophobe" and "Nazi" (Fr. O'Leary's favorite comparison-label) and all the terms of art and credit your opponents--virtually all teachers in Church history who have touched on the subject--with better motives and clearer minds than the ones you've insinuated.
It's funny how the people like Fr. O'Leary who used to insist on the "right to dissent" develop their own orthodox verities which they are quite unwilling to question. Things like the US role in Nicaragua are not to be discussed as if error or poor judgment could be involved on their own part, simple acceptance of normal Catholic teaching on homosexuality is sneered at with ad hominems like "Nazi" and "homophobe", but no one can object vociferously to his offhand dismissal of Christ's divine nature without causing offense.
Atiyah, Church teaching on sexuality has been devastatingly difficult from the very beginning. Most people who didn't believe it have understood that that meant they didn't believe in Catholicism. Why you think the Church will change this part of the tough stuff when it's survived this long, I don't know. With the West slowly--what am I saying: Swiftly!-- committing suicide through failure to reproduce that seems less and less likely with every day that goes by. You won't live even to see any change on contraception, let alone homosexuality.
Note how Jeff corrects himself. First he attributes a false idea to me, then he quotes what I actually said -- that homosexuality, widespread in the animal kingdom, is particularly common in the upper primates as in homo sapiens sapiens -- suggesting that it is a rather advanced trait. Unable to say that this is untrue, he snorts about ersatz teilhardism.
The crimes of the contras in Nicaragua have never as far as I know been contested, so if he has something to say about that let him say it. Again, he evades issues of truth and falsehood in order to indulge in sassiness.
Equating homosexuality with committing suicide through failure to reproduce is the lowest level of homophobic reasoning.
As to the church's incapacity to change past teachings, the record of history shows that the church has frequently changed mistaken teachings.
Sex is much less identified with procreation today than in the past, as everyone knows. But even in Catholic teaching the promotion of the unitive function to equality with the procreative is a recent development, banishing forever the idea that sex is a sort of necessary evil (always tainted with sin in St Augustine's view for example). So even the Church is affected by the progress of civilization.
Anyway, since Jeff finds my drawing of connections between Christian anti-gay rhetoric and Nazism (comparable to the recognizd connection between Christian anti-Jewish rhetorica and Nazism, I have purged my weblog of the offending material.
Since he finds my arguments offensive, I mean. Homophobia like antisemitism is evil, and mistaken church teaching has been a major source of both. The church lives and learns.
As to dreadnought, a search for "hypoc" on his site reveals that several people have called him a hypocrite, but that I have not. I have no interest in attacking dreadnought, and I am sorry that he takes my efforts to clarify or refute his logic as a personal attack.
Jeff
Whilst I might analyse the Catholic Church’s attitude to homosexuality as “schizophrenic” I would not go along with the characterisation of the teaching as “difficult” rather I would say that on any objective measure the teaching is “damaging” both to the individuals and the Church’s fundamental mission and message.
I perfectly respect the Catholic Church’s right adopt teachings I regard as wrong or even schizophrenic. There is no onus on me to convince you of the need for change. Nor do I believe anything I could possibly ever say would achieve this.
However when the Church seeks to take her teaching on human sexuality into public policy I reserve the right to analyse those teachings as I would analyse the evidence for any other public policy choice. Factors I consider relevant are:
1 Homosexuality is decriminalised.
2 Best evidence suggests that homosexuality is within the normal range of incidences of human sexuality. It occurs consistently and is no longer treated as a medical disorder.
3 Homosexuals desire legal certainty for their communal affairs.
4 Public law provides legal certainty by registration for all manner of things: marriage, car ownership, land ownership, shares in corporations; Church property, security interests in real and personal property, gun licences, proof of citizenship… the list is endless.
5 Public registries provide certainty and therefore lessen costs in the legal system by avoiding disputes. Basic rights are determined in advance, balances of interests struck – common law develops to fill the gaps.
6 Best evidence suggests that no harm will be done to other communal arrangements between individuals most import of which is heterosexual marriage, which I regard as important to a healthy society.
7 Nor is individual liberty lessened as the regime is not compulsory and individuals are still free to make other arranges that might best suit their needs.
At this point Jeff the onus is on you to outline why homosexuals should not have legal certainty for their communal affairs. If the justification is Church teaching on homosexuality then I have the right to test it, as you seek to apply it to me via public law whether I am an adherent of your Church or not. Thus the Church’s evolving record on sexuality is relevant.
There is no freedom without life and no life without freedom. The freedom to love according to your true nature and consistent with the freedom of others is very important. Any proposed moral code that interferes with this fundamental human right must be tested before it is boosted by pubic law.
Atiyah has focused on socially damaging aspects of church policy, but it is the psychologically damaging aspects that most strike me. The parents of gays in the Rainbow Sash have many tales of grief to tell, as a result of church homophobia. Dreadnought says the church's attitude is perfect and in no need of change. While I respect his moral decision and struggle, I do think he is ignoring the real suffering that church teaching has caused millions of gay people, not only those who do not feel called to perfect continence, but confused and innocent youths with no knowledge of life.
Another possible inconsistency chez Dread is his ardent support of civil unions and his extreme disgust at gay marriage -- even at the recent civil unions in Britain which he equated with gay marriage.
What the banning of gay love has inflicted on millions is a crippling loneliness, and what the banning of open discussion has inflicted is a schizophrenic mystification. Some may have found joy in spiritual friendship, but for very many there was no bright side to the church's brutal condemnation of gay people (whom it regularly burnt at the stake, even in places as far afield as Mexico, Peru, Goa, Manila) for which it has never apologized.
I must say I find much of this mudslinging regrettable. It's distressing that it's related in any way to me.
Atiyah is a welcome and intelligent DREADNOUGHTER. I can't imagine why he'd approach a psychologist to explain moral theory, but at least he's questing and usually civil. He has not been treated fairly.
Dr Blosser is well respected in his field and his son is something of an orthodox blog-star. They have not been treated fairly.
I fear much of this nonsense stems from the malign influence of Fr Joseph O'Leary. He has been treated with too much fairness.
Given the strife he's sown here and the complete lack of serious intellectual debate, it's pretty obvious who and what motivates him.
My good Irish parish priest told me to shut the door, never to invite it into my home, never to indulge its flattery and never ever to publicise its lies.
Fr Joseph O'Leary is banned on DREADNOUGHT, I can't imagine why you'd continue to indluge him here.
I'm curious, Atiyah, are you Catholic? I honestly don't know; if you are it isn't meant as a jibe. Your position makes much more sense to me if your aren't than if you are. It sounds when you speak as if you are talking about what "they" are doing than about what "we" are doing.
If you AREN'T Catholic, then the discussion has to proceed on utterly different grounds, as you point out. If you ARE, then Dreadnought has asked the pertinent question: Why do accept any of this psycho stuff--heavily influenced by the social context--as determinative? Why would one trust the psychological understanding of human behavior over thousands of years of accumulated wisdom?
Science, in any case, proceeds best through skepticism of its own claims. Instead of talking about "best evidence" where no hard evidence exists about ANY of this, why not take at least as skeptical an attitude toward modern verities about this stuff as you do about Church teaching? It'll cost you socially, though. You get called names; it's the modern substitute for argument. And you'll hurt people's feelings. The combination of those two factors--raging contempt and ostracism on the one hand and hurting the feelings of people who seem nice in many ways on the other--make up most of the enormous load of social pressure inhibiting sane debate on this issue.
Fr. O'Leary:
I acknowledge the error I made and I acknowledge that the difference between the two may have significance for you. But the difference between the two seems trivial to me. Some arguments are so absurd that they are scarcely worth the time to refute. This notion of homosexuality as a sort of representation of the "higher" or "spiritually advanced" notion of sexual intercourse seems sneezingly funny to me and to most orthodox Catholics. The glorification of selfish and death-dealing barrenness in modern culture may have once carried some conviction but its pretty pathetic in light of what's happening NOW--the hyperautonomous misery of children abandoned to "free love" and the slow suicide of a civilization that no longer wants to reproduce itself. Less sophisticated than the sweatiest low-IQ fundamentalist, I'd say.
It's pretty silly, also, to "purge" your website of our argument (from which you come off rather badly, I'd say) and then repeat the same stuff about "homophobia" and the same comparisons about racism, etc. here.
It might be interesting to have a discussion about Church teaching changing with someone who believed that at least some things are unchangeable. As far as I can see, there's nothing which resists your own imagination or instincts, no hard core which forces you to swallow and accept stuff which you don't respond to positively. Anything irritating or unsatisfactory is just dissolved away. That's the most unconvincing part of the dissenters' enterprise, the ultimately self-referential part that leads to people simply repeating and recycling the canards of their age as if they are some sort of unchallangeable and immemorial truth.
Still, cling to those shreds that you have left. There are a few golden strands in the handful of nonsense that can lead you back to what you've lost. And don't be afraid to ask yourself whether there might be something hollow to the way that you seem to have so utterly abandoned yourself to. Lack of confinement on a narrow and stony path, horizons spreading out on all sides isn't freedom; it's called being Lost.
Dreadnought:
I'd reconsider the banning. I think it's very good for Fr. O'Leary to be giving us "fundamentalists" a hard time. It's good for us because it throws us back on the realities of our Faith, which we should feel more confident in. It makes us dig deeper.
And I can't but think it's good for him, too. My feeling is that he needs an awful lot of support and prayer; we forget how much assistance we get that he must lack and how lonely and sad must be the road that he has chosen. Always better to try to reach out in Love than to shut out in Anger. There's something deeper than mere contentiousness that keeps calling Father back to places like this. Let's show him our best face. (There's much that I can do to improve my own record in this respect, I know.) I think Dr. Blosser deserves a lot of credit for not shutting him out and I thank him for that.
Father:
Loneliness, sexual and otherwise, is a besetting problem. It's a good argument for contraception, for divorce, for living together, for multiple marriages, not just for homosexuality.
But the trouble is that the selfish and self-justifying aspects of sexuality come to the fore and you get broken families, no families, isolated children, isolated old people, child killing in the womb, killing of the ill when their lives become burdensome and EVEN MORE LONELINESS. The solution, seemingly so generous, doesn't solve. Those of us who grew up with all this stuff find the Church's teaching on sexuality, detestable as it is to you, one of the most convincing reasons to BE Catholic. We've seen the miserable record of the reformist approach. Discipline and radical self denial turn out to be the ONLY human solution at all. Malcolm Muggeridge said that the thing that ultimately convinced him to enter the Church was Humanae Vitae. The Church was the last lonely institution to insist on something that has become irrefutable, though utterly unacceptable to society at large.
Try something a bit more than just "homophobic" or "fundamentalist" or "the Church can change." Surely you can dig deeper than that...
In fact, why not try telling us why YOU are a Catholic? What do you love about it? What do you see as its essence?
Atiyah,
Don't worry, my friend, I haven't been hiding. This is the first I've checked my blog since yesterday -- I have another life, unlike some folk -- and already so many comments have piled up that I barely have time to read them.
One reader clocks O'Leary at 1,925 words over the last so-many hours and asks me by email whether one should give him such a pedestal.
More importantly, I see I've mistaken you for O'Leary, thus provoking a sharp reaction from you. I apologize. My bad. Several things you said were so much like what O'Leary would have said -- and, as I had never seen "Atiyah" before, and as O'Leary has posted in the past under more than one name, I took you to be him. Again, my apologies for the precipitous assumption.
As for the content of what I wrote, I think you will see that the following: IF one assumes that you were O'Leary, and IF one takes what you had written in the context of the previous posts I allude to, then there is hardly anything untoward about my comments. Furthermore, they attack O'Leary's ideas and the inconsistencies in them, not O'Leary the person, with whom at any point I could happily drop what I was doing, sit down and share a brew and sushi (or wine and cheese).
If you ever want to test whether anyone else is just a bit touchy (or test your own courage or stupidity or intelligence quotient), here's surefire procedure I can recommend, especially if you're a bit nerdy looking, like me: next time you're in a gym, find the biggest football player you can who's lifting weights, and when he's just finished his set of reps, walk up to him and say: "Mind if I give you a few tips on weight lifting, mate?"
Now ... what was that you were saying about "character assignation" (did you mean "character assassination"?) and "lack of commitment to open vigorous debate"?
Pb twices calls me "heretical", a libel he has still failed to substantiate.
I use the word "heretic" in the way that C.S. Lewis uses the word "damned" -- not to slur but to describe. If it's a fact, it's not libel, and we both know it's a fact.
If you claim otherwise, I defy you to bring the matter before an ecclesiastical court, my friend. I'll show up if you will.
We both know that if you were required to teach theology instead of English, and if you had to secure the mandatum (in conformity with Canons 812 & 833 of the Code of Canon Law) on taking an oath of fidelity, that things you've said in comment boxes on this blog alone could easily prevent you from securing a mandate. Why? One has only to read Pope John Paul II's Ad tuendam Fidem (by which certain norms are inserted into the Code of Canon Law) (May 18, 1998 ) and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's "Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei" (June 29, 1998 ), to see the following:
(1) that you fall under the censure of heresy for "obstinately placing in doubt or denying" doctrines "handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed" (such as the Christological and Marian dogmas, the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts, the immediate recompense after death, or doctrines of heaven and hell, etc.); and
(2) that by your moral judgments, you are to be regarded as "no longer in full communion with the Catholic Church" for not giving "firm and definitive assent" to "each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals" (such as the doctrine that homosexual sex is intrinsically immoral, that contraception is immoral, that priestly ordination is reserved only to men, etc., etc.).
This isn't even to touch upon a third area, (3) where your ideas are to be judged "erroneous," "rash" and "dangerous" because they do not "adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teaching which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when the exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act." Examples might be multiplied, but the most important consideration here would be your attitude that teachings of the Pope and College of Bishops in this area are mere matters of opinion that hold no more authority over you than your own considered scholarly opinion: in other words, if you are willing to risk defiance in #1 and #2, I sense little inclination toward "submission" here, if I am not mistaken.
Would you like to go farther with this?
"Always better to try to reach out in Love than to shut out in Anger."
Yes, to a point. When his trash talk is derailing serious debate on DREADNOUGHT and tying otherwise well-meaning men up in petty squabbles, it's time to overturn the tables in the temple forecourt.
I'm a bit more like JPII than BXVI on this one, I probably wouldn't bother to meet with Hans Kung either.
I do not put in question the Christological dogmas, or any dogmas about the next life, etc etc. That is your jaundiced interpretation.
The Mandatum document is certainly one I would never sign, as it has more to do with authoritarianism than orthodoxy. It is also one that you could not sign given the tension between
some of your views and current church teaching. People who live in glass houses etc.
In particular I do not deny the church's teaching on the authority of the Bible. It is the literalist fundamentalism that you and Jordan Potter espouse that is doing that.
Your imitation of Vatican authoritarianism actually amounts to a caricature, which perhaps is the nemesis that JP2 and B16 have drawn on themselves. What an unflattering mirror their disciples hold up to them, while mainline theology proceeds on its way calmly, if sluggishly! Someone who thinks Torquemada should be canonized can hardly hold himself up as a model of Catholic orthodoxy, or of fidelity to the Gospel, as I see things.
What derails serious debate chez Dreadnought is ill-identified by Dreadnought, as might be expected.
His position is really much the same as that of Fr John Harvey and the people at Courage. It seemed more glamorous at first, thanks to his Australian style and his pics, but as his critics have dismantled his arguments and shown that it is the same old, same old -- whether that same old is right or wrong -- the tinsel has faded. The prima donna cannot stand the narcissistic would this entails.
narcissistic would, I mean.
And yes, I will say that about Dreadnought: he is your classic narcissist.
narcissistic WOUND
Oh well, after all when I was Dreadnoughter's age I was far more narrowminded about matters sexualy than he is, and in some ways I still am. I just think it is sad that he cannot argue rationally and takes every disagreement as an insult, to which he replies with a free use of expletives, as any visitor to his blogsite can see for themselves.
Jeff seems to have nothing good to say for gay people. At least Pb offers tea and sympathy and urges them to carry their cross. This entire fetid discourse is a thing of the past, I think.
You lie. I've never sworn at anyone on DREADNOUGHT.
"and shown that it is the same old, same old"
I have nothing to do with Courage, but the same old, same old = orthodoxy and that's just fine with me.
Oh really? [Edited for profane sniping ...]
Orthodoxy is a silly word to use in connection with sexual ethics. In fact, when people bring out the word "orthodoxy" in ethical discussion it is a sign that they have not really thought out the ethical issues.
I mean, if someone said my views on murder or capital punishment or torture or the morality of the Iraq war were "orthodox" the impression they would give is that they were talking through their hat.
Actually I forgot to mention the diachronic evolution in Dreadnought's position, which has created most of the confusion. [Edited for profanity ...] Since he has never explicitly stated that he has changed his position, is it surprising that his fans and critics are so chronically confused? Inconsistency, thy name is Dreadnought!
Lest I get another prima donna hiss, "you lie!" here is the link for dreadnought's earlier views -- the ones that made him famous: http://johnheard.blogspot.com/20...y-
marriage.html
[Deleted for profanity. Webmaster.]
[Deleted for violation of Rule #2. See "Da Rulz". Let it be. Say your piece and let the subject go. Move on.-- Webmaster.]
[Edited for violation of Rule #1: rudeness. People are welcome to disagree with me and one another in the comments boxes as long as they are polite. I don't mind disagreement. I do mind rudeness. -- Webmaster.]
Gentlemen
I honestly think you should give it a rest and have a time out. Talk about Kilkenny Cats. This reflects badly on both of you.
Spirit: an interesting blog is by its nature inconsistency laid bare. Whether every incidence should be exploited is another matter. I know you sense vulnerability. You should rightly feel aggrieved by the nature of your banning on Dread's blog - it was very unjust. The remedy is to be found on Dread’s blog not there. It is very rude to Dr Blosser.
Dread: having erred yourself don't compound it elsewhere by asking others to do the same. Consider that what gives your blog its spark is in part your style and those who express a contrary opinion. Often Fr. Joe is cogent and very clear which actually annoys you. Grow up a little and be a bigger and better man.
Dr Blosser
Thank you for your not so timely response. Yes we all indeed have lives. If it is the nearest I will get to an apology then I accept it. Here is my response:
1. An encounter at the gym
Actually I don’t make a habit of approaching men (or woman) at the gym for any reason. I don’t quite get the metaphor. Are you suggesting that I am annoying per se? Or is it that you are intellectually muscle bound and I am intellectually weak or stupid? Are you counselling caution or suggesting that somehow by merely asking a question people deserve “what they get.”
Strange.
2. Of identity character and open debate
Yes you are correct I did mean “character assassination” I am glade you recognised both the typo and the propensity. I dislike the trait in myself and even more so in others.
It was not so much the mistake in identity but the manner in which it was done. It suggested an intolerance of other views that I found disturbing. On these comments you say:-
Blosser: “they attack O'Leary's ideas and the inconsistencies in them, not O'Leary the person, with whom at any point I could happily drop what I was doing, sit down and share a brew and sushi (or wine and cheese)”
I am very glade to read that. But it rather begs the question as to why you do not debate with O’Leary in a similarly convivial manner here why does civility require you both to be personally present?
I read the words “heretic” “libel” “ecclesial court” “any place any time” exchanged and I take that as a sign of dysfunction. You catalogue O’Leary’s use of names that are frankly variants on a similar theme as evidence of an attempted deception when on any objective measure there is no attempt to deceive – you worked it out that it was one and the same man - have confidence that others will – the homepage addy is always a give away.
Likewise you damn him for repeated posts.
Frankly I would have one critic in a combox to one thousand people saying they agree with you. I learn nothing from that. I like to see the weakness and strengths of your arguments tested and an analysis of your critic’s arguments too.
Cont/……
Your intolerance for such debate worries me especially as you are a philosophy teacher. I am sure you would never claim a colleague was a heretic (however defined) or a student intellectually deficient in a lecture. This would be unprofessional. Nor do you reward with generous marks only those students whose papers agree you with. I am sure you are a better teacher than that and a bigger man. Nor do you expect rudeness.
Yet this is what happens here against another who professes your faith.
3 Pollyannas and Papists
I do not expect a complex and rich faith of 1.1 billion to be in perfect accord. While you might stress orthodoxy in matters sexual others might stress orthodoxy in the traditional notions of communitarism as it is applied to economic policy. Some focus on what they see as the utterly unchanging while others stress the evolution of Church teachings.
Sometimes you will have to agree to disagree even when each claims the full weight of God and Church to back their argument. Remember you do worship in the same broad Church which claims to be “universal” – for all, everywhere.
How you treat each other and how you say what you say is every bit as telling was what you say about your faith.
4 I want my day in Court
Despite having another life you and your son have put much effort into your web presence. We also know that whenever a Catholic blog deals with sexual matters and homosexuality there is great interest and the comboxes spring to life. You also profess to want your day in Court with O’Leary and I guess he similarly would like to take you to task.
I cannot understand why you (or another spirited individual) haven’t hosted the Great Catholic Sex Debate on the web between the best proponents of orthodoxy and the best advocating reform or refinement. It’s worth a thought and if done well would attract some interest I am sure.
Finally don’t listen to Dread (who I actually like) on banning and the like. Our actions however poorly judged are never the fault of another. Interestingly he says he wouldn’t like to meet with Hans Kung yet I understand BVXI has over done just that over dinner if I am not mistaken. I think that speak volumes about simple civility and an enquiring mind. I understand the Pope survived and Catholicism remains intact.
Father:
"This entire fetid discourse is a thing of the past, I think."
I'm still waiting for a discourse, instead of what I see here, which sounds like a deliberate attempt to "out" someone. Reads as pretty fetid to me. And you're lecturing people on "being nice to gay people?" You mean, I assume, only the ones that accept that homosexuality is the closest thing to the angels; certainly not if they believe in the sinfulness of homosexual acts and the intrinisically disordered nature of their desires. If one of them turned to you for help, Father, they'd get that scorpion instead of the Bread they need.
"murder or capital punishment or torture or the morality of the Iraq war were "orthodox" the impression they would give is that they were talking through their hat."
Of course! Because, except for murder, these are complicated and contentious issues involving prudential judgments and where there is no clearly "orthodox" teaching. Where murder is concerned, no one needs to use the term "orthodox" in relations to it because it's uncontroversial. Just as Church teaching about sexual morality was until a short time ago.
On the Christological dogmas, you complained that there was no reason to bring up all that old "Christ is God" stuff since it just results in confusion. What do you really BELIEVE in, Father? Not just what are you willing not to contest. It seems to me that the one who most shies away from discussion is you!
God bless you anyway...
You've neatly demonstrated my initial error and the manner in which, by schooling myself in obedience and actively engaging with Church teachings, I've changed my mind.
Curiously, you almost always post very early statements from my site.
That's like never really believing St Augustine underwent a conversion.
That kind of despair is telling. I'm bored with your whole line of nonsense. Nothing is being learned here, rather you're a tiresome pest.
I choose not to indulge you any longer.
For all your histrionic posing as the homosexual's pain-feeling pal, Fr Joe, you're a damned good bully when you put your mind to it.
It's not the individual who engages your gushes of Christian compassion, it's the up-front, Church-defiant pose-striking that engages your preening enthusiasm. The individual is merely a tool.
Atiyah,
Two things:
First, as an apparent newcomer and visitor to my blog, you may not be familiar with the habit of discourse here. Written text misses the nuance of spoken voice, and it takes people a while to catch the nuance of what others mean and imply in written word. Sometimes even then, individuals can mistake one another's meaning. So what sounds like pugnaciousness to you may come off as playful jibe to another.
I have a Jehovah's Witness student, now finishing a Ph.D. in classics in Glasgow, Scotland, who used to regularly refer to me as a "heretical papist," as I would call him a "heretical Neo-Arian." When we would do so on-line, eavesdroppers where of course appalled, while we meant no harm at all. Thus I call O'Leary a proponent of "hot tub Christology."
Second, when I call an idea "heretical" or call a person a "heretic" for holding it, I'm not being rude but simply calling a thing by its name according to Church teaching. If someone says that Jesus' bones might be moldering under the ground somewhere in Palestine, by all the lights of Christian tradition that I can think of, that person denies the physical Resurrection of Jesus and is therefore a heretic. It's a word with a kick, I grant you. But anything wrong in calling a thing by its proper name?
Atiyah,
If you hang around for a while, I think you'll also find that nobody here gets left out of a fair argument in any debate on this site. This is an open forum for anyone who follows the posted rules (DA RULZ - above right). I've only ever had to ban one individual, and that was for something close to criminal behavior involving one of our readers which I won't go into here. If you visited any of my philosophy classes, you would find the same. Nobody is ever silenced for point-of-view. In fact, controversy is encouraged. However, common courtesy of the sort implicit in the listed rules is enforced.
"In particular I do not deny the church's teaching on the authority of the Bible. It is the literalist fundamentalism that you and Jordan Potter espouse that is doing that."
I don't espouse anything in regard to the Church's teaching on the authority and interpretation of the Bible that 2,000 years of apostles, evangelists, saints, Fathers, Doctors, and Popes haven't espoused. If that's literalist fundamentalism, then so be it. Catholicism is literalist fundamentalism -- thus saith the O'Leary.
Ralph calls me a "damn good bully when I put my mind to it".
Thanks!
Ralph:
Unhelpful mate and a little unfair.
Dr Blosser:
Thank you for your considered response.
On heresies and heretics
I just don’t think labelling others like that is actually helpful. Fr. O’Leary can answer for himself on whether he is in fact a heretic I am not competent to judge the matter.
But as an exercise let us consider the nominated heresy: that the bodily ascension of Christ is figurative. Further, that the bodily ascension was a reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the Bible (though perhaps mistaken) given that Christ was both God and Man; and the fact there was no body.
Taking up your suggestion, so what if a body was found in modern day Israel and from circumstantial evidence it was later deduced that it is likely to be that of Jesus the man (the theme of a not so great movie actually)
Initially I suspect your heart would skip a beat and so would that of the Catholic Church ………… but just one beat. After that you wouldn’t miss a beat nor would the Church.
On an intellectual level you would access all the theologians who have analysed the bodily ascension including those who may have speculated on whether it was figurative or not. You would declare this to be a noble academic tradition as part of the search for truth.
More importantly you would declare the discovery to be good news: the body is returned so as to remind the world of the message. And so it would go. Pilgrimages, church building, the issue of the removal of the body to Rome, and the Copts – the controversies would be endless. But none of this would weaken your faith or that of Fr. O’Leary, likewise that of the vast bulk of other Christians.
I concede that our fictional discovery of a body is highly unlikely in reality if near impossible and perhaps the rationalisation of new evidence with old teachings might be more tricky. But it does illustrate the wider point. Ideas in Christianity as elsewhere often start off novel. Some are even declared heretical; some people even lose their lives for them. Then bit by bit the idea achieves the status of orthodoxy and other older ideas pass from orthodoxy to redefinition, retirement, disuse or are held to be wrong. Other ideas start off novel and remain so either through successful suppression or because they lack sense. This is part of the dynamism of Christianity.
Cont/….
Thus I would argue that heretic theologians have their place – someone must ‘think the unthinkable’ and this process can both lead to change or confirm the status quo. So long as the case for orthodoxy is properly made out I see no harm in examining it and proffering a speculative alternative based on the evidence. One never knows the value (if any) that might come from such work.
I certainly concede that pew Christians and their pastors need doctrinal certainty and so such academic discussions are not the subject of a sermon, but nor is much academic medical research to be found in the G.P’s surgery, or academic law to be found when you consult a solicitor about your will.
2. The more things change the more they change
Let’s be more concrete. Deep in me there is the tiniest smallest moral squeamishness about eating meat. I look at it in those shiny plastic wrapped packages and sometimes wonder whether I am not is some ways dishonest in getting another to kill it for me as the thought of this is distasteful – I prefer not to think of it. This twinge does not prevent me from eating it or catching fish but I sometimes wonder. I did once kill a noxious introduced species having caught it in a cage. I did so on the basis that releasing the opossum and her baby elsewhere would simply damage native flora there thus the moral thing to do was to shoot it. At least this was honest for my moral position I had to do the killing. Strangely the fact that it had a hand with an opposing thumb and was using it to hold a piece of apple (like young human children hold objects) was mildly disconcerting but the greater good was served.
You and I probably agree that animals have no rights as such but there is a duty to treat them reasonably and not to cause undue suffering. We might also agree that domesticated species survive and prosper because they are useful for us. This is orthodoxy and a philosophically coherent position. But then this Australian called Peter Singer comes along and advances the notion that animals do have rights, indeed some share 98.5% of the same genetic material as humans and they can function with the mental capacity of a four year old human child. He plays on that twinge. He outlines a coherent view and I still think he is wrong. I cannot concede that any species other than humans has a right to life.
When our successors are safely removed from the requirement to kill animals to provide protein, I cannot be so sure that they will share my view. Who is to say that they do not wonder how I managed to miss the great 20/21st century philosopher who so clearly outlined the case for the rights of animals. They may excuse my actions on the basis of necessity but nevertheless disapprove. Of course their moral clarity is easy they have a choice or perhaps no choice as artificial meat is all that is available. But I cannot help thinking that even though I disagree with Singer I am pleased he makes
Atiyah:
You seem very sure of how Christians would react if the body of Christ were found. In any case, if the Ascension were a fable, Christ would be walking around alive, bodily, on this Earth. If the RESURRECTION were a fable, you might have a dead body.
But if the Resurrection were a fable, Christianity would be FALSE. Would some of us cling to the lingering shreds of it nonetheless? Perhaps... So what?
I'm still curious, though. Are you a Catholic or just an interested outsider? You sound for all the world like an intelligent and sympathetic non-Christian who's picked up on a lot of stuff, but missed other stuff. Nothing wrong with that, of course.
"I don't espouse anything in regard to the Church's teaching on the authority and interpretation of the Bible that 2,000 years of apostles, evangelists, saints, Fathers, Doctors, and Popes haven't espoused."
Hello Jordan Potter;
I ran across (and read) this, and I thought you might enjoy it. Thanks!
"Virginal Conception Is Biological Fact"
http://www.catholicculture.org/d...cfm?
recnum=5655
"Author: Pope John Paul II
Description: Pope John Paul II's General Audience, July 10, 1996."
==
"But if the Resurrection were a fable [untrue, false], Christianity would be FALSE."
I think you are correct, and St. Paul would agree.
"Would some of us cling to the lingering shreds of it nonetheless?"
I suppose some modernists and liberals already do this, do they not?
==
And a bully of style and verve as well.
Any so-called Christianity without the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus, is unworthy of our faith.
==
"I certainly concede that pew Christians and their pastors need doctrinal certainty and so such academic discussions are not the subject of a sermon [...]"
How nice.
Along these lines, but on the issue of homosexuality, I suppose the need for doctrinal/moral certainty and acceptance runs strong with the Rainbow Sash crowd and clients. I mean, why do they feel the need to obtain Catholic Church endorsement and validation for the practice of homosexuality? They are obsessed. They should perhaps walk away, and not look back.
==
Sorry, I did not mean to sound harsh. It just seems a bit confusing in this secular age, and perhaps even odd or intolerant, for the Rainbow Sash crowd to desire to impose their acceptance of homosexual practices on the society of Catholic Christians.
==
"...this liberal secular age..."
I'm with Ronald Knox on this one. If the bones of Jesus were found mouldering somewhere in Palestine (and if it were possible to prove it), I should no longer be a Christian. I think St Paul felt the same.
"Italians clash on gay 'marriage'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europ...ope/
4612802.stm
Thousands of gay rights activists have demonstrated in Rome in support of same-sex unions."
==
Big deal. In Rome you can get 50,000 communists to a rally any Friday of the year. Swap the anti-Bush banners for anti-Ratzinger banners and most of the rabble wouldn't notice.
Watch the election outcome. Italy has always had a lunactic Leftist fringe but they've hardly ever made it to power.
Wow! Who will win, Satan or God?
==
"Italy has always had a lunactic Leftist fringe but they've hardly ever made it to power."
Thanks. I hope so. Peace.
==
The Day of the Lord will come.
==
""Would some of us cling to the lingering shreds of it nonetheless?"
I suppose some modernists and liberals already do this, do they not?"
Paul, you're entirely right. That's why in a way I find something pitiful and charming at times about the Modernists like Fr. O'Leary and Hans Kung. They see something they are unwilling entirely to let go of, though they have ceased to have a real faith any longer. I suppose it may be better in a way than letting the thing go entirely. Like someone who has divorced his wife who cannot help hanging around her new apartment wistfully, not daring quite to wish that he hadn't taken the step and declaring to everyone that they remain good friends. Let's invite them over for dinner and say an "Ave" with them.
For me it is rather simple.
At any given time in history you can find plenty that can not possibly see reason to move away from the "status quo" of the day.
For many slavery was quite allright.
For many racial segregation was quite all right.
Womens right to vote - no way for many.
Religiously motivated antisemitism - of course quite allright -didn't these guys kill our Lord?
Now in our days plenty can not see the wisdom of letting our brothers and sisters with samesex attraction live the dignified life they perhaps more than deserve.
However, a majority of people here in the western democracies seems to slowly gain in appreciation for this issue - regardless what our church says.
In my view our church will change course eventually. We certainly have plenty of gay priests who will make sure the issue will not go away.
Look, just 500 years ago our beloved church endorsed to burn humans alive our days on the other hand we are against the death penalty.
Go figure
Nobody can tell me the world will end the day all humans regardless of gender, race and sexual orientation can enjoy true freedom and equality.
IMHO even our 'beloved' Mr. Dreadnought will perhaps change yet one more time his take on the issue before the decade is over - he certainly seems way to young to be done with sexuality for good.
I certainly prefer people who are clear about there desires and who engage in loving relationship over those that claim all kinds of virtues just to 'surprise' us all with the eventual occasional breakdown of these claimed saintly 'virtues'.
No way, that the majority of gays will be willing and able to live the kind of life (and lie IMHO) that our church requests from them. Not even our highly motivated Priests seem able to do so.
Let the gays focus on healthy loving relationships just like the rest of us. Let them continue to engage to the fullest in our society and church.
I certainly will teach my sons this kind of tollerance.
"Priest Announces During Mass He is Gay and leaving Priesthood for "Loving Relationship"
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006...n/
06010607.html
Bishop has been aware of Gale's situation for at least 2 years yet kept him in parish and refuses to criticize"
==
"Italians clash on gay 'marriage'"
I just hope our Pope is not facing another "1968".
==
No, it is an early '2006', not a full-blown '1968'.
"Gay activists protest pope outside Vatican"
http://www.advocate.com/
news_det..._ektid24438.asp
"The demonstrators were commemorating Alfredo Ormando, a 39-year-old Italian who set himself on fire there in 1998 to protest the church's austere position on homosexuality."
My comment: There was no need for him to set himself on fire. This is sad. As I said, "They should perhaps walk away, and not look back."
Maybe Jeff is right: "Let's invite them over for dinner and say an "Ave" with them."
I do not know.
==
I do not know what to do with the Rainbow Sash crowd. I mean, take a good look at them:
http://www.rainbowsashallianceusa.org/
Jeff, you are a true Christian; they ain't coming to my house for dinner. I suggest they all go settle over yonder on 'Brokeback Mountain'.
==
I am very sorry if I offended anybody.
==
Regarding Catholic modernists and liberals, Jeff wrote:
"They see something they are unwilling entirely to let go of, though they have ceased to have a real faith any longer. I suppose it may be better in a way than letting the thing go entirely."
I think you mainly correct, but sadly they do much damage to themselves and to the Church. We all need God. Your call to charity is most wise. Thanks!
==
Jeff & Paul:
1. Making the Jump
What is most telling is that you cannot even engage in an intellectual exercise of “what if.” – however hypothetical these are we can still learn from them. But neither of you can make the jump. Instead Jeff we get some pap about others being in essence sentimental fools in their faith - again a personalisation because you disagree with someone.
Remember the example used was the bodily ascension of Christ i.e. the disappearance in a puff – ironically the ascension isn’t actually an “ascension” or raising up … that’s a figurative description of the process and nor is it a reflection of the location of Heaven. I nice word nonetheless. Not trying to be tricky.
2. Let academic freedom reign
I have in essence outlined an argument in favour of academic freedom and intellectual curiosity in the discipline of theology that should be alive and vibrant. I have said that we can never be sure about the value of such work, even if you I might personally disagree with it. Consider.
I think Dr Behe is plain wrong in Intelligent Design (ID). I do not accept that this unorthodox theory should be taught in public school science classes. The orthodox position (evolution) should be taught as the accepted basis of the biological sciences. ID belongs in religion or philosophy classes. I do not condemn Dr Behe as a scientific heretic but yet I also know that if he were placed before a jury of his scientific peers they would probably find against him and we know a judge has already found against him. Yet even if he is probably wrong he just might be right (however unlikely) so therefore it is worth having the discussion even if it only serves confirms scientific orthodoxy.
I would make the same argument in regard to Noam Chomsky and countless others who might advance ideas I don’t agree with. Perhaps Dr Blosser tolerates a much narrower range of inquiry in theology that he would in philosophy because of the fervency of his personal faith. I simply don’t accept one should narrow academic freedom in this manner. I am sure if Drs Behe or Chomsky were banned from his campus philosophy class on the basis of their unorthodox views (and in Dr Behe’s case scientifically heretic position) Dr Blosser would leading the charge against this attack on academic freedom.
3. Is there a Catholic “reasoning” that omits best evidence?
Both Jeff and Dread wonder why one would consider that psychology (or any other discipline for that matter) has anything to say about a moral theory on human sexuality and whether this theory accords with the best evidence available on human sexuality in their field. More particularly from their judgement what might be the affect of this moral theory on a homosexual individual? The claim that such a moral theory is by its nature immune from any other analysis is breathtaking of course and smacks of a theocracy to me.
Cont...
To be Catholic does one have to check one’s critical reasoning ability at the door and ignore the insights that other disciplines might offer? Of course both Dread and Jeff are transparent on this matter – they actually know what other disciplines say and the overwhelming weight of evidence. It is curious that those who seek to impose a moral theory (developed for the adherents of their faith) in public policy and then claim immunity from analysis for same moral theory. If Dread outlines correctly the Catholic manner of reasoning that requires a blind eye to other evidence then I hope he never becomes a Judge himself (or gets to exercise any public power) and I would have to call into question the clear assurances of Robertson CJ and Alito soon to be AJ who I considered to be a credit to Catholicism and the profession.
Gentlemen when I attend evensong next Sunday I will prey for the secular society. [That should answer your question Jeff]
Atiyah, you've paraphrased me. I certainly do not, as a son of JPII and a Catholic, think one must check one's rational faculties at the door. Fides et ratio, etc. killed that secular myth.
"IMHO even our 'beloved' Mr. Dreadnought will perhaps change yet one more time his take on the issue before the decade is over - he certainly seems way to young to be done with sexuality for good"
I cannot change my 'take' on this issue. My take will always be Christ's take. Even if I did - God forbid - fall into apostasy, I'd have to balls to admit as much.
Catholicism isn't some new idea, the teachings on human sexuality are at least two thousand years old and mostly in keeping with Jewish and indeed pagan Greek understandings.
Really, you'd think sex was invented in the 60's!
Oh and Atiyah:
"Gentlemen when I attend evensong next Sunday I will prey[sic] for the secular society."
One could argue, being an Anglican, you're doing well enough as prey for secular society already! 
Ummm Dread my utterly utterly beautiful Evensong with a Dr of Music and his choir and organ and my KJV spoken so nicely and the sung Latin and no leftwing sermonising. It is a pitty the choir has shifted to a parish known to be frequented by homosexuals who as we all know as a general rule, have no artistic sensibilities
Since you raise the ancient Greeks I have often wondered how such a remarkable society, with its beauty and culture that produced such treasurers could get the fundamental relationship between men and woman so wrong. I am sure some Greek husbands loved their wives as equals despite prevailing cultural norms. I hope they loved their wives according to their [God] given natures. I guess this is the unwritten history of Greek civilisation. Such beauty and such travesty.
Have a care Dread: all that is old does not glitter.
And Dread the Choir is quite Catholic ... they occasionally visit the papists for a concert performance... just to show em how it's done
Perhaps Dr Blosser tolerates a much narrower range of inquiry in theology tha[n] he would in philosophy because of the fervency of his personal faith.
I would place a distinction here regarding your word "tolerates." What I tolerate in my classroom and and my blog is more or less the same: I tolerate absolutely no-holds-barred open discussion of any question and point of view relevant to the topic at hand, governed only by rules of common courtesy (see "Da Rulz"). What the Church tolerates as conforming to her teaching in Faith and Morals is a matter of public record. Thus, when those of us who are Catholic declare that "this is orthodox" and "that is heretical" or "this is moral" and "that is immoral," we are not merely giving our personal opinions but declaring the mind of the Church. It is not a matter to be taken "personally" but a mere statement of fact.
Now there may be gray areas, where there is some question about how the black-and-white principles are to be applied, and here there is room for some difference of interpretation. But it is simply untrue that all of Catholic moral teaching is a matter of personal interpretation "up for grabs." Hope this helps.
Peter Singer: Architect of the Culture of Death
http://www.catholiceducation.org...ics/
me0049.html
Princeton Bioethicist says only “Know-Nothing Religious Fundamentalists” will Value Human Life by 2040
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005...c/
05120205.html
==
"Ideas in Christianity as elsewhere often start off novel. Some are even declared heretical; some people even lose their lives for them. Then bit by bit the idea achieves the status of orthodoxy and other older ideas pass from orthodoxy to redefinition, retirement, disuse or are held to be wrong. Other ideas start off novel and remain so either through successful suppression or because they lack sense. This is part of the dynamism of Christianity."
I find this confusing and unclear. How does this relate to Catholic teachings concerning the sinfulness of homosexual acts? Can you explain? Does this document (see below) help?
"What the Church Teaches About Homosexuality
http://www.americancatholic.org/...s/CU/
ac0799.asp
by Richard Sparks, C.S.P."
==
"Contrary to what is normally alleged, the primary goals in seeking legalization of same-sex "marriage" are not financial or health benefits associated with marriage; nor are the goals the search for stability and exclusivity in a homosexual relationship. The principal objective in seeking same-sex "marriage" is not really even about rights.
The goal is to acquire a powerful psychological weapon to change society's rejection of homosexual activity and lifestyle into gradual, even if reluctant, acceptance."
"Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the state must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good."
http://www.wcr.ab.ca/bishops/
hen...nry011705.shtml
From: "A Shepherd Speaks
By BISHOP FRED HENRY
Calgary", Canada.
==
"Bishop won't retract anti-gay remarks
http://www.thecannon.ca/news_det...ils.php?
id=2024
by Sean Myers (Calgary Herald)".
==
Even with my eyes shut Atiyah, I'd be enamoured of the warmth
Paul:
I chose both Singer and Chomsky to make a point about academic freedom. Would Dr Blosser have Singer on Campus – you bet baby. I thought Singer might get the dander up.
Do you not accept the general proposition about Christian dynamism? What does my summation of this dynamism say about the Christian teaching on homosexuality? Well just as western liberal societies have changed the legal treatment of homosexuality so Christianity is in change on the issue – strap yourself in.
In the spirit of 450yrs of family Protestantism and one flight from religious persecution at the hands of the Catholic Church in northern Europe (long forgiven) here is my answer.
For my part I think the distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual acts is a philosophical artifice. One cannot condemn one without condemning the other and visa versa. Homosexual acts and the desire for them are an important part of what homosexuality is. Just as heterosexual acts and the desire for them are an important part of heterosexual orientation. That seems blindingly obvious to me. To cast homosexual acts as immoral on the basis of natural law is actually a tepid appeal to biology, and as such fails to address why homosexuality (both orientation and actions) is a constant in human sexuality since time immemorial i.e. God makes ‘em that way.
I don’t think any law, social, cultural or religious taboo can be shown to have any affect on the incidence of homosexuality. I wonder about the worth of continuing with a moral code that has been so demonstratably unsuccessful. I actually think that the distinction between orientation and action and a moral prohibition on actions is actually part of an older view of human sexuality that has largely passed into disuse. The notion that by incentivising one the most common expression of human sexuality and disincentivising the less common expression, homosexuals will seek the alternative heterosexual expression as an outlet. Much of the medicalisation of homosexuality proceeded on this basis through aversion therapies and the like. Not many now accept that sexual orientation is a learned behaviour and can be unlearned, not even the Church although there is a minor conversion industry operating in religious circles.
I think religion still has much to say on the issue of human sexuality: the importance of monogamy and the undesirability of promiscuity, the objectification of human sexuality, prostitution and the Catholic Church still has away to go on contraception and civil unions issue. But maintaining a moral code against homosexual acts between consenting and loving adults is not only futile and old fashioned but also harmful.
cont/....
As to Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary I would argue for his right to express his opinion and thank God that he wields no public power to put them into affect. I dislike these human rights commission regimes generally – we have one in my Country. I tend to favour freedom of expression highly and equality in and before the law. Aside from defamation I dislike laws against directed against free speech. Attempting to suppress the Bishop’s views through the law is probably counterproductive. Those favouring change in Canada are better to address the merits of his arguments however offensive they might find them. He does strike me as a ‘bit of a character’ and his style probably offends as many people as it impresses. They should consider that.
However I think the good Bishop fundamentally misunderstands the nature of politicians: they tend to follow broad public sentiment on the issue of the law reform of the communal affairs of homosexuals, not lead it. They do so because they gauge that however hotly some people may feel on the issue, insufficient number of voters will change their vote solely on the basis of the issue. That’s why such regimes don’t end up repealed on a change of government. In one way politicians are supremely honest little creatures.
Dr Blosser
I respond the the comboxes under "Dreadprovoked Dreadclarity of Rainbow Sash Sentiment" which is right on topic.
"...just as western liberal societies have changed the legal treatment of homosexuality so Christianity is in change on the issue – strap yourself in."
Yes, I understand it is good to wear a seat belt, in case of a crash. As far as I am concerned, Christianity in the West is heading for a fatal ten-car pile-up.
"To cast homosexual acts as immoral on the basis of natural law is actually a tepid appeal to biology, and as such fails to address why homosexuality (both orientation and actions) is a constant in human sexuality since time immemorial i.e. God makes ‘em that way."
I am not a philosopher, and I do not speak for the Church, but I thought natural law had also something to do with moral law, human nature and metaphysics, ethical goals of human action, reason, and the meaning of human existence; about God's will for us, our proper destiny. I have no doubt that God made all people, but I do not think he makes them 'sin'. Nature and nurture, and free will. Oh yes, and grace (the supernatural). Let us not forget the Evil One and his legions. And the Fall and its consequences.
Human beings do lots of immoral or destructive things to themselves and others, which can (in a twisted incorrect way) be 'justified' from the point of view of 'biology', social Darwinism, sociobiology, or whatever; for example, offensive warfare, murder, and so on. Water was made for life, but we humans use it as a waste dump for toxic chemical pollutants. We are poisoning our fellow beings and ourselves. Is this 'natural law', or a misuse of nature, an unnatural use of created being? One example of the misuse of human sexuality is the practice of homosexuality.
==
"I don’t think any law, social, cultural or religious taboo can be shown to have any affect on the incidence of homosexuality. I wonder about the worth of continuing with a moral code that has been so demonstratably unsuccessful."
On the other hand, how can so-called experts prove, beyond a doubt, that moral teachings, education, conditioning, "law, social, cultural or religious taboo" *do not* "have any affect on the incidence of homosexuality"? More importantly, how can you honestly say it has none on the practice of homosexuality? Your view of the human condition in this area seems fatalistic, and perhaps deterministic.
==
"I think religion still has much to say on the issue of human sexuality: the importance of monogamy and the undesirability of promiscuity, the objectification of human sexuality, prostitution [...]”.
To me this seems rather inconsistent of you. Why? For this reason: - Could not a person argue:
I know the issues, and ‘I don’t think any law, social, cultural or religious taboo can be shown to have any affect on the incidence of’ promiscuity, prostitution, or the objectification of human sexuality. These have been around since ‘time immemorial’. Given the high rates of divorce and infidelity/adultery, to insist on monogamy is obviously wrong and futile. In light of all this modern evidence, ‘I wonder about the worth of continuing with a [Christian] moral code that has been so unsuccessful’.
This is the same sort of mistaken argument that you made to falsely justify/rationalize the practice of homosexuality, and to contend that the Catholic Church must abandon God’s natural and revealed law opposing it.
Instead of rebelling against the Creator, I think we should obey Him instead, otherwise we will only ultimately harm and destroy ourselves; God knows and loves us, and shows us the path to Life. The Catholic Church must never abandon her wise teachings on this issue.
==
I wrote:
"Your view of the human condition in this area seems fatalistic, and perhaps deterministic."
More importantly, it also leaves no room for the transforming work of Jesus Christ - no room for the healing grace of God.
==
"Contrary to what is normally alleged, the primary goals in seeking legalization of same-sex "marriage" are not financial or health benefits associated with marriage; nor are the goals the search for stability and exclusivity in a homosexual relationship. The principal objective in seeking same-sex "marriage" is not really even about rights.
The goal is to acquire a powerful psychological weapon to change society's rejection of homosexual activity and lifestyle into gradual, even if reluctant, acceptance."
Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary was more correct than not in making this observation, but it sadly did not stop anything. In Canada, same-sex 'marriage' is now legal and practiced due to the passing of Bill C-38.
Following the passing of the same-sex 'marriage' law, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote:
"Unfortunately, there are also some Catholics who have promoted the redefinition of marriage, including politicians who have voted in its favour. In this regard, they are in dissent from the teaching of the Church as enunciated by the Holy Father and the Bishops. This is a serious and problematic matter."
http://www.cccb.ca/PublicStateme...nts.htm?
ID=1689
Why am I telling you all this? Because like those 'Catholics' who promoted or happily accepted same-sex 'marriage' in Canada, the Rainbow Sash Alliance crowd is also actively doing much the same evil and sin in the very heart of our Mother Church, destroying themselves and others, betraying our Lord, and leading foolish or unsuspecting souls astray.
The Rainbow Sash Alliance and countless other ‘Catholics’ are in open rebellion against the Creator - May the Lord have mercy and save. It is an immoral movement plain and simple. They have no right to receive the Body and Blood of Christ, no right to Communion. They must repent, or leave the Church. Please.
“This is a serious and problematic matter.”
==
"They must repent, or leave the Church. Please."
My opinion. Thanks!
==
Ooops. This is better:
"Your view of the human condition in this area seems too fatalistic, and perhaps too deterministic."
Thanks! God bless.
==
I don't think the gay marriage movement is primarily about asserting gayness or gay rights. It is centrally about families. The parents of gays see their children condemned to loneliness and promiscuity by a society that penalizes two men or two women sharing their lives. Knowing the blessings of marriage these parents want their children to share them too, according to their particular capacity as gays.
I agree with Borealis that natural law is about the things he says. It is a biologistic distortion of natural law that is appealed to to condemn gays and gayness, which I suppose is what Atiyah meant. The case for gay marriage (using the word 'marriage' in an analogical sense) can be made on natural law grounds.
Paul:
Gosh such bleakness such joylessness … “fatal ten-car pile-ups” “human beings doing lots of immoral or destructive things” “murder” “offensive warfare” poising water, twisted reasoning, and the end of civilisation in Canada too boot. And I’m accused of being fatalistic.
1. Natural Law
Regarding natural law; the use of it against homosexuality is really just an appeal to plumbing when shed of it’s philosophical finery. Try this natural law formulation.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”
Looks pretty good to me.
It follows as night follows day that in order to exercise the right to life, one must be alive and be free to love according to his or her true [God given] nature and consistent with the freedom of others.
That to objectify the expression of human sexuality and cast the significant other expression of human sexuality that has always been present as immoral is to attack the fundamental right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is an assault on the subjective dignity of every person and offends the principle of equity.
2. Murder and homosexuality have been around forever: we don’t accept murder.
What’s different about homosexuality as compared to promiscuity, the objectification of human sexuality, prostitution and let’s add in bestiality, incest, murder, and paedophilia for good measure as all of these have also been around since time immemorial?
Simple. Monogamous heterosexual and homosexual relationships built on love, can be demonstrated to be positive for the individuals concerned and society in general, the others don’t measure up. Legal and moral prohibitions against homosexuality can be shown to be harmful on the individuals and society in general. Legal and moral prohibitions against paedophilia can be demonstrated to be good for individuals and society in general, likewise prohibitions against murder and so on. Modern evidence is helpful that way.
A side from that, such comparisons are offensive and intended to be that way. Such comparisons are fundamentally de-humanising. In Iran two young men were publicly hanged for homosexual conduct – a similar rational was used to justify this barbarism.
Cont/….
The Iranian regime uses the same language against Jews and the State of Israel. If they can hang gay teenagers they can use nuclear weapons to rid the globe of Judaism.
I think you will also find that even though homosexuals may pay for their orientation with their life in Iran, there will continue to be homosexuals; they will continue to seek companionship with one another.
3. Did God make me a Lesbian Republican?
I can understand why Christianty maintains the distinction between homosexuals and their acts, and all this “we all have our crosses to bear” stuff. It’s hard to put into words how nonsensical it strikes me and most of my generation. Consider this anology:
Look being a Republican is unfortunate but it’s the act of voting Republican that is truly immoral. We say God has said you can be a Democrat and vote Democrat and a Republican who tries to vote Democrat but if you can’t vote Democrat you gotta abstain altogether.
Of course it ridiculous; the act of voting is an essential part of being a Republican or Democrat – it’s the whole point of it really. If you substitute “Republican” for homosexual and “Democrat” for heterosexual it is exactly the argument. While you are not declaring the Republican to be immoral per se (a tiny concession) you might as well be because voting Republican is what Republicans do; it’s there thing.
4. Canada oh Canada has introduced same-sex marriage
This rather proves my point. Tell me, there is a general election underway for the Canadian House of Commons; does same-sex marriage feature much in the campaign? Has Stephen Harper promised a repeal if he becomes PM as hopefully will be the case?
I suspect not. Life goes on for most people as before; most have real things to worry about. Looks like Bishop Fred might be wasting his time the horse is outta the stable already.
Thanks Atiyah for your wonderful posts.
A tiny glimpse into the mind of pro-Gay activism (in Canada)- a mind "committed to the struggle of lesbians and gay men for sexual liberation and human fulfillment":
"Something changed in Canada during the national debate over same-sex marriage. We now live in a new period of religious anger."
"Just imagine how hard it will be to get through future legislation on issues important to gays and lesbians, bisexuals and trans people. How much harder will we have to work to put shackles on Customs to stop them from targetting our books and bookstores? How much more difficult will it be to amend the sex laws to fully legalize bathhouses and ensure our youth have the right to choose how and when they express their sexuality? How much more troublesome will it be to amend Bill C-2 in future to add better protection for artists and writers doing work about coming out?
Can you imagine the battle about to take shape over allowing prostitutes to safely practice their trade? Imagine how these people will react to the idea of trans rights and a discussion about the artificial gender lines that our society has drawn and policed. How about marijuana laws? And how long before they start pressuring for changes to abortion laws, such as removing it from the list of medical procedures covered by health care? I can hardly wait for their future battles to get more socially conservative judges on the Supreme Court Of Canada. And just imagine the rhetoric we'll encounter as we try and get gay curriculum content and anti-homophobia education in the public school system."
http://www.xtra.ca/public/
viewst...B_TEMPLATE_ID=1
From: "Christian right sets up shop
ANALYSIS / Welcome to post-SSM trench warfare".
==
"Christian right sets up shop
ANALYSIS / Welcome to post-SSM trench warfare
Gareth Kirkby / Capital Xtra / Thursday, July 14, 2005"
==
grega wrote:
"No way, that the majority of gays will be willing and able to live the kind of life (and lie IMHO) that our church requests from them. [...]
Let the gays focus on healthy loving relationships just like the rest of us. [...]"
Atiyah wrote:
"Monogamous [...] homosexual relationships built on love, can be demonstrated to be positive for the individuals concerned and society in general [...].
To be continued...
==
Continued…
Pat Croteau wrote:
"After years of hard work it seems the equal marriage battle has been won. Around me people are cheering this historic occasion, but I find it hard to join in wholeheartedly.
I have supported the fight for equal marriage because I knew many couples who wanted the right to marry, and because marriage became the fulcrum upon which the future of gay rights in Canada rested: either we would take a big leap forward or a big leap back. As I attended the rallies, however, it struck me how often my family was excluded from the "party line.""
"Many people are single, and some people - like me - have multiple relationships.
Not everyone wants marriage. Polyamory is alive and well in Canada [...]. Some people dislike marriage for its historical and social context. To many of us this emphasis on "equal marriage" seems a step back to the 1950s nuclear family, and a very stifling step back."
"While I admire the many people who fought for our rights in the struggle for same-sex civil marriage, and I understand the strategic decision to concentrate all efforts on this one cause, we must now take stock of those left behind."
"Speaking as a gay man, I have no shame in the history of gay men as "sexual outlaws" nor in the diversity of our sexual practices and relationships today. I am proud of my family of three men, and I am unashamed of my own sexuality."
"My own priority is the fight for removal of sex-negative laws and attitudes, as well as a greater acceptance of sexual diversity. [...]."
From: "What about respecting polyamorous gays?
http://www.xtra.ca/public/
viewst...B_TEMPLATE_ID=1
Pat Croteau / Capital Xtra / Thursday, July 14, 2005".
==
The horse may be out of the stable, but surely it still needs to be fed and watered, and, at least as a domestic horse, it still needs a place to come home to at night. Turn it round for a minute. Does the fact that all the people are out of a burning house mean that we should stop trying to put it out?
The Rainbow Sash Alliance, and all the many so-called 'Catholics' everywhere that support the Gay rights movement, are in my opinion collectively not much more than a 'Trojan Horse' within the Church.
I believe Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary was more correct than not. Catholics need to understand the Gay rights movement for what it really is, its agendas, and how it operates.
==
For my part I think the distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual acts is a philosophical artifice. One cannot condemn one without condemning the other and visa versa.
I'm so glad to hear you say that. As a member of Rapists Anonymous who keeps falling off the chastity wagon, I've been trying to find a way to improve my sense of self-esteem. Thank goodness for the gift of your insight! Now I don't have to put up with a double-life. I used to feel that my inclinations were innocent, because they were involuntary, while it was only wrong to entertain those inclinations. But now you've given me the freedom of Christian Liberty to wallow in my inclinations, to savor them, because I know they're a part of who I am. God made me the way I am, and God don't make junk: I'm a rapist and proud of it!
Fr. O'Leary writes: "I don't think the gay marriage movement is primarily about asserting gayness or gay rights. It is centrally about families."
I'm touched by your compassion. However, I can't escape the obvious: it's the sort of "compassion" about which Walker Percy's priest goes off on a rant in the closing pages of Thanatos Syndrome -- the kind of compassion that's apiece with a vision that sanctions a holocaust of the most helpless and vulnerable of our species: the unborn. Percy's work is a novel, but his logic is as tight as the philosopher, Janet Smith's.
It is a biologistic distortion of natural law that is appealed to to condemn gays and gayness... The case for gay marriage ... can be made on natural law grounds.
Calling the earth flat doesn't flatten it. We've been through this before, and you've never come forth with anything more than smoke and mirrors in support of this claim.
I don't personally think that the natural law argument against homosexuality is the only argument or even the strongest one that has been made on strictly rational philosophical grounds. But I do think it's a fairly daunting, if simple argument.
How is it a biologistic distortion of natural law to say that a thing ought to be treated according to its nature so that it prospers, and that the natural purpose of genitalia are ineluctibly procreative? (See my excursus, Answering Robert W. Jensen On Contraception.")
On the other hand, more phenomenologically immediate and powerful arguments can be made in terms of Pope John Paul II's "language of the body," according to which the male and female bodies themselves are perceived as phenomenologically imprinted with a nuptual signification -- each incomplete in itself. John Paul even goes so far as to re-think the meaning of the imago Dei as having been much too individualistically conceived heretofore, suggesting that its complete meaning can only be found in the nuptual union of male and female. I but scratch the surface. But the resources, which are treasures, are there to be read.
Rapist Anonymous:
My my your reasoning is exactly that same as those neo-caths who argue that homosexuality is akin to murder. I can only assume that you are what you appear. Aside from choosing the wrong analogy you also appear to be unable to read – see my above comments that distinguish homosexuality from ever other manner of evil you care to nominate.
In bigger picture one knows when an argument for a moral code is intellectually bankrupt when it is advanced by a self confessed rapist.
What a disservice you do to Catholicism.
What an odd discussion. How did we get to the place where so many are confused over whether man was designed to ejaculate into another man's rectum; whether that is a good thing or not?
I suppose unrepented murder will send one to hell just as or more effectively than unrepented sodomy. But the last I checked, there wasn't an active and effective lobby to legitimize murder (well, with the exception of abortion and euthanasia, that is). If that wasn't the case (serious societal movement to legitimize and embrace), I wouldn't be nearly so focused on it...and I suspect the Church at large would not be, either.
Shouldn't the Church be concerned with addressing those points at which temporal values clash most seriously with eternal truth? And shouldn't the Church illuminate clearly and compassionately those truths that line the narrow road to heaven?
Is there any question that sodomy is a mortal sin (under the requisite conditions, of course)? Then how is it authentically compassionate and loving to confirm anyone in it? Doesn't love move one to lead a brother or sister from danger?
How is it genuinely compassionate to allow confusion and ignorance to reign so that others may fall into serious sin?
It strikes me that there seems to be a pattern in regard to homosexuality and other similarly damaging behavioral perversions: an overabundance of societal wealth breeds many moral hazards including the tendency to delude man into believing himself self-sufficient, which, combined with a loss of the sense of the eternal and sacred robs him of what all men require: a sense of real meaning and purpose.
This lack of meaning and purpose then drives man to find ways overcome the numbness, to temporarily experience a rush of adrenaline and endorphins to cover over the quiet desperation that is his life, including drug abuse, gambling, body piercing and deviant sexual practices.
Do we see a drive for recognizing homosexual relationships in the third world?
"Truly I tell you: a rich man will find it hard to enter the kingdom of Heaven. I repeat, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Interpretations of such texts by the truly heterodox like the disembodied "Spirit of Vatican II" tell us so much more about their own psyche than anything else, really. It's almost as if they are psychological exhibitionists.
For the most committed exhibitionists, perhaps the best response is to ignore them...thus removing the perceived pay-off for their perverse behavior.
Maybe Dreadnought is right, after all.
Dreadnought is a great exhibitionist!
Commenting by HaloScan
