Here's Jimmy Akin's take on the issue. The LA Times article skewed what the pastor really said, even though it still appears that the priest is trying to force standing. I for one would "disobey".
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/
05...t.html#comments
Isn't there a circle of the Inferno where the damned have to walk backwards on their knees forever? If there is not such a place, it should be invented for pastors who try to force their flock to stand (at the checkout) when receiving Jesus.
"Woe unto you, scribes! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." (Luke 11:52)
Dante (unfairly, I think) classed as simonists all priests who used their position as a way to gain temporal power, or, rather, who conceived of their position as in fact one of temporal power. He'd have to change the terms of his argument considerably, but I think he'd place all clerics who violate the distinction between the sacred and the secular with the simonists, in the third pocket of Malebolge, the eighth circle of Hell (the fraudulent). Those clerics are thrust upside down into holes in the ground reminiscent of baptismal fonts; the soles of their feet are slicked with oil and lit afire. It is a stunning inversion of the sacrament of Baptism.
In general I think people ought to obey the bishop, even when the bishop is a dunce.... But it's interesting, isn't it? Do you suppose the priests in LA have spent any time at all preaching against, um, fornication? or contraception? or divorce? or any number of other popular sins? But hey, those are all pardonable. Now, kneeling after the Agnus Dei, there you're talking real rebellion.
Misplaced the following in Popophobe thread:
Pb, this is merely one priest. But what of Popes who tell people that what they are doing is mortally sinful when it is not? In that case, does the papal decree, even if mistaken, make the matter mortally sinful?
I am thinking, of course, of the decrees against usury in the 16th century, which made normal banking practices we now find totally innocent a mortal sin meriting excommuniction.
I am also thinking of Humanae Vitae. On the Pelikan thread, you told me a competent canon lawyer can explain why the bulls against lending at interest have not the same authority as Humanae Vitae. Can you give a link to such a lawyer? Can you explain why the three solemn bulls of Pius V and Sixtus IV were not as solemn and authoritative as the encyclical of Paul VI?
Perhaps you will say that the theologians got around those bulls by declaring them part of positive papal law rather than permanent natural law -- but this is a ploy that runs against the letter of the bulls, much as the Canadian bishops' reception of Humanae Vitae as a papal opinion that Catholics were free to follow or not as they chose runs counter to the letter of the encyclical. It is hard to see how the 16th century popes could have made it any clearer that they were determining a disputed point of natural law.
The point is that even the most solemn utterances of the papacy on moral matters have been corrected by laity's and theologians' non-reception. Development moves in the direction of deepening moral insight, as JP2 stresses, but there are a lot of bumps on the way!
Maybe if he faced the congregation and THEN knelt. . . .
Given the fact that current Church emphasis is that more people likely go to Heaven than Hell, it seems evident that mortal sin is a term thrown around very carelessly. In truth, who here believes that disobeying a Bishop on a pont such as liturgical obedience is a mortal sin? Or missing mass? If the latter is the case, most Catholics are indeed going to Hell, since mass and confession are both widely disregarded. Unless the oist-death confession idea holds, which makes all the discussion rather comically moot.
Well, mortal sin is a bit much, isn't it?
Still, they are openly and publicly defying both the bishop and Rome--and they are wrong to do so.
1. The rubrics say that the faithful should stand.
2. Because of the widespread custom in the US, the Bishops' Conference asked for and received an indult to kneel after the Agnus Dei.
3. HOWEVER, the indult's language includes this phrase: The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.
The sinfulness in question does not, thankfully, have to with kneeling. It's a question of ecclesiastical obedience--of whether people obey their favorite blogger first and bishop second, or, as is correct, the Pope and their Bishop. They are not supposed to kneel at that time under that bishop after he has made that decision--that is the law! From Rome!
Hey Kath, suppose a bishop determined that only males were acceptable as EMHCs, lectors, and altar servers? Would our favorite blogger still be nattering about "ecclesiastical obedience"? Well, sure she would.
Ralph, let's try to stay within the bounds of reality, shall we?
By the way, I should confess that I have my little rebellion. When the Blessed Sacrament is exposed after Communion for Adoration that will begin immediately after Mass, I don't stand up with everyone else for the Prayer after Communion, but remain kneeling.
Isn't that awful?
But a few weeks ago there were all these children present at Mass, and I didn't want to confuse them, so I stood up.
Call me Jimmy Dean (or Jemimah might be better.)
The only bounds in this case are those of sheer arbitrariness, so I think my supposition is on point.
Ralph, is it just me or are you grumpier than usual?
I've thought long and hard about this, Kathy. I've spent long moments in solitude, anguishing over this problem, analyzing it from every conceivable angle. The effort has left me exhausted, but at last I have my answer:
Absolutely, it's you.
Kathy:
I don't have an exact quote from His Holiness, but at one point he wrote that the Church dims her witness when what was right and proper and laudable for 1500 years is suddenly illegal, without cause.
Kneeling has a definite history in the Church. When the American bishops asked for and received permission to continue kneeling, they respected the need for reverence. Now, ordering us, sometimes on pain of mortal sin, to stand for the community is the height of absurdity.
Under what conditions may we ignore God so as to favor the community?
Under what conditions may we ignore God so as to favor the community?
Chris, under what conditions does it have to be either/ or?
Sorry to have put your angst in a sling, Mr. Roister-Doister.
Apparently Fr. Tran did tell parishioners that it is a mortal sin to kneel where Bishop Brown wants everyone to stand, and apparently Rome doesn't have a problem if people want to continue to kneel in spite of the bishop's ruling/request.
http://closedcafeteria.blogspot....eling-
heat.html
Kathy,
My angst is slingless and fancy free at the moment. If the hockey hicks of Carolina defeat the Buffalo Sabres tonight, that may change, but probably not.
***
Would someone like to explain to me what the inarticulate Fr Tran might have meant by the following:
"These have to be changed. Fr. Sy and I were appointed by the Bishop, working together with the Bishop to re-establish the liturgical norms at St. Mary's to be in line with the current liturgical norms of the Church in America and of the Diocese (allowed by Rome). And this binds all with total obedience."
Help ho, an insurrection afoot!
I haven't heard Goodfella argot like this since the days when they were spanking us for not embracing the Novus Ordo in the first place. All this lacks is a few dese, dem and dose.
"See here. I'm gonna break your knees. Real slow, see?"
At my parish in LA most people still kneel before Communion, but I stand because if I wish the local prince of the church, Crd. Mahony, to stick to the rules, then I should too. Unfortunately, our Cardinal Archbishop has yet to draw any lessons from my obedience to him.
Kathy:
One needn't choose, if one first gives God his due. Love of God is lived out in love of neighbor. Love of neighbor, in itself, however, doesn't lead to love of God.
Chris, I agree in principle--although I think for some people it is possible to find love for God through loving other people.
Incidentally, I think that singing is one of those activities in which the two are combined very nicely. We sing to God, with each other--and the whole activity is very charitable and rightly ordered.
1. I would love to read a reply by PB to Spirit of Vatican II regarding usury.
2. Is this perhaps just a problem of nitpicking and legalism that has plagued the Western Catholic Church for centuries? I can only think that the bishop and priests involved are moronic for censuring the faithful for kneeling in front of the Lord. And frankly if the Vatican is backing them, perhaps the Cardinals are moronic also.
"Dana Parsons:
Venial Issue, Mortal Response
http://www.latimes.com/news/colu...ack=1&
cset=true
May 31, 2006
L.A. Times"
==
"I am thinking, of course, of the decrees against usury in the 16th century, which made normal banking practices we now find totally innocent a mortal sin meriting excommuniction."
Indeed, today there are probably a great deal of normal banking practices that are mortal sins.
Fr. O'Leary is understandably confused about a complicated issue, and he, an advocate of sodomitic perversions in the name of love so-called, seeks to confuse others about the issue in the interest of getting more people to reject what the Church has always believed and always will believe about human sexuality. He thinks that because the Church's doctrine regarding usury has developed logically and consistently, it is possible that the Church's doctrine regarding homosexuality can and will change illogically and inconsistently.
For those who are genuinely interested in the Catholic Church's doctrine regarding usury, you still can't beat the old Catholic Encyclopedia's explanation of usury and interest:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/
08077a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/
15235c.htm
Excuse me, Jordan, but it is you who appear to be confused. The links you post do not address the fact that development on this issue in the sixteenth century took place with a "bump" in the form of erroneous papal bulls. All the links have that is remotely connected with the issue I raised is this:
"Theologians and canonists of the Middle Ages constructed a rational theory of the loan for consumption, which contains this fundamental statement: The mutuum, or loan of things meant for immediate consumption, does not legalize, as such, any stipulation to pay interest; and interest exacted on such a loan must be returned, as having been unjustly claimed. This was the doctrine of St. Thomas and Scotus; of Molina, Lessius, and de Lugo. Canonists adopted it as well as the theologians; and Benedict XIV made it his own in his famous Encyclical "Vix pervenit" of 1 November, 1745, which was promulgated after thorough examination, but addressed only to the bishops of Italy, and therefore not an infallible Decree. On 29, July, 1836, the Holy Office incidentally declared that this Encyclical applied to the whole Church; but such a declaration could not give to a document an infallible character which it did not otherwise possess. The schismatic Greeks, at least since the sixteenth century, do not consider the taking of interest on loans as intrinsically bad."
EVEN THIS seems to admit that Benedict XIV's later decree was mistaken -- else why insist on its non-infallibility?
In any case the issue here has nothing to do with infallibility but with change in non-infallible official catholic moral doctrine. If the non-infallible papal decrees of the past on usury were dropped as mistakes, the same destiny is perfectly likely to overtake Humanae Vitae (if it has not already done s).
why oh why do these liturgical threads keep getting hijacked by completely unrelated questions?
Kathy:
I agree about singing, to a point. I once had a well-meaning CCD teacher insist that either the Ave Maria be sung in English or that every one of the children be allowed to sing along. We were discussing Schubert's Ave Maria. Sometimes we participate through association instead of our own vocalization.
That's hilarious.
But there are some times--not to distort by exaggeration--when "full conscious and active participation" means personally participating with one's own voice. Not by any kind of proxy, but personally. This is why hymns have always been part of the liturgy of the hours, and why many past reforms of the liturgy have been aimed at simplifying music that had gone too far into the choir loft for congregational participation.
"EVEN THIS seems to admit that Benedict XIV's later decree was mistaken -- else why insist on its non-infallibility?"
It may or may not admit that Benedict XIV's encyclical was mistaken. It may be saying that his encyclical was correct when understood against the background a different economic structures. But it certainly wasn't infallible, which means that it could have been mistaken.
"In any case the issue here has nothing to do with infallibility but with change in non-infallible official catholic moral doctrine."
You're wrong again, as usual. We're talking about infallible official Catholic moral doctrine, not something that is non-infallible. There's not a snowball's chance in hecky-ity-heck that the Church will ever say, "Oops, looks like there are times when sodomy is a commendable and loving thing after all. Sorry 'bout that folks!"
"If the non-infallible papal decrees of the past on usury were dropped as mistakes, the same destiny is perfectly likely to overtake Humanae Vitae (if it has not already done so)."
Assuming, of course, that the teaching in Humanae Vitae is non-infallible. I'm not aware of a single orthodox Catholic who holds that opinion of HV. And I can't imagine where any Catholic priest would get the notion that HV may already have been dropped as a mistake. Where's the paper trail to back that up? Where are the papal or conciliar constitutions or encyclicals canceling the teaching in HV? Where are the decrees from the CDF signed off on by the Pope? We can see the development in the usury doctrine. Where is the record of the "development" in the Catholic doctrines of sexual morality that you seek?
Ugh.
take this up at the popophobia thread, Jordan, please.
I know of no sensible Catholic theologians who claims Humanaw Vitae is infallible, any more than the equally solemn -- but incorrect -- decisions of Pius V and Sixtus IV on modern financial practices which they condemned as mortally sinful.
On what you call sodomy the discussion has not even begun in the RCC. In other churches, as you can see, open discussion has led to significant modification of traditional teaching -- seen as a development on the basis of scriptural principle.
Theres a disease in these comment boxes. Every discussion on every topic seems to have to lead to a debate on homosexuality.
It seems that some people want to debate issues and some others want to push agendas not under discussion.
Very annoying.
"take this up at the popophobia thread, Jordan, please."
But you said your comments on this topic would be misplaced in that thread. Of course, they're also misplaced in this thread. But it's long been known what your main concern is.
"I know of no sensible Catholic theologians who claims Humanae Vitae is infallible,"
It's apparently not ex cathedra, but it certainly does hand on doctrines that are infallible in the ordinary magisterium.
"any more than the equally solemn -- but incorrect -- decisions of Pius V and Sixtus IV on modern financial practices which they condemned as mortally sinful."
Just because you say something is incorrect doesn't make it so, Father.
"On what you call sodomy the discussion has not even begun in the RCC."
Just as the discussion hasn't begun about the Holy Trinity or the Two Natures. There's nothing to discuss, because there's no chance the Church's doctrines of the Trinity or the Incarnation are incocrrect, just as there's no chance that the Church's doctrine that homosexual acts are objective sinful might be incorrect.
"In other churches, as you can see, open discussion has led to significant modification of traditional teaching -- seen as a development on the basis of scriptural principle."
We're Catholics. We pay attention to what Truth tells us, not what heretics and schismatics say and do. If some religious group cut off from the visible unity of the Church abandons a teaching of the Apostolic Faith, that means they've gone astray, not that we should do what they have don.
Father:
Who is a sensible Catholic theologian? Names, please, so I that I might learn.
Sorry folks -- nothing stops you discussing kneeling if you have anything to say.
The reception of Humanae Vitae by the Episcopal Conferences certainly does not entail any recognition of its infallibility or any claim of such infallibility by the ordinary magisterium for itself -- just look at what the Canadian Bishops wrote -- they treat HV as an expression of papal opinion, nothing more.
For incorrect papal teaching on usury, slavery etc., I am not the authority here, but the scholars like Noonan who have spent their lives studying this matter. There is actually no serious dispute about this among historians, only among radical fundamentalists of the Mike Liccione stamp who want to hold that the church has never altered its official teaching on anything. Well there is also Cardinal Dulles who says the Church did not alter her teaching on slavery because the Church still considers slavery compatible with divine and natural law. The is the more paradoxical form of historical parmenideanism -- to deny that the Church is teaching what she teaches today on the basis that she did not teach it in the 14th century; but it is equally absure to claim that the church did not teach in the past the things that embarrass us today.
It is incorrect to say the doctrine of the Trinity has not been discussed. There was intense discussion for three centuries until its final formulation at Constantinople 381, and likewise for the two natures of Christ until the final formulation of 451. Both formulations themselves delimit a "horizon" rather than pin down the mysteries in adequate categories, leaving the field open for 1500 further years of rich theological debate.
In contrast, discussion on homosexuality and gay/lesbian experience in Christendom was made impossible by the Inquisition. The poverty of what was attempted is on display in the book "The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology" by medieval scholar Mark Jordan.
Homosexuality found its way onto this thread in a rude posting of Jordan Potter. The theme of pastors falsely telling their flock things are mortally sinful is quite relevant to the thread's theme. Classic examples are the sixteenth century popes who told people involved in innocuous modern financial culture that they were mortal sinners and excommunicated; those with access to subtle theologians found their way out of the resultant moral bind. Today the same thing has happened with contraception. What you see in a parody in the kneeling controversy you see writ large in these other more important cases.
Christ has a LOT to say about religious authorities who tyrannize over people's consciences -- that is what we are discussing here, isn't it? Not just our esthetic preferences about kneelers and prie-dieus?
Really very annoying.
Like a broken record.
Annoying. Like a broken record.
"Homosexuality found its way onto this thread in a rude posting of Jordan Potter."
We've had enough experience with you that it's readily apparent that when you bring up usury, you're just rehash your argument that the Church is wrong about sex.
"just look at what the Canadian Bishops wrote -- they treat HV as an expression of papal opinion, nothing more."
If that's true, then there is a de facto schism between the Church and the Canadian bishops. Papal encyclicals are hardly just expressions of papal opinion. I think Catholic schools might even teach so elementary a fact of the Catholic faith as that. (And yes, I was already aware of the Canadian bishops' wholly inadquate and incorrect response to HV. But the problems in the Canadian Church aren't a secret either.)
"Well there is also Cardinal Dulles who says the Church did not alter her teaching on slavery because the Church still considers slavery compatible with divine and natural law."
The teaching developed, but the development was consistent and coherent, not contradicting but complementing what went before. Hence, as Cardinal Dulles correctly notes, the Church has not started believing that slavery is not compatible with divine and natural law. Well, some confused or uninformed or misinformed Catholics might believe that, including some bishops or priests.
"It is incorrect to say the doctrine of the Trinity has not been discussed."
Sorry, but I don't see any such "discussion" going on the Catholic Church today. And even the "discussion" in the Church leading up to Nicaea and Constantinople had to do with protecting what the Church had always believed, not switching over to contrary beliefs as you think the Church should do.
"The theme of pastors falsely telling their flock things are mortally sinful is quite relevant to the thread's theme."
You're comparing kneeling in worship of God with the use of contraception or homosexual acts or charging usury. Surely you can see the difference between kneeling and those other things?
Maybe the reason Spirit of Vatican II keeps bringing up homosexuality is because he is a homosexual himself?
Jordan,
I thought I had the rude fundie title all wrapped up! Congratulations on your stunning upset victory.
Ralph
"Christ has a LOT to say about religious authorities who tyrannize over people's consciences"
I didn't realize that Christ had made any public statements regarding Novus Ordo and post-V2 implementations.
Or the reinvention of sacraments such as confession and extreme unction.
Or everything the USCCB has said for the past twenty some years.
"I thought I had the rude fundie title all wrapped up! Congratulations on your stunning upset victory."
Thanks. Guess I'm just having a good couple of days here. :-D
Father:
Theologians? I promise not to bring up homosexuality or anything else, but please respond to such a simple question.
Of course it is a much graver matter to condemn contraception or taking interest on money as mortally sinful, than to make ridiculous decrees about kneeling.
Taking interest on loans is not now regarded as a mortal sin. The Popes who insisted on saying it was a mortal sin put an intolerable burden on conscience. The theologians of the time treated their bulls as just papal opinion just as many encyclicals of modern popes (e.g. John XXIII on the revival of Latin) have rightly been so treated. If the Canadian bishops are in schism (along with the French, the Dutch, the Japanese, the Indonesian etc. -- there is quite a long list of liberal episcopal responses) the papacy should have expressed disagreement with their responses. In fact the papacy did not reject any of the episcopal responses. Just as in the 19th century the extreme utterances of Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors were explained away by Msgr Dupanloup, later thanked by the Pope, so HV has de facto been modified in episcopal reception.
Sensible theologians do not believe that Humanae Vitae is infallible. Who are these sensible theologians? Well, the vast majority of moral theologians (Haring, Curran, V McNamara, R Gallagher, S O'Riorda, E McDonagh, R McCormack, J Fuchs, P Hannon) and the vast majority of dogmatic theologians (even J. Ratzinger if I mistake not).
Now, Chris, since you love asking questions, please for once answer one:
You keep saying that you became a Roman Catholic because the Pope gives absolutely certain answers to your questions. But how come so many papal decisions -- pronounced with equal or greater solemnity to those on female ordination and contraception which you particularly cherish -- have been diametrically opposed to the truth. I refer in particular to historical teachings on 1. slavery, 2. torture (Ad Extirpanda), and 3. the subjection of secular authorities to the See of Peter (Unam Sanctam).
As you are a professor of history, and have access to a university library, and can Google, please do not plead ignorance but give me a mature and reflective answer to what remains for most Catholics a difficult question.
In advance of the 1969 decision on the form of the revision of the Roman Missal, a preliminary draft of two sections was published. The section containing the almost unvarying part of the Mass, in English called the Ordinary of the Mass, is in Latin called Ordo Missae. To distinguish this from the Ordo Missae of the previous (1962) edition of the Missal, it was naturally referred to in Latin as the "novus Ordo Missae", "novus" being Latin for "new". Pope Paul VI could and did refer to this section, when still new, as "the new Ordinary of the Mass" ("novus Ordo Missae") in the speech in which, on 24 May 1976, he declared that "use of the new Ordinary of the Mass is by no means left to the whim of priests or faithful ...
The Pope has spoken and Save St.Mary's
protesters are unfaithful to the Pope.
Who needs a Pope when you have Bush: ""Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society," the president said. "Government, by recognising and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.""
No one in their senses can argue with that.
One of Bush's buddies has told the world that the Prezzie doesn't give a fiddler's about gay marriage, it's just politics as usual for him.
I bet he doesn't give a fiddler's about Iraqi freedom either, it's just flimflam, flimflam, flimflam.
oops, "whatever you do Basil, don't mention the war!"
On slavery, I see Chris has answered my question on the "Anglican bishop shows spine" thread. He agrees with Card. Dulles that slavery is not incompatible with divine law, and that Vatican II or John Paul II never said it was. Now by tortured Dullesian hermeneutics you can perhaps make the letter of Vatican II concord with such a claim, but not I think the
Perhaps Chris will also argue that the Church does not teach that torture is incompatible with natural law either?
Perhaps he will argue a la Jordan Potter and New Catholic that secular governments could still in principle be subject to the papal throne and that if the world were ruled by Catholic monarchs the Pope would rightly enjoy the power to depose them?
Or he may surprise me.
Just posted this http://
josephsoleary.typepad.com...lesh_and_t.html
I know of no sensible Catholic theologians who ...
Pardon me. I see I forgot to define 'sensible' above. The term 'sensible' as used by me here may be defined ostensibly by reference to that august body of truly enlightened Catholic theologians who's luminescent opinion conforms to that of the "Spirit of Vatican II," a.k.a. Fr. Joseph "I AM MAGISTERIAL" O'Leary, and, above all, all those good and descent scholars who agree with me, myself and I.
Father O'Leary:
Before I try to answer your question, let me put myself on hold: we are leaving town within the hour to drive to see my ailing in-laws. (Dad suffered a stroke about a fortnight ago, but is holding steady with halting speech.
A correction, Father: I'm not a University anything except graduate. I teach at a K-12 Catholic school. On campus, when I'm there, we have no internet access at all. I could certainly "Google" stuff from my home computer, or simply search for it in any reputable library, and so I will endeavor to do so when I return from my trek. In the mean time, please don't take my inability to respond as an unwillingness to accept your challenge. Please pray for us as we travel, and for my in-laws, that they may be healthy.
Somehow this kind of 'controversy'reminds me of the many biblical passages where the Pharisees accuse Jesus of all kinds of violation ot he religious laws of the time.
for example
Matthew 12:10; Mark 3:2, John 9:14–16
For me this parish Priest very much fills the role of those Pharisees.
As far as I am concerned one can kneel the whole service if one wishes.
There is no defending a document like Ad Extirpanda. I'll let someone else tackle the question of its implications for the doctrine of Infallibility. My question is whether as Catholics we need to beat ourselves up over this. Do we share in the guilt of the medieval torturers and dungeon masters? Do we owe the world an apology for this dark side of the Church's history?
I've been thinking a lot about this question. It occurs to me that in everyday life we do apologize for those we love. We apologize for family members when they do bad things. If my kid hits a baseball through a neighbor's window, I make him apologize, but I also apologize FOR him. In this light, we Catholics probably do owe the world an apology for the vile acts perpetrated by many of our priests in recent years. But do we owe the world an apology for the Inquisition? It seems that we are too far removed from these events to feel genuine contrition. We are too much dependent in our knowledge of the crimes in question on a wide variety of historical interpretations. (I haven't actually read Ad Extirpanda -- I can't find the text on line.) IMHO, we don't know enough to offer a truly heartfelt apology.
" I know of no sensible Catholic theologians who ...
"Pardon me. I see I forgot to define 'sensible' above. The term 'sensible' as used by me here may be defined ostensibly by reference to that august body of truly enlightened Catholic theologians who's luminescent opinion conforms to that of the "Spirit of Vatican II," a.k.a. Fr. Joseph "I AM MAGISTERIAL" O'Leary, and, above all, all those good and descent scholars who agree with me, myself and I.
Fr. Bojangles | Homepage | 06.06.06 - 7:53 am | # "
Pb, how can you be so frivolous. The theologians I listed are simply the mainstream moral and dogmatic theologians of the Catholic Church today. If you regard them all as not-sensible, could it not suggest that it is your position rather than mine that is eccentric? There is a minority who claim that the prohibition of artificial contraception is infallible -- the school of Grisez -- but they have quite failed to persuade the wider Catholic community of good and decent scholars or bishops or laity.
Phil Blosser as usual indulges in heavy-handed humor but carefully refuses to state his own position. Does he in fact regard the prohibition of contraception as INFALLIBLE teaching (not the same thing as true teaching, please note).
Perhaps he is misled by Garry Wills who says that Ad Tuendam Fidem claims that this teaching is infallible. I don't think Ad Tuendam Fidem does any such thing. If it did it would be a remarkable instance of "creeping infallibility" and would not stand up to theological testing. The organs of infallibility are wisely limited by the Church to the Pope speaking ex cathedra, to a general Council and to the ordinary magisterium of the bishops worldwide. Ad Tuendam Fidem is not put forward as an infallible document itself so it cannot be cited as making another doctrine infallible, even if it actually attempted to do so, which it does not. A fanatical lobby has pushed for infallible definition of Humanae Vitae and of Mary's mediatorship of all graces, co-redemptorship and status as Queen of Heaven. Ratzinger is perhaps the person most responsible for the fact that their demand has NOT been met.
AD TUENDAM FIDEM quote the new
Canon 750 – § 1. Those things are TO BE BELIEVED BY DIVINE AND CATHOLIC FAITH which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.
§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be FIRMLY ACCEPTED AND HELD; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.
NOT THAT HUMANAE VITAE WOULD COME UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH HERE RATHER THAN THE FIRST, REFLECTING THE WELL-KNOWN DISTINCTION BETWEEN TRUTHS OF FAITH THAT ARE SEEN AS INFALLIBLE AND OF THE ESSENCE OF CATHOLIC ORTHODOXY, AND NON-INFALLIBLE TRUTHS TO BE RECEIVED WITH A RELIGIOSUM OBSEQUIUM. Humanae Vitae is among the latter.
To a non-theologian or a new Catholic such distinctions will seem tenuous, but those who have a taste for theology and who have lived with this system their whole lives will appreciate their importance.
Not that Humanae Vitae SHD BE Note that Humanae Vitae
The second paragraph of the Profession of Faith (which many Catholics would refuse to sign) states: "I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals."
Ad Tuendam Fidem may try to raise these to infallible status when it states: "THis second paragraph of the Profession of faith is of utmost importance since it refers to truths that are necessarily connected to divine revelation. These truths, in the investigation of Catholic doctrine, illustrate the Divine Spirit’s particular inspiration for the Church’s deeper understanding of a truth concerning faith and morals, with which they are connected either for historical reasons or by a logical relationship." But again this is not a necessary implication of Ad Tuendam Fidem's text. If it were, we would have to say that the rightness of torture and slavery and the mortal sinfulness of lending at interest are truths necessarily connected to divine revelation, which is absurd. No, Humanae Vitae is NON-INFALLIBLE church teaching.
Sorry to go on at such length to prove the obvious.
Gays in the liturgy? From the proposed new translation of the Roman Canon:
Be pleased to look upon them
with a serene and kindly gaze
and to accept them,
as you were pleased to accept
the gifts of your just servant Abel, etc.
"There is a minority who claim that the prohibition of artificial contraception is infallible -- the school of Grisez -- but they have quite failed to persuade the wider Catholic community of good and decent scholars or bishops or laity."
Well, by your "failed to persuade" argument, we would have to conclude that the blood libel is in fact infallible doctrine despite what the Popes and bishops said.
"Gays in the liturgy? From the proposed new translation of the Roman Canon:
"Be pleased to look upon them
with a serene and kindly gaze
and to accept them, . . ."
Oh sure, that's all about homosexuality, isn't it. After all, God is just so eager to copulate to the gifts we offer Him on the altar.
If that's your attempt at stand-up comedy, Father, let me advise you not to quit your day job.
Fr. O'Leary's obsession with homosexuality has taken a truly bizarre turn. I'm with Kathy and others on this blog: enough with hijacking every comment box to propagandize on this issue. With all due respect, Father, please manage your homo-mania on your own blog.
RE: Spirit of Vatican II's odd (disrespectful?) remark (joke?) concerning "Gays in the liturgy?" & the Roman Canon ("Be pleased [...] holy sacrifice, a spotless victim")
Hmmm, not good at all…. I hope I misunderstood. Sorry, but to me at least this remark or joke seems like a violation of sorts - it went too far, and crossed the line into blasphemy and sacrilege territory.
==
Father O'Leary is homo[-sympatico]. That's why he always tries to justify homosexuality. [--Edited for content by Webmaster]
Paul,
I suspect it is "disrespect" for the dunderheadedness of we orthodox types, mired as we are in the slough of blind obedience to authority. He fancies us his little balls of yarn. He rolls his eyes and explains and explains and explains, yet we creatures of no style and no verve -- plowhorses, so to speak -- simply cannot follow. It is enough to make a thoroughbred stallion of existential theology quite cross.
Surprised my little joke -- silly no doubt -- drew such indignant comment. Lighten up, folks, and pb, remove that objectionable and libelous "anonymous" (remember Da Rulz #1), unless you really want me to stop this attempt at dialogue.
To return to a point made earlier -- there is the possibility of radical change in official church teaching on morals. For instance, no Pope today would write what Nicholas V did in 1454: "We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal], with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be... and to reduce their persons into PERPETUAL SLAVERY".
Calixtus III confirmed this decree in 1546.
Sixtus IV renewed it in 1481.
Alexander VI extended it from Africa to America in 1493.
Leo X renewed it in 1514.
oops 1546 SHD BE 1456
I always get a kick out of Mr. Roister Doisters posts - brilliant. (Still I scratch my head how such a keen observer and obvious gem is not able to critically self-evaluate the fact that blind obedience is not it in our democratic society of 2006).
Life is not that simple - the fact that the church made huge mistakes in the past invalidates any claims IMHO to be flawless for good.
Live and let live - if you guys like your religion top down fine - but do not get all excited if some of us think that a healthy exchange of ideas is more helpful to navigate the path into the future.
Certainly the political systems that most of us come to appreciate do just that - facilitate input from many.
Personally, I have actually no real issue with what I tend to read between the lines or explicit in this bloc - which is a strong desire by many of you to worship the Lord in a more meaningful way - why woulkd anybody have problems with that.
What I personally however find unacceptable is the tendency to assume that one and only one way is the correct way - and oh by the way it is the ‘proper orthodox way” which is going back in time to the good old days around 1950.
Are you kidding me?
That is the best you can do?
Kneel as much as you want -have a mystifying service with Gregorian chants and Latin and just pure very nice traditional stuff, have your wifes and daughters even covered like the Talibans, send them to this or that side of the church, if this is all needed and essential for you to 'properly' worship - so be it.
But please do not make the mistake to insist that your peronal preferences are the only way.
It sure fits your guys personal taste - but it has not much to do with 'the Truth'or the "proper way" .
How did Jesus state so simple - when two or three gather in my name...
We should remember that at times.
And by the way - yes I agree with many of you and we should avoid having every other post gravitate towards some SSA issue. I will try to remember that in the grand scheme of things the whole topic of SSA (while certainly much discussed in the West) is not the most important issue in this world. The fine Folks with SSA are after all only around 5% of us while 50 % of you happen to be non-male - thus I view female ordination and ordination of married clergy as much more pressing catholic issues.
But we can be assured that the issue will be around for us catholics in a unique way- if for nothing else for the fact that a disporpotinate fraction of our all male priesthood in 2006 ( surprise surprise )considers themself homosexuals. And this goes all the way up in the hirachy.
I happen to have no issue with that whatsoever - but you guys better think long and hard if you indeed have to insist on male only celibate priesthood.
unless you really want me to stop this attempt at dialogue.
Please please please.
Grega, you misrepresent Jesus. That wasn't all He said about worship. look at your Bible again.
So Kathy, you back the anonymous who goes around calling people "a homo" etc.? Have you any sense of decency?
I just couldn't resist it... http://
josephsoleary.typepad.com...ing_the_wi.html
Kathy;
your point is well taken in the sense that our lord said of course much more than this out of context quote-
what is your issue? Certainly it is true that Mt 18:19-22 says exactly the following:
19
Again, (amen,) I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father.
20
17 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
21
18 Then Peter approaching asked him, "Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive him? As many as seven times?"
22
19 Jesus answered, "I say to you, not seven times but seventy-seven times. -
Kathy forgive me if I am totally of base, but I certainly read such passages as clear advice to us sinners get along.
This is not about insisting that standing or kneeling or none of each is appropriate - it is about worshiping in the correct spirit.
I maintain that for this the very different people that we all are might desire various forms.
For some it might mean that it isessential that the service is all in Latin - others prefer to hold hand and be all fuzzy about stuff. So what.
Does anybody truly believe it really matters? For me what truly counts is: Is it done in the correct spirit?
So Kathy, you back the anonymous who goes around calling people "a homo" etc.? Have you any sense of decency?
Have you? Have you?
I'm not calling you or anyone else names. All I want is for you to stop your egregious proselytizing about a matter that was already settled in the first chapter of Romans. Not to mention the first, second and third chapters of Genesis. And no I don't want to hear your absurd exegetical theories that are at the service of your absurd moral convictions. All I am asking is that you let it become possible to have ongoing conversations on this board that have nothing to do with homosexuality. Why is that so difficult a reasonable expectation for you to honor?
Grega, what do you take "in my name" to mean? I think it is a complex matter that is worth taking the time to unpack. What does it mean for two or three to gather "in my name?"
"The Times
June 07, 2006
Church unity 'impossible' if women become bishops
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
art...2214638,00.html
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent"
==
To a non-sophist(icates) or a neophytes such as you, such distinctions will seem tenuous, but those who have a taste for sophistry and casuistry and who have lived with this nice little arrangement their whole lives will appreciate their importance.
Indeed. How lovely of you to enlighten us.
First, I am rebuked for being frivolous for mocking Fr. Bojangles for identifying 'sensible' theologians with that swarm of liberal dissenters from tradition who agrees with him.
Next, the rest of you are rebuked for being a trifle surprised at Fr. Bojangles' scandalous comment about gays in the liturgy.
He responds by saying:
"Surprised my little joke -- silly no doubt -- drew such indignant comment. Lighten up, folks, and pb, remove that objectionable and libelous "anonymous" (remember Da Rulz #1)."
Quite amazing!
Pb, Kathy, lamentable -- all I ask for is the most ELEMENTARY courtesy, or decency. Note that it is not I who introduced the note of juvenile mockery into this thread. PHil BLosser, do you realize that in standing over those "homo" remarks you are casting yourself in the role of playground bully (homophobic bullying was recently discoverd to be a HUGE problem in Irish schoools -- ytou must like that). Btw, did you in fact pen "anonymous" 's posting yourself????
O, I see PB has edited the posting.
It is like if someone said, "he is a nigger" and the editor changed it to "he is nigger-friendly" -- it actually makes matters worst!
... if you guys like your religion top down fine
Grega,
Trust me, if we had O'Leary as our Pope, most of us in this blog would be the first to join him in his dissent against pontifical abuse of patriarchal authority.
I just couldn't resist it... http:// josephsoleary.typepad.com...ing_the_wi.html
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 06.09.06 - 3:32 am | #
">Oh, and neither could I.
Gollum ... Sorry, I meant to say, Fr. O'Leary,
Forgive us for forgetting our manners around you sometimes. We are to remember you are to us in persona Christi, but it's sometimes hard to remember.
First of all, forgive me or any of us if we suggested you might bear any blame for sidetracking the discussion of this comment box from the subject of whether kneeling at Mass is a mortal sin as the Diocese of Orange, CA, suggests, for I'm sure you had nothing to do with that.
Secondly, forgive me or any of us for introducing a tone of frivolity or mockery in the comboxes, because we know that's beneath your sense of decency and decorum.
It is like if someone said, "he is a nigger" and the editor changed it to "he is nigger-friendly" -- it actually makes matters worst [sic]!
Um ... well, let me take that last remark back. Fr. Bojangles, this is pretty pathetic. There you go again, trying to leverage your pro-gay aganda by courting anti-segregationist sympathies. The fact is that in this instance there is no parity between the issues. Whether you are a homosexual or not is beside the point. It is mean-spirited of anyone to call another person a "homo," and so that name-calling was removed from the combox. However, by your very own profession (not admission, but PROFESSION) you refuse to tow the Vatican's line on homosexuality being "gravely disordered" and regularly promote same-sex copulation and partnership rights. I oppose name calling, so I edited the comment your referenced to remove the untoward opprobrium and retain the accurate description. How can you possibly fuss and fume about that? Why are liberals so hyper-sensitive and humorless, yet so quick to accuse others of lacking humor?!
"Spirit,"
As to the decrees about usury and slavery, etc. My understanding is that in order to be considered infallible, a Church teaching has to meet a number of conditions, the first and foremost being that it is indeed a Church teaching. Were any of those decrees about slavery, for example, ever understood to be Church teaching?
But there's more, of course (as you know): (1) The Pope must be teaching as universal pastor, not simply as private theologian or as bishop of Rome, or issuing an administrative judgment. (2) He must be defining a doctrine so as to eliminate doubt. (3) The doctrine must concern faith and morals. (4) It must be addressed to the whole Church, not merely to one segment of her.
How do any of those medieval decrees you call to witness meet all of these conditions?
On the other hand, it's hardly rocket science to see how Church teaching on contraception, homosexuality, and even reservation of ordination to priesthood to men alone meet these criteria (see, for example, section four of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis); and historical tradition in these matters runs back through ancient Jewish history. None of these are novelties, but longstanding traditions about which the Church has reiterated her position many times.
But of course we know what hermeneutical hat tricks Fr. Bojangles has waiting for us in the wings. Perhaps Doister was right and we should just break the news to him: we're all rather thick-headed dunderheads here, a bit too slow to grasp "Spirit's" slippery subtleties. Dare we tell him? We're literalists here: we believe in God! It even gets worse: we're FUNDIES here: we believe Jesus actually ROSE from the dead! Can you believe that?! HYSTERICAL, ain't it?!
"As to the decrees about usury and slavery, etc. My understanding is that in order to be considered infallible, a Church teaching has to meet a number of conditions, the first and foremost being that it is indeed a Church teaching. Were any of those decrees about slavery, for example, ever understood to be Church teaching?"
Of course they were. So much so that Cardinal Dulles, in order to deny that there has ever been a volte-face in official non-infallible church teaching claims that the Church STILL teaches that slavery is compatible with divine and natural law.
"(1) The Pope must be teaching as universal pastor, not simply as private theologian or as bishop of Rome, or issuing an administrative judgment. (2) He must be defining a doctrine so as to eliminate doubt. (3) The doctrine must concern faith and morals. (4) It must be addressed to the whole Church, not merely to one segment of her."
All of these conditions are met by Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam.
On usury, Pius V in Cum Onus 1569, made it clear he was acting in his apostolic office [point 1 above]:
"Undertaking the burden of apostolic servitude, we have recognized that innumerable contracts of annuity were and are celebrated which not only are not within the limits set by our predecessors for such contracts [CLEARLY REFERRING TO A TRADITION OF PAPAL TEACHING ADDRESSED TO THE WHOLE CHURCH -- point 4 above], but what is worse, by agreements entirely contrary to these limits, due to the burning prick of avarice, show manifest contempt for divine laws [CLEARLY A MATTER OF FAITH/MORALS -- point 3 above]. Therefore we -- bound as we are to care for the salvation of souls and satisfying the prayer of pious minds [RESPONDING TO A PRECISE QUERY -- point 2 above] -- cannot not medicate such a grave disease and deadly poison with a salutary antidote".
Church teaching on contraception, homosexuality, and even reservation of ordination to priesthood to men alone meets these criteria; and historical tradition in these matters runs back through ancient Jewish history.
THE SAME IS TRUE OF CHURCH TEACHING ON SLAVERY AND "USURY".
None of these are novelties, [NEITHER WERE THE ABOVE] but longstanding traditions about which the Church has reiterated her position many times.
You see "hermeneutical tricks" here???
Kathy:
"What does it mean for two or three to gather "in my name?""
What are you getting at?
I read it to mean exactly as stated.
As far as I am concerned it does mean for example that Catholics like yourself, our good host and all the others here are exactly equally worthy in the eyes of our Lord.
Thus as far as I am concerned if let's say yourself and Mr. O'Leary
Get together and each in his own way praises the Lord - the Lord is right there with both of you.
To assume otherwise is not up to any one of us - including the Pope and all his Bishops as far as I am concerned.
On In Eam, 1571, Noonan writes:
"As in Cum Onus, Pius V was conscious that he was giving moral teaching [point 3 above] in his function of Chief Shepherd [point 1 above], that he was judging certain contracts to violate divine law [cf. point 2 above].. He then taught the moral truth that all "dry exchange" was usurious, defining such exchange to be contracts taking the form of a purchase in which bills of exchange were not sent to another place, or if sent, they were not paid there but returned to be paid be the seller of the bill in the same place, as it was agreed... The pope also taught that the only basis on which foreign exchange prices might vary was distance in space; distance in time of payment could not be made a basis for a change".
In short he ruled out loan at a profit: "There could be no question of confusing a moral exchange transaction with a loan at a profit."
"The three bulls stood together. In a period extending over seventeen years, these authentic acts of papal teaching authority had repulsed an attempt to subvert the usury prohibition. Faithful to the main lines of theological tradtions approved and proclaimed by popes, bishops and councils for more than a millennium, Pius V and Sixtus IV had rejected theories and practices that removed the usury prohibition's rigor from the world of commercial credit. The popes and their advisers had correctly perceived tat if the novel theories of the innovating theologians were accepted, the entire moral structure of Catholic thought on economics would crumble."
As to slavery, is there an authoritative teaching addressed to the universal church (apart from the fact that popes such as Urban VIII, Innocent X, Alexander VIII bought slaves, that Popes gave monarchs the right to enslave, and that they put anti-slavery tracts on the Index of Forbidden Books)?
The 9th Council of Toledo, 655, ordered the enslavement of childen of clerics. This was incorporated into Canon Law. Urban II in 1089 equally decreed that wives of clerics could be enslaved. These measures were to bolster clerical celibacy. Lateran III and Lateran IV, presided by Popes Alexander III and Innocent III permitted enslavement of Christians who helped Saracens during the Crusades.
Paul III in a Motu proprio of 1548 determined that "each and every person of either sex, whether Roman or non-Roman, whether secular or clerical... may freely and lawfully buy and sell publicly any slaves whatsoever of either sex" -- this was when slaves in Rome were seeking sanctuary on church property.
Holy Office 1866: "Slavery itself... is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law... FOr the sort of ownership which a slave owner has over a slave is understood as nothing other than the perpetual right of disposing of the work of a slave for one's own benefit -- services which it is right that one human being should provide for another" Overruled by Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum 1891: "The active force inherent in the person cannot be the property of anyone other than the person who exerts it".
Pius IX privately favored the South in the Civil War: "However deplorable its social system, the South at least was not infected with the virus of liberalism".
In short, even if no papal teaching meets your 4 criteria, it is clear that the popes were very late in discovering the intrinsic evil and injustice of slavery. Nothing clear until 1891.
Coming back to your gratuitous insults and mockery above, let us remember that the people you are defending are hand in hand with Saudis and Iranians who are regularly executing gay men, including teenagers, with not a peep of protest from Benedict XVI or his predecessor -- or for that matter from YOU: http://www.cnsnews.com/
ViewForei...R20040330a.html
"There you go again, trying to leverage your pro-gay aganda by courting anti-segregationist sympathies. The fact is that in this instance there is no parity between the issues."
"You refuse to tow the Vatican's line on homosexuality being "gravely disordered" and regularly promote same-sex copulation and partnership rights."
Yes, at least miscegenation laws only LIMITED a straight person's choice of partner; Ratzinger and Trujillo deny ALL protection to gay partnerships and insist that celibacy is the only way for them. As their own backyard shows, that spells out as furtive promiscuity in practice. But they prefer that, because they think it lodges firmly in childrens' minds that homosexuality is vile, whereas the legalization of gay civil unions actually shows the world who are the really vile people... and they don't like it one bit.
You know, I kind of always felt it was so, but was afraid to say it, and feared what people might think.
But now I know. It really is like I felt and thought all along... no bad, foolish or misinformed Pope, etc. can tell me not to kneel or worship before the Holy Eucharist; no Pope can tell me not to pray; no pope can tell me to love Mahony Fest; no Pope can tell me to keep a slave; and no Pope can ever tell me that performing homosexual sex acts (sin) is okay with God. I think I understand now, thanks, all is becoming clear in spirit, truth and light; it feels good to come out of the closet, and even maybe try to be a free and honest Catholic, even if there are problems everywhere, now and in the past. I want to sing. I wish somebody would have taught me a Gregorian chant or two.
==
Spirit, it's WRONG. It's against NATURE. It's against GOD. "Be celibate" is FRIENDLY advice--as friendly as "Steep grade ahead, begin braking NOW."
My old teacher says that rarely in history have things been so clear-cut: somebody hates homosexuals. It's either the Catholic Church or the gay lobby.
(It's the gay lobby.)
If you're gay, and you desire happiness, be celibate. Full stop.
Fr. O'Leary, have you protested against the slavery of Christian children in the Sudan? Have you protested against the persecution of Christians in any number of Muslim countries? Haven't a peep from you, ergo, you don't care. Perhaps you are in favor of it.
Unfair? Of course it's unfair. Just as it is unfair of you to assume that Benedict XVI has not uttered a peep of protest against the execution of gay men in Saudi and Iran. You don't know all the facts, Father. Just as you don't know that Pius XII was silent during the Holocaust. All you know is that the Pope opposes the legal recognition of gay marriage. It suits your agenda to try to smear the Pope by inferring from his explicit stand against gay marriage an implict stand in favor of executing gay men.
Have you no shame?
Is not all Catholic moral doctrine, strictly speaking, proscriptive? "Thou shalt not ..." Until the 20th century, the Catholic Church did not formulate a moral doctrine proscribing slavery. Clearly this is a moral doctrine that developed over the course of centuries, not the reversal of an existing moral doctrine. The case of capital punishment is similar. The Catholic Church has never proscribed the death penalty. We are perhaps witnesses to a development of moral doctrine regarding capital punishment. Yet if the Church formulates a moral doctrine against the death penalty, it will not constitute a reversal of an existing moral doctrine.
The Church has in past proscribed the practice of usury, yet it seems that the very nature of the thing proscribed has changed. Perhaps the same might be true regarding contraception?
Does any of this make sense?
It seems that 'Spirit of VaticanII' meets
the criteria for being a Phil Hendrie
'Gay Journalist'.
Dave has an arguable point, I think. The Church can be seen as passively condoning torture, slavery, the death penalty in its teaching and practice rather than putting forward a formal magisterial teaching in support of them. This of course requires very subtle hermeneutics to be sustained, especially in view of such authoritative statements as Ad Extirpanda (1252 -- ratified by later popes) and the 1866 decree of the Holy Office, and in view of the way the Vatican actively urged the practices mentioned (popes trading in slaves in the 17th century; the Vatican having the death penalty in its own lawcode until the 1960s) just as today it actively lobbies to stop UN conventions protective of gays in close alliance with Muslim countries that routinely execute young gays today (this is not a smear, Dave, it is a sad fact).
However, the single case of "usury" makes Dave's position untenable. The doctrine enunciated by Pius V and Sixtus IV was as proscriptive as one could wish, and if the nature of money has changed it has already changed in their time; the popes, in that case, made a Galileo-style blunder in proscribing modern money-lending because they stuck to a medieval conception of money.
It seems to me perfectly clear that the popes today are making a similar Galileo-style blunder by sticking to a medieval conception of sex in their doctrine on contraception and homosexuality. However, they have left a glaring loophole by not condemning the liberal "interpretations" of Humanae Vitae put forward by several episcopal conferences in 1968. This will allow the doctrine to be recanted without it being a 180 degree volte-face, just as the mistaken edicts on usury were.
I've been wondering just a bit whether there have been any economic changes in the last milennium.
Kathy
Closed-minded fanaticism is rampant in the Vatican -- Ratzinger has been surpassed in this by Trujillo and Grocholewski. It will breed a great tragedy for Catholicism. It has made us bedfellows of the Islamicist fanatics: http://www.cnsnews.com/
ViewForei...R20040330a.html
The same might be true of contraception in that the nature of the thing proscribed has changed... Not sure what Dave is getting at here. I think the modern understanding of sexuality is radically different from that of the biblical times or of the Middle Ages. When I see Ratzinger quote Romans 1 (with its grotesque aitiology of lesbianism) in his anti-gay writings, I can only wince at this display of fundamentalism.
Kathy thinks only celibacy can bring gays and lesbians happiness and fulfilment. Oddly enough, reports on gay marriage so far have been very favorable, quite similar to what heterosexual married couples have been reporting. As to gay celibacy, it does not seem to be working very well, to judge from the document analysed in the following:http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/
my_weblog/2005/12/vatican_instruc.html
Meanwhile, over at Pontifications, Liccione writes: "I used to duel with Fr. O’Leary a lot—on this blog and over at Pertinacious Papist. He still holds forth regularly at the latter because the blog owner, my friend Dr. Phil Blosser, judges that Truth is better served by debating him than by ignoring him. [Good for you, pb; but less mockery, more debate would be appreciated.] I still comment over there occasionally when O’Leary goes over the top. [Wonder is he coaching pb on how to reply to the usury objections?] But his rants are usually unwelcome here. This is a ministry of evangelization. [Now we know... Unfortunately much of the evangelization is actually anti-evangelical -- calls on Benedict to get nasty with the liberals; obsessive debates about whether ejaculation in a condom constitutes the marital act; absurd efforts to show that the church has never changed its official teaching on anything] O’Leary is an obstacle to evangelization—and even to rational discussion."
"Vicar's gay kiss set to spark Sunday backlash
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0...-
name_page.html
Jun 11 2006
Nathan Bevan, Wales on Sunday"
"AN openly gay priest-to-be has broken new barriers by becoming the first reverend pictured kissing his boyfriend in full ceremonial dress."
=
"Carey: Rowan's church in ruins
Jun 11 2006
Matt Withers, Wales on Sunday"
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0...-
name_page.html
"Lord Carey said that "liberals" were destroying the Church "that we once loved.""
==
I must admit that I do not see the ultimate goal of Spirit's attack. What are the implications? What is the aim? If the Catholic church was wrong about certain issues, or did not know better, does that mean it is (or could perhaps be) wrong about all issues? Which ones? Some, or all? Where does doubt or suspicion end? There can be no certainty? What I understand liberals to be saying is that Rome (and all of traditional Christianity until the present day) was wrong to condemn homosexual acts.
If the "popes today are making a [...] Galileo-style blunder", re: being anti-gay sex and anti-gay 'marriage', why does this surprise them (the liberals) given that the 2000 year tradition was, from their perspective, off target from the beginning? Let the Vatican be wrong. Move on. What surprises me is that liberals remain 'Christian', and in the institution.
Are not the 'liberals' making a "Galileo-style blunder" remaining in the dark and evil Catholic church? I hear them saying Christianity does not speak to modern man, so... Galileo may not have had a choice abour membership in his unenlightened despotic age. But this is past history. Today, modern dissenters-liberals can freely leave the Catholic church - membership is not expected in our modern age and societies. What is their excuse for remaining?
==
'I think the modern understanding of sexuality is radically different from that of the biblical times or of the Middle Ages.'
Undoubtedly. The question is whether the biblical understanding of sexuality is true. Is the modern understanding of sexuality more true than the biblical understanding, or is it simply more agreeable to modern tastes?
Fr. O'Leary, can you please share with us the UN conventions that the Pope has opposed? It would be useful to understand their intention and the "protections" that they propose to afford to homosexual persons.
Also, I would like to hear from anyone a succinct and honest explanation of whether or not the Church made a reversal of "infallible" moral teaching in the case of usury. Please make it understandable for those such as myself who are dimwitted concerning economic matters.
There is no infallible teaching on usury, but those who try to make Humanae Vitae infallible have to explain why equally solemn bulls against usury are not infallible by the same argument.
Much of biblical understanding of sexuality has great value in correcting us moderns. But much has not. We need to read discerningly. Walter Wink and Robin Scroggs have written well on this.
Now to analyze Paul Borealis:
"If the Catholic church was wrong about certain issues, or did not know better, does that mean it is (or could perhaps be) wrong about all issues?" No, the Spirit assures the church of a certain indefectibility in the truth. Moreover, in Catholic teaching a small number of doctrines are considered to be formally preserved from error by the charism of infallibility (though some doubt if this adds anything of real substance to the general assurance of indefectibility).
"Where does doubt or suspicion end? There can be no certainty? What I understand liberals to be saying is that Rome (and all of traditional Christianity until the present day) was wrong to condemn homosexual acts." The issue was never really aired, anymore than slavery or torture or religious freedom were. So church teaching was not a mature ethical determination but simply a passive acceptance of old prejudice (also enshrined in Scripture).
"If the "popes today are making a [...] Galileo-style blunder", re: being anti-gay sex and anti-gay 'marriage', why does this surprise them (the liberals) given that the 2000 year tradition was, from their perspective, off target from the beginning?" It does not surprise anyone with a knowledge of church history. But it does not mean that the church has been totally off target from the beginning. In fact the theology of gayness frequently draws on foundational Christian texts such as Paul's doctrine of freedom and non-discrimination or the parts of the Bible that speak positively of the body and sexual love.
"Let the Vatican be wrong. Move on. What surprises me is that liberals remain 'Christian', and in the institution." Well of course many have followed your advice; there is a HUGE exodus of disgruntled Catholics. However, very few theologians are among them, because theologians are seasoned in their awareness of how all sorts of error and corruption have flourished throughout history in the minds of the faithful as well as in the Vatican. Telling theologians to leave the Church is like telling doctors to leave the smelly hospital.
"Are not the 'liberals' making a "Galileo-style blunder" remaining in the dark and evil Catholic church?" I have often been asked by angry ex-Catholics: "How can you stay in an institution that oppresses women, gays etc. and that has caused the deaths of millions in Africa recently etc.?" This is a troubling question for all Catholics, not just for liberal theologians.
"I hear them saying Christianity does not speak to modern man" -- you hear wrong.
"Today, mod
"Today, modern dissenters-liberals can freely leave the Catholic church - membership is not expected in our modern age and societies. What is their excuse for remaining?" They remain out of love for the Gospel and anxiety to see it prevail over its perversions. As you rightly note, there is no other reason for them to remain, so you have answered your own question.
If the Church were to become EXCLUSIVELY the domain of closed-minded fanatics things might look different. Yet it is quite likely that we are on the eve of a revolutionary change in Catholicism. Only a minority feel like the neocaths.
Re: Usury, etc.
http://www.catholicculture.org/d....cfm?
recnum=646
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/
15235c.htm
http://www.zenit.org/english/vis...phtml?
sid=80486
http://www.firstthings.com/ftiss...ews/
dulles.html
==
I already read the "Red Herring" article, which has nothing to say to the three papal bulls under discussion here (Cum Onus, In Eam, Detestabilis Avaritia).
Same true of the old Cath Enc article. Benedict's sermon against usury is against usury in the ordinary sense of a moral vice, not against taking interest on loans (which is the relevant sense in our discussion).
Talk about red herrings!
I also already read and discussed Dulles' review of Noonan. I pointed out that it does not address the 16th century usury bulls and that it defends the consistency of church teaching on slavery by claiming that even today the church recognizes slavery as compatible with divine and natural law.
Dulles clearly has no loyalty to the American Declaration of Independence. INALIENABLE rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
He also seems not to have read Leo XIII's clear statement of this principle in Rerum Novarum.
Spirit, the articles were for Dave. I thought providing some links might help him to start his research. Google did the rest. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
==
Paul, thanks for the articles. Fr. O'Leary, I'd still be interested to read the proposed UN "sexual orientation" resolution. The CNSNEWS article is scant on details.
I also want to see the UN document and the new Vatican document of Card. Trujillo (an awful person it seems).
Meanwhile I just posted on my weblog a piece on "Mother Church and her Gay/Lesbian Children", along with a very interesting response it evoked from an Irish mother. http://
josephsoleary.typepad.com...r_church_a.html
http://www.religioustolerance.or...g/
hom_unchr.htm
This gives the text of the declaration, put forward by Brazil.
At the UN Commission on Human Rights 61st Session, on 15 March 2005, the International Commission of Jurists said:
Mr. Chairperson,
For its last two sessions, the Commission on Human Rights has had on its agenda a draft resolution entitled “Human Right and Sexual Orientation” presented by Brazil.
In 2003, the Commission failed to act on the resolution because of filibustering, including the
introduction of 55 “amendments” to the resolution, a no-action motion and the repeated use of points
of order. In 2004, despite Brazil's commitment to the issue, tremendous pressure from OIC states and
the Holy See, led to the Commission postponing consideration of the draft Resolution to this year.
The International Commission of Jurists and the International Federation of Humans Rights
Leagues believe that the debate on this question should be framed in terms of general human rights principles and the particular international obligations of States to prohibit discrimination on
grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, as enshrined in international human rights law.
Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity gives rise to the most egregious human rights violations such as extrajudicial killings, ill-treatment, torture, and arbitrary detention. The inability of the Commission to address such violations is indefensible, given that the Commission’s own Special Procedures, within their respective mandates, have extensively documented cases of human rights violations on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity.
What I just posted is clear evidence that the Vatican are sinning gravely against human rights.
Ah the infalliable United Nations, established by Christ with a deposit of faith handed down from his apostles and led by the Holy Spirit.
(Just a quick note that this is a comment box regarding Kneeling at Mass. A liturgical question.)
Economic reality changes. Human nature does not. Does it? Perhaps we could begin with that question?
'(Just a quick note that this is a comment box regarding Kneeling at Mass. A liturgical question.)'
I agree, Kathy. I would prefer to address the liturgical questions. Unfortunately our resident "Spirit" makes it quite impossible.
His latest ...
'What I just posted is clear evidence that the Vatican are sinning gravely against human rights.'
... calls for a reply.
From the draft resolution presented by Brazil:
'Reaffirming that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein without distinction of any kind ...'
Homosexual persons are covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights under the phrase "all human beings". The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has not stopped Islamic governments from executing homosexual persons any more than it has stopped those same governments from executing Christians. The proposed "sexual orientation" resolution will have no effect on the behavior of Islamic governments. THEY DON'T CARE.
Let's get real. The proposed "sexual orientation" resolution is intended to agitate in favor of GAY MARRIAGE. The target of the resolution is not Islamic governments, but Western democracies.
I look forward to reading the Vatican document by that "awful person", Cardinal Trujillo.
Jesus says that it is a sin to look lustfully at a woman. Yet Fr. O'Learly would have us believe that the same Jesus finds it a wonderful thing for a man to have sex with another man.
Sorry ... mean to write "Fr. O'Leary".
Hmmm ... where is the notorious document by the notorious Cardinal Trujillo? I can't find it on the Vatican web site.
By the way, can we please distinguish between a) the pastoral care of gay Catholics who struggle with their homosexuality and b) the political agendas of gay activists?
I think that there is room for dialogue on point a).
Father o'Leary:
while I most of the time very much agree with you I do not share the sentiment
'What I just posted is clear evidence that the Vatican are sinning gravely against human rights.'
These things are not that cut and dry - societies evolve slowly (which i believe is good in the grand scheme of things)and we all need plenty of time to come up with a more coherant view on issues like all matter gay, genetics,etc. you name it.
One actually has to bother to make a case for ones pet issue.
I happen to believe that you do that most of the ime just fine.
However we are decades away IMHO from a point were gay unions could be perceived as a human right.
As you know even in the most progressive countries you possible can can up with (somewhere in Northern Europe I suppose),still a large fraction of the population does not quite buy fully into the notion of gay unions.
In my view there are rational reasons why homosexuality was correctly seen as a big offence against the wellfare of societies in the past.
a) Most Societies did not have the luxury to let individuals of the hook regarding procreation.
b) Many perhaps secretly envied all those that could engaged in sexual behaviour without the usual consequences.
Today: Our planet seems quite populated and most certainly in the west at least those that wish can engage in sexual activity without the natural consequences.
Most certainly it is not surprising nor particular upsetting that our church does not exactly buy into these notions.
Our society needs time to sort it out as does our church.
I most certainly believe we have to bother to make our individual cases and work together on a agreeable compromise.
As I browse through Fr. O'Leary's comments, the spectre of collective guilt begins to haunt my thoughts.
Please note that Fr. O'Leary has NEVER apologized for his fellow-travelers in the gay activist community who routinely label the Pope a Nazi and foment hatred against the Catholic Church.
Fr. O'Leary: will you please at least apologize for the gay activists (i.e., ACT-UP) who have desecrated the Body of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament? Truly this is a greater crime than the Holocaust, as it is a crime directed against GOD HIMSELF.
Thus this thread has (hopefully) been brought back to its original liturgical intent. 
Dave :
"Truly this is a greater crime than the Holocaust, as it is a crime directed against GOD HIMSELF."
You ought to be kidding.
Grega, just curious, do you believe in God?
"Grega, just curious, do you believe in God?"
Kathy - sure do.
Be assured I would not bother to share my views if otherwise. The question do you believe in god is the wrong one IMHO.
Certainly I admit that I allow for a bit less specific of a God compared to you and others. As I said I can not believe that the Creator of this universe would care if you kneel or stand during church.
I also do not think that God is particular concerned with the minute details of our religion. Humans sure are - but that is not a huge revelation.
Sure plenty of folks love the details of religious practice and make them the centerpiece of their religious experience today as the ydid 2000 years ago- that would not be me.
Unlike Dave it seems, I also happen to believe that the Holcaust very much was directed against God.
I find it by the way more than a bit concerning when otherwise perfectly smart and reasonable folks feel they have to benchmark the errant personal opinion of this or that person against a crime against humanity and God like the Holocaust.
Of course you will find amoung opponents of the church some that go as far as to call our german pope that did the mandatory required things during the Nazi years a Nazi collaborator or worse - all very ridiculous and without fact as we know- but for me there is a big difference between such errant personal wrong views and actual organized mass murder.
The other way around - if you indeed feel that some young kid that dislikes our church and makes snotty remarks towards our Pope deserves to be compared negatively with an event like the Holocaust - you have not many places to go in your merci.
No, Grega, I'm not kidding.
As it happens I AGREE with you (along with Papa Ratzi -- see his Auschwitz speech) that the Holocaust was indeed a crime directed against God, because it was directed against his people Israel. I do not mean to minimize the horror and magnitude of the crime that was the Holocaust. Yet the act of SPITTING THE EUCHARIST ONTO THE GROUND is a direct crime against our Lord Jesus Christ, and thus also a direct crime against the Father and the Holy Spirit. What we're dealing with here is no mere "errant personal opinion", but rather a most foul act of sacrilege, which was committed by members of ACT-UP, and for which I eagerly await an expression of group guilt from Fr. O'Leary.
The only way out of the horror of Auschwitz (and every other horror) is Christ Jesus, and him crucified. As Catholics, we believe that the Eucharist IS Jesus Christ, and thus the Eucharist IS God. To spit the Eucharist onto the ground is to spit the Lord Jesus onto the ground -- it is to spit GOD onto the ground. When someone does that, they've just spit away their only hope in the face of all the world's horrors, including the horror of Auschwitz.
Sacrilege against the Eucharist is an infinite crime (although not an unforgiveable crime for those who repent). THAT is why I said that ACT-UP's crime against Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament is a greater crime than the Holocaust.
By the way, Grega, I believe that there are circumstances that mitigate guilt in the case of Eucharistic sacrilege, e.g., ignorance of the true nature of the Eucharist, anger and despair of one suffering from AIDS, etc. Yet objectively speaking, Eucharistic sacrilege is a direct crime against the Lord, and thus an infinite crime, hence a crime of greater magnitude than any act of genocide.
If you do not share the Catholic faith concerning the Eucharist, then of course none of this will make any sense to you. On the other hand, if it does make sense to you, then you might be a step closer to understanding why some of us get a bit exercised over issues like kneeling, altar rails, communion in the hand, liturgical dance, etc.
o.k. Dave thanks for the clarification -I was not sure what your were refering to in your original post.
I can agree with you that the act of SPITTING THE EUCHARIST ONTO THE GROUND is a direct offense against our Lord Jesus Christ, and thus also a direct offense against the Father and the Holy Spirit. I dislike the term crime - since for me it is such a human concept.For me God is beyond such human labels.
As you know our Muslim brothers and sisters would perhaps issue the death sentence for lesser of an offense -
however our society and religion is not doing that today- which I find to be a strength not a weakness of our religion and society.
I also think that you can not expect that Fr. o'Leary has to appologizes for actions that he has no connection with. If it irritates you that Father makes IMHO such a welleducated and good case for increased tollerance towards SSA men and women I am affraid you have to continue battling him word by word post by post.
Paul Boralis I think asked good questions - and I enjoyed Spirit of VII's detailed answers.
I am sure for Father o'Leary as for most of us the good obviously outways the negative thus we all continue to call ourself catholics.
Some her would argue we fool ourself and we are Catholics only by name but not by action - I am not in position to call it either way.
I can only say that for me personally it appears for any issue that my side has with the church the other side seems to have a different but principly not entirely different issue.
WE would like to see SSA men and women able to engage in peaceful commited relationships - some of you would love to reverse Vatican II.
We would like to see married person and women allowed to the priesthood - some of you would love the CCC wording regarding capital punishment changed, have not much calms engaging in clear unjust wars and happen to allow even for a bit of torture here or there.
We appreciate and support the clear stand our church takes on social justice issues, poverty, world peace, the environment, workers rights, immigration - some of you can not stand such 'socialism' and would like to do away with it and rather worry 7/24 about proper worship, latin in church, Priest facing this way or that way, communion rails, headcover for women, proper hymns, proper music, proper decoration.
I happen to observe a lot of selective obedience amoung the oh so faithful orthodox.
I cannot completely figure out why some people would attack the Holy Eucharist, or abuse it. Anger? There may be a little of this in those Church leaders who forbid us to kneel - I do not know.
Regarding some gay activist conduct against the Eucharist, it may be an attack on the God-Man, and a rejection of God and his creation. Or maybe it is an assault on the institutional Church, and Christian people, and what they believe and hold precious. I am not sure about their ultimate intentions, and what they aim to achieve. Perhaps in some way related, concerning certain pro-homosexual activists, Camille Paglia (herself pro-homosexual) once wrote:
"I have been struck, in my brief encounters over the years with a half-dozen prominent gay male activists, by the frightening coldness and deadness of their eyes. Behind their smooth, bland faces I saw the seething hatreds of Dostoevskian anarchists. Gay crusading, I concluded, was their way of handling their own bitter misanthropy, which came from other sources. I found these men more spiritually twisted than anyone I have encountered in my life."
http://www.salon.com/col/pagl/19...06/
23pagl2.html
==
"I can agree with you that the act of SPITTING THE EUCHARIST ONTO THE GROUND is a direct offense against our Lord Jesus Christ, and thus also a direct offense against the Father and the Holy Spirit."
I agree as well.
==
"I cannot completely figure out why some people would attack the Holy Eucharist, or abuse it. Anger? There may be a little of this in those Church leaders who forbid us to kneel - I do not know."
*"(Just a quick note that this is a comment box regarding Kneeling at Mass. A liturgical question.)"
Not kneeling at Mass and the like....why? A liturgical question indeed. Let me think out loud and speculate.
Anger or even hate, - could these have been an impulse behind some (perhaps originally in a few situations, then imitated and made law) of the negative ‘changes’ pertaining to our 'relationship' to the Eucharist, i.e. our posture, actions, behavior towards the Host, the (hidden? reduced?) tabernacle location, etc. in the present Roman Catholic liturgy and church? More often than not, I hear people (critics) talk about unbelief – the lack, loss or weakness of faith (disbelief) – or dogmatic skepticism in leaders, as the cause of the post-Vatican II ‘changes’. Then there is the misplaced free creativity and 'ecumenical' enthusiasm as possible sources of the new orientation. I have often thought that embarrassment (before the Protestants and modern secularists) might be one reason – perhaps many Catholics disliked (in their eyes) feeling or appearing old fashion or superstitious, thus inferior before the others (the non-Catholics)...? There are probably many reasons. Still, what about anger or even hatred of God, Jesus, the Spirit and the Church, morality, etc. as an explanation for not kneeling and worshipping the Lamb of God, and forbidding it in others? This would be the 'smoke of Satan' explanation, or kin to it, yes?
==
Camille Paglia is herself a gay activist.
I unreservedly condemn the blasphemous actions of ACT-UP. That is not to say that this group has not made decent and effective protests in other contexts.
Membership of the Hitler-Jugend was not mandatory in Nazi Germany.
The Brazilian proposal is about protecting the human rights of gay people. It does not refer to gay marriage or civil unions.
When I say the Vatican is sinning against human rights I mean objective guilt (subjectively they are perhaps excused by ignorance).
The Vatican's opposition to the human rights of gays goes far beyond disapproval of gay marriage and civil unions. In Ireland a group of bishops opposed the decriminalization of any sexual behavior between two males -- quite possibly in response to pressure from the Vatican. On the employment front, the Vatican exercises a very sweeping policy of what it calls "just discrimination". Indeed, thought the Vatican talks against unjust discrimination I know of no case where it has spoken out against such unjust discrimination against gays -- even against Islamic execution of gays.
See what the Irish mother said about that on my weblog http://
josephsoleary.typepad.com...r_church_a.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
gayrig...1796185,00.html
What in the world does the Arabic suppression of homosexually-oriented people have to do with a Church that is entirely sympathetic with the difficulties homosexuals face?
CCC 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
I actually really enjoyed these comments – watching the interchange is great.
I love the way some here assert an unchanging consistency in Catholic moral teaching that on any basic enquiry cannot be sustained. When authors write books entitled “Change in Official Catholic Moral Teaching” it is a bit of a big clue that there may have been the odd change here and there.
I am a bit biased against the radtrad view of human sexuality and maybe that colours my take but I have to say when Fr. O’Leary outlines the evidence of a history of diminishing and retiring morally suspect positions – he snookers you guys every time.
Do Catholic’s here not learn their own history - what happened, when and why. I think at the root of it seems to be the fear that moral evaluations of today might be imposed on the actions of yesterday – a sort of reverse of what Dr Blosser wants on human sexuality – the morality of yesterday (Jewish, small tribal ex nomadic) imposed today (minus the Jewish polygamy of course). In my view the risk the Catholic Church faces on issues of human sexuality is that the moral judgement of today will be levelled against her positions today. Thus in my Country her views on dissolution of marriage and abortion carry little weight and on contraception, civil unions and homosexuality they carry no weight at all. The positions on the last three are regarded as antiquated and somewhat extreme in the face of other more pressing issues and the reasonableness law reforms. We have had law preventing discrimination (in most cases) on the basis of sexual orientation for over a decade – it is utterly utterly uncontroversial.
No one seriously suggests that Catholics did not face real legal and other more subtle discrimination in many western non Catholic nations – and these nations are better for removing legal discrimination and making such bigotry socially unacceptable.
Why view the quiet dropping of morally suspect positions as a fault rather than a virtue – evidence, reflection, maturity and development do matter. They are a sign of health not sickness. And using the internal hierarchy of infallibility to try to claim that previous immoral positions are somehow not official positions of the Church - mmmm tell that to the Jews of Spain – ah sorry there aren’t many around.
To argue that the Catholic Church has never adopted a morally suspect position or dropped one seems childlike in the extreme.
I should have said, "the alleged Arabic suppression"--as outlined in the article Fr. O'Leary pointed to.
'The Brazilian proposal ... does not refer to gay marriage or civil unions.'
It doesn't have to. We all know the end game.
Give us something we can work with here. Give us a UN resolution that specifically condemns government-sponsored violence against gays, citing clear examples. I'm willing to bet that the Vatican would support such a resolution.
What do you say, Father? Are you willing to meet us Trads and Fundies halfway? Or is this an all or nothing proposition?
Atiyah, find me a history without bias. Write me a history that does not have a political slant. I'm not afraid of the truth, but I'll have none of the iconoclasm that passes for The History of the Catholic Church.
For starters, when you're writing your history, make sure you accurately record how many Catholic men and women Religious DIED tending plague victims. As for current events, make sure you make a good count of missionaries. Not to mention the number of Catholic charitable houses that have no other mission than caring for AIDS victims. Oh, and make some mention of the number of Catholic medical researchers, Catholic police and fire rescue workers, Catholics who teach in public or private schools.
Try to get a rough count of the number of orphans who have been lovingly raised from infancy to maturity by Catholic institutions--or even just by the Salesians of Don Bosco.
Case in point: How many millions of children have received free or low-cost education in the United States by the sacrificial work of religious Sisters? Yet, what is the teaching Sister's reputation in the popular mind? Whacking a kid with a ruler. Not: Studying every summer, working nights to finish grading papers, cleaning the convent on Saturday/ community day on Sunday.
What passes for the Church's "history" is nothing but selective memory. It is hateful and biased and so politically motivated that it makes me want to just vomit.
"I am a bit biased against the radtrad view of human sexuality and maybe that colours my take but I have to say when Fr. O’Leary outlines the evidence of a history of diminishing and retiring morally suspect positions – he snookers you guys every time."
I have no doubt you are biased, but I will not hold that against you. “snookers”?! What concerned me at least was Fr. O’Leary's (Spirit of Vatican II’s) method and logic - his basic argument, i.e. how *he was going about trying to prove* that the Catholic Church and - dare I say - the majority of Christians belonging to any group on this planet, past and present, were and remain in error because of their moral opposition to (1) gay sex (homosexual acts) and (2) the ‘new’ practice of so-called 'gay marriage'. I personally understood his argument in this way: ‘The Church has been demonstrably 'wrong' - or in ‘error’ - in the past, regarding certain of its practices and beliefs, and has (willingly or unwillingly) changed/modified/reversed her teachings and moral positions on these (for example, in regard to slavery, democracy, usury). The Church did so (changed over time) because of her (or others’) recognition of her wrongness and error on these matters. So, in a comparable way, (because) the Church is today wrong in its understanding of homosexuality, and wrong in not recognizing and affirming homosexuality’s true value (its goodness), and in error by opposing homosexual practices (gay sex and gay marriage) – THEREFORE, the Church will have to (or must) change/reverse its teachings and moral position on these practices (just as it apparently did in regards to slavery, democracy, and usury)’.
Whatever the facts may be on particulars, the Church’s historical (past and present) positions on slavery, democracy, and usury are not, *to me at least *, really comparable to the Church’s opposition to gay sex (homosexual acts) and 'gay marriage'. Period. They do not matter in this case; they are irrelevant from my perspective. That is the least of it. However, I do recognize that Spirit of Vatican II thinks otherwise; and he is not playing snooker.
==
"majority of Christians belonging to any group on this planet, past and present"
Wow, am I optimistic (and probably wrong). Well, on second thought, maybe today/at present there are ‘Christian groups’ (the Anglican church perhaps, at least in 'the West'? - and maybe the United Church of Canada) on our planet where the majority are for homosexual sex and marriage, or do not at least actively oppose. I honestly do not know for sure, so I must back off on this one point, and retract it. Thanks!
==
Forgive me. Now I am totally off topic:
"Study finds similarities in U.S.
and Nazi eugenics efforts
http://www.yale.edu/opa/v28.n21/...21/
story10.html
"Under Nazi rule, 360,000 to 375,000 people were sterilized. Sofair and Kaldjian say the eugenics movement in Germany was influenced by economic crisis, radical nationalism, Hitler's totalitarianism, the medical profession's willing participation and the attraction to Nazism for financial and ideological reasons.
The eugenics movement in the United States was fueled by a belief in scientific management and rational planning, the pressures of economic instability and the arrival of the progressive era, the researchers say."
"According to Sofair and Kaldjian, "A combination of public unease, Roman Catholic opposition, federal democracy, judicial review, and critical scrutiny by the medical profession reversed the momentum of the eugenics movement (in the U.S.) and led to the conclusion that eugenical sterilization should be voluntary.""
=
"Cardinal Clemens August von Galen Approved by Pope John Paul II for Beatification
http://www.euthanasia.com/galen2004.html
"a model of fearless opposition to euthanasia""
=
"SERMON DELIVERED BY BISHOP CLEMENS AUGUST COUNT OF GALEN ON AUGUST 3, 1941 [...]
The Third Sermon, preached in the Church of St. Lambert's on August 3rd, 1941, in which the Bishop attacks the Nazi practice of euthanasia and condemns the ‘mercy killings’ taking place in his own diocese."
http://www.priestsforlife.org/pr...len41-08-
03.htm
-
"My dearly Beloved, I trust that it is not too late. It is time that we realized today what alone can bring us peace, what alone can save us and avert the divine wrath. We must openly, and without reserve, admit our Catholicism. We must show by our actions that we will live our lives by obeying God's commandments. Our motto must be: Death rather than sin. By pious prayer and penance we can bring down upon us all, our city and our beloved German land, His grace and forgiveness.
But those who persist in inciting the anger of God, who revile our Faith, who hate His commandments, who associate with those who alienate our young men from their religion, who rob and drive out our monks and nuns, who condemn to death our innocent brothers and sisters, our fellow human beings, we shun absolutely so as to remain undefiled by their blasphemous way of life, which would lay us open to that just punishment which God must and will inflict upon all those who, like the thankless Jerusalem, oppose their wishes to those of God."
==
'The majority of Christians on this planet, past and present, were/are/would be morally opposed to (1) gay sex (homosexual acts) and (2) the ‘new’ practice of so-called 'gay marriage'.'
That seems a bit better.... probably correct this time around.
==
"Kneeling [at Mass] is an act of adoration," said Judith M. Clark, 68 [...]".
Smart person. Good Catholic.
==
God bless her.
==
Kathy
One should not romanticise or demonise the Catholic Church.
To take up one of our examples, in my Country the Catholic Church is the biggest provider of private education in a Government dominated system. Catholic schools on average out perform public schools which draw from the same community. The Catholic school system is the strongest evidence that we should fund students and empower parents via vouchers rather than fund schools directly.
Why is what is happening in Islamic states with Sharia law relevant to the Catholic Church’s stance on homosexuality?
Well first, the Catholic Church is rightly arguing for the freedom of religion in these nations where Christians often face both legal and other forms of discrimination. Unfortunately she remains quiet on the criminalisation of homosexuality which is also a feature of these States. But more importantly the language she employs on the issue of homosexuality is not in most western nations given legal affect, wisely in my view. I regard this as a mark of civilisation, but many Muslims regard it as a failing. You can hardly hold it against the Iranians when they execute homosexuals, for they are only putting into legal affect what they say is a fundamental tenet of their faith – they are putting into action what they say they believe. And the language they deploy on homosexuality is remarkably similar to that of some Christians.
Thus I would say that Islamic barbarianism in relation to homosexuality (as an issue of personal liberty) is given minor sustenance by how homosexuality is characterised by some Christians. When the Pope characterises the West as practicing the culture of death or ‘anything goes’ relativism some of this resonates with some Muslims. It also aids in transference. The poverty, lack of educational/employment opportunity, lack of political freedom, political corruption and hopelessness of some in Islamic States is the fault of the exploitative, depraved, sexually lascivious, crusading West.
To my mind there is no difference between the freedom to practice one’s religion and the freedom of homosexual men and women to be who they are. Both are fundamental to human dignity.
Atiyah, your comment is thoughtful and interesting.
Your last statement, though, leaves me quizzical. You seem to be making an error that has many other implications, not all of them good. Am I right in thinking that you are putting both homosexual rights and the freedom of religion under the umbrella of privacy? I'm asking because a very high degree of privacy leaves many human rights unprotected. There are other arguments that could be made to disagree with you: for example, that homosexual behavior degrades while religious practices in general elevate human nature, which benefits the common good.
The US has customarily rejected or at least fought hard against religious customs that openly degrade, such as smoking marijuana, polygamy, etc.
Paul
Thank you for granting me my biases – I try to be reasonably explicit about them. Your summation of Fr. O’Leary’s reasoning is pretty good – “will someone rid you of this troublesome priest.” To recap:
- Previous position [say anti Semitism]
- Consider the evidence for the existence of the position and the affect of its application [documents and practices]
- When was it dropped or in fact minimised (despite what might be said denying the original position)
- Conclude a previous position now regarded as immoral and dropped, assert the view of homosexuality [consider documents and practices] is analogist and similarly immoral and should be dropped.
Thus Fr. O’leary argues on the basis of analogy and precedent.
It does not surprise me Paul that you fail to see the analogy. After all how could previous Christians persecute Judaism – the ancient and interesting faith that gave rise to their own to which Christianity still shares many similarities.
Today it seems so strange an outcome so bizarre so incredible as to be almost unbelievable. Yet it happened. Some respond by saying “well Christianity was never anti-Semitic” – propaganda/exaggeration/lie or argue about the authority of the documents. Others point to evidence to suggest that individuals acted with humanity and charity in their personal dealing with Jews despite the ‘official line.’ And via this they seek to salvage the reputation of Christianity. Others see no analogy between racial characteristics and sexual identity despite individuals being born with both.
Of course because one cannot see the analogy between the treatment of racial, religious and sexual minorities it does not follow that there is none. I simply put this down to your inability to refute the analogy in a coherent why – perhaps it rests on prejudice pure.
Interestingly Paul raises the horrible eugenics movement that became fashionable in the twentieth century and was not limited to the Nazis but widely adopted (but not so dramatically implemented) throughout western medicine (one of the Provinces of Canada really went for it). Of course homosexuality was medicalised and criminalised at roughly the same time. And of course many of the public policy arguments against the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the legal recognition of homosexual marriage/civil unions share a striking resemblance.
The law is viewed as a mechanism to socially engineer a reduction in homosexuality and its sexual expression which is harmful to society. Thus decriminalisation and formal legal recognition of homosexual relations encourages the incidence of homosexuality which is harmful now primarily to heterosexual marriage.
Not a tangent at all Paul.
Atiyah, funny (strange) that what I allow in your case, bias, you seemingly deny me, calling it "prejudice pure". Not fair. Can you not at least show some respect and imagination, and grant that I and others might have a religious faith, world-view, belief system, or some such thing? "prejudice pure"?! It seems to me that if (as they report) present-day anthropologists and scholars ideally and willingly grant this sympathetic understanding and openness towards non-western religions and cultural groups, it should be possible to use a little of this approach in dealings with the members 2000 year old Catholic tribe? Not that my faith perspective, say, on 'gay marrage' can't be supported by reason(s), but that is not currently my focus with you.
Does not charity begin at home? "because one cannot see the analogy between the treatment of racial, religious and sexual minorities it does not follow that there is none." Again, not fair. Where I live, I am seen (and have been negatively treated) by some as a 'racial minority' or whatever. Got beat up once by some rednecks. Not slaughtered like the poor Jews under the Nazis, thank goodness. And I guess you don't want to hear about my friendship, during a most important period of my life, with a (partly atheistic) Russian Jew? Too existential....? Or my relationship with a Sunni Muslim scholar and historian, with whom I would (when he lived here) discuss the Quran, and exchange perspectives world affairs? There were moments! Or my Marxist pal, with whom I drink cup after cup of rot-gut coffee into the wee hours? On and on... I must admit though, that my 'encounter' with some homosexual activists in University was not all that enriching and positive.
On a tangent, it does strike me as a bit odd and uncivil, that the so-called progressive and enlightened (secular?) scientific community, national and international, cannot do what some in the Catholic church have tried to do in the 20th century - say they are sorry for evils they or their ancestors (or brothers and sisters) have committed, or helped others to commit, against other human beings. It may not be enough by far, but it is a place to start.
==
I regret telling you that I got beat up badly by rednecks (what they said hurt more at the time), and that I have had some negative experiences throughout my life because of my background. I said more than I should have on a blog. I am sorry, I will not mention it again.
A long time ago I hung out with a guy who after high school got a room in the downtown area. He lived at one end of a long street. But on the other end, there was a park were male homosexuals would go looking for dates. It was the local gay pick-up zone, for lack of a better term.
My friend was not gay, but that did not matter one night, very late. The buses were not running to his street, so he was forced to walk. He thought he would go a shorter way, and cut through the park. When he did, he encountered a gang of males who were, 'gay bashers' i.e., people who beat up and abuse homosexuals. Let me just say that my friend was lucky he managed to escape those violent drunks. He ran for his life, and they tried to get him! Almost a victim, but he was faster. About a year or so later, a 'gay' person was murdered in the same area. Police said it was probably 'gay bashers'. My point: my friend knew what it was like to be, during one dangerous moment, a gay person. When he told me that, I kind of understood.
I do not think that our Lord Jesus Christ wants people to be violently treated. 'gay bashers' are not good people from my point of view. It is wrong. Period. Does it surprise you that a Catholic might think this?
==
Paul,
The prejudice to which I was referring was the inability to see the analogy between racial discrimination and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. What I was getting at was perhaps your view is intuitive or irrational i.e. not resulting from a process of reasoning. There may be many conscious and subconscious reasons for this.
You might well genuinely not see the similarity between the two but for me the analogy seems quiet straight forward and persuasive. And as I said whether one sees it or not it does not mean there isn’t an analogy between racial discrimination and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I think this is so because around the world they are coupled in most human rights statutes.
The use of the word “prejudice” in the context I was using it was not a wider observation about you or your faith or racism. It was certainly not meant as an accusation.
I might be biased in favour of personal liberty but this bias results from the application of conscious reasoning and specific choice to view public policy issues in this way.
I don’t know why I would not want to hear about the situations you have been discriminated against despite being open to others irrespective of race or politics. Often such experiences can be transformative.
If there is one prejudice I do have Paul that isn’t quite rational it is the dislike of those who muscle any minority. I admire people who speak truth to the powerful … even if I disagree with them. I do like underdogs and outsiders and non conformists of all stripes - we are richer for them. It is helpful to periodically test basic assumptions even if it is just to re-affirm them.
In relation to humility from the medical profession – the difference between Churches and medicine is that clerics claim to speak on behalf of God and doctors think they are God.
Kathy
I think what you are saying is coda for abortion rights, sourced from a non-enumerated right to privacy as found in the US Constitution. A bit of a legal contortion in my view – it’s really a State matter like gay marriage/civil unions.
The right to religion and sexual identity stem from individual liberty. Certainly privacy is important to free individuals.
I don’t know that sexual activity of homosexuals necessary degrades and even if this were so aside from issues of public nudity, legal capacity and free consent, I am not sure what the government has to do with the matter.
Again whether religious practices elevate human nature or not it isn’t a matter for the law.
I think desirable outcomes in human affairs will often result despite and not because of any particular set of rules. J.S. Mill observed that if something is overwhelming desirable (take for example heterosexual marriage producing children) then it will happen regardless and therefore needs no laws to bring it about.
Consider this – if civil marriage were abolished tomorrow would people stop marrying and building families? Or consider; if the law relating to murder where abolished would you go out and murder you neighbour? If marijuana was to be decriminalised would you light up? Such rules only appear to have an affect at the margins.
In terms of homosexuality they don’t appear to have had any affect on the incidence of it or the amount of sexual activity.
Polygamy is always brought up. Islam has some good rules. Consent of the first spouse to all subsequent spouses and each spouse has equal resources. The practice is rare in Islamic societies for all sorts of practical reasons even though it’s possible. I don’t know that there is a huge demand for it (except in parts of Utah).I once heard a young Muslim couple interviewed and the husband was asked about it and within a flash the wife answered in good humour but adamantly … some things between husbands and wives are indeed universal
Atiyah,
Yes, I might light up.
I think you have not yet explained what you mean by personal liberty. What are its limits in society?
Kathy
I am pleased that you bear out my point. You are confident that you would still marry (if you were unmarried) and are obviously confident that Catholicism would remain in the marriage business whatever the civil law said. And yes I am pleased your neighbour remains safe too.
And so we are left with your desire to use marijuana. Absent of any law against its use, (the presence of which is the only thing currently preventing you from using it) I would strongly advise against it on the basis of the damage to your health – but in the end it is your decision as an adult.
Regarding the limits to personal liberty – this isn’t easy to address abstractly it would depend on the particular circumstances – courts, legislatures and philosophers wrestle with this consistently. I do however prize it highly.
Atiyah, it's just that I can't imagine using marijuana indoors. But in a grassy park, in the springtime, yeah I might take a hit if it were legal.
I'm afraid I'd like to ask you to go ahead and explain more about the limits to personal liberty. Drug laws for example are partly in place because drug use leads to dependency which leads to degrading behavior. Personal liberties sometimes must be set aside for the common good.
(I have no idea what your first paragraph refers to.)
Before I begin, I did notice the focus has shifted. This is what I wrote concerning Spirit of Vatican II's comments: "Whatever the facts may be on particulars, the Church’s historical (past and present) positions on slavery, democracy, and usury are not, *to me at least *, really comparable to the Church’s opposition to gay sex (homosexual acts) and 'gay marriage'."
The quote below from you is the new focus, on which I will comment:
"The prejudice to which I was referring was the inability to see the analogy between racial discrimination and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."
My comment: See, this is where we disagree. It is an impasse. From my perspective, you presume too much, and need to let go of false premises or presuppositions you have. It is not any inability on my part to see, the analogy is just not there in the way you and others would like to impose, or suppose. Using the word 'discrimination' or 'human rights' indiscriminately does not work on me, though the crowd may follow. Why can't you understand? Actually, I think you do. In any case, because you seemingly deny me "conscious reasoning and specific choice", I will have to make this short. Maybe (I could be mistaken) these might help you towards seeing where I am coming from:
"Vatican to United Nations: "Sexual Orientation Is Not Comparable To Race or Ethnic Origin""
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006...y/
06053102.html
-
"The Vatican representative [...], Msgr. Ruben Dimaculangan said sexual orientation was not comparable to race or ethnic origin and homosexuality was not a positive source of human rights. He suggested such groups were in fact not asking for equal rights, but for special rights."
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006...y/
06051902.html
-
"The statement made by the Holy See during the debate on LSVD
22/05/2006"
http://www.ilga.org/news_results...ID=7&
FileID=800
-
These may or may not help. Sorry, but I just do not think that sodomy, etc., is a human right. Nor do I think that so-called 'gay marriage' is a human right. I am not even sure if the UN agrees that these are human rights. It did not in the past, but things are always changing.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005...r/
05041505.html
"What I was getting at was perhaps your view is intuitive or irrational i.e. not resulting from a process of reasoning. There may be many conscious and subconscious reasons for this."
Nope.
"The use of the word “prejudice” in the context I was using it was not a wider observation about you or your faith or racism. It was certainly not meant as an accusation."
What "racism"? I am not a racist!?
"I might be biased in favour of personal liberty but this bias results from the application of conscious reasoning and specific choice to view public policy issues in this way."
Glad to hear you are rational and free to choose, Mr. Spock. "Scotty, beam me up".
==
Ooops. Should be: "I am not a racist!"
Peace. Live long and prosper.
==
So Ruben Dimaculangan claims that sexual orientation unlike race is not a "positive source of human rights".
This shows a complete misunderstanding of what human rights are.
Race is not a source of human rights.
Rather, all human beings are created EQUAL and are endowed by their Creator with certain INALIENABLE rights, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
To DEPRIVE some of their rights because of the color of their skin or the fact that they are attracted to the same rather than the other sex sins against this.
Yes, the Vatican and its stooge are thus sinning.
Like the ill-fated instruction on gay seminarians (http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/
12/vatican_instruc.html), the Holy See statement here http://www.ilga.org/news_results...ID=7&
FileID=800
is laconic to the point of obscurity. And that is because the Vatican has no culture of free, open and detailed discussion of the various aspects of these issues. Hence it comes across as woodenly bureaucratic and lacking in insight.
Sodomy is not a human right, says P, neither is gay marriage.
On the latter, Pius XI talks of "the natural right to marriage", and the right to marriage is recognized by the Catholic Church as a basic human right, a positive right.
Sodomy laws have frequently been struck down by civil courts as infringing the rights to privacy, freedom of conscience etc. When such laws are directed against homosexual males in particular they are also struck down on the basis of the right to equality before the law.
You could equally say that masturbation is not a human right, yet reasonable people would see a law criminalizing masturbation as a grave injury to human rights.
http://www.ilga.org/news_results...ID=7&
FileID=799
Here we see that despite the Holy See the US has switched to giving gay rights organizations observer status at the UN. France, Germany and 3 Latin American countries have the same stance. AGAINST are Pakistan, Iran, Russia, China and five African countries.
Discrimination against gays is a hallmark of totalitarian regimes.
Kathy
The first paragraph deals with the three areas that hypothetically the civil law pulls out of. Of the three you chose the illegal drugs issue – decriminalisation in of itself results in you becoming a dopehead.
I don’t really want to get into a rehash of the libertarian and economic analysis of drug laws - google it – there is loads of stuff on the net about it. If your real concern is dependency then criminalisation has be spectacularly unsuccessful and has itself had many unfortunate consequences, like the associated crime and violence for example. It also begs the question as to why other addictive substances or those damaging to heath are not criminalised. Should a fast food outlet face criminal sanction for serving fried food to obese customers some of who are addicted to over consumption? In my country we have socialised medicine and so the cost of treating obesity falls directly on all taxpayers – is criminalisation to reduce obesity in the common good?
In the end people chose to give up self destructive behaviour because they want to and the criminal law only has a minor role to play in this and arguably it is often counterproductive.
No sometimes individual freedoms exercised don’t result in the common good and nor do they always result in an individual good either. But you have a right to be free regardless and to feel the consequences of your actions. Yes there are limits to freedom (for example the freedom of others) but what those limits are really depends on the particular case.
Paul
We were getting on so well and then you call me Spock and raise the issue of sodomy. Of course most sodomy is practised by heterosexuals.
Citing Vatican documents that simply state that there is no analogy between discrimination on the basis of race and on the basis of sexual orientation just doesn’t cut it my friend.
Most legislatures when dealing with anti discrimination laws more recently do see such an analogy.
Regarding the 'Spock' comment. It was not meant to harm, sorry - I mean, I like the Spock character; our dialogue (incorrectly perhaps) was starting to remind me of exchanges between Spock and Kirk (on Star Trek) - reason/logic/objectivity vs. emotions/intuition/intellectual subjectivity. I was being Kirk, playing the role. But in my second comment, "Live long and prosper", I was being Spock, "rational and free to choose".
==
Atiyah, does society have any responsibility for protecting the common good?
Funny Freudian misreading of the text this time, "A ban on kissing? Some Catholic won't stand for it".
Freud himself suggests that kissing is perverse, "since it consists in the bringing together of two oral erotogenic zones instead of two genitals"; "the parts of the body involved do not form part of the sexual apparatus but constitute the entrance to the digestive tract". And you thought it was only gays! (But I'm sure no one on this weblog has ever kissed, except perhaps as a cursory prelude to the marital act in which it is made sure that the "ejaculate" -- as it is called in Michael Liccione's huge debate on condoms -- is placed in the vaginal receptacle.)
Well I'd certainly take Freud as my religious authority over the Song of Songs.
Kathy:
I am always very nervous when people make claim to be acting in “society’s” interest. In practice it can mean anything from imposing the will of the majority on the minority to the minority imposing it on the majority. Like Margaret Thatcher I struggle with the concept of “society” for public policy purposes - what I see is individuals and their families. I prefer to look at things from this point of view and ask “does what is being proposed advance human freedom or restrict it?”
“Common good” in the Catholic sense is therefore also problematic for me. For me common good results from the voluntary interactions of free individuals who in any particular circumstance might make good bad or indifferent decisions. The Catholic notion of “common good” is really just an objective standard that applies irrespective of the subjective affect of that standard on particular individuals.
Thus heterosexual marriage is for the common good and as such there can be no legal recognition of other intimate human relationships despite what they want or what this lack of recognition might do to these individuals. As it happens I agree that heterosexual marriage is good and virtuous – that is why most people will continue to do it irrespective of what the law says (the law doesn’t create the relationship it merely recognises it). But it does not follow that because heterosexual marriage is desirable that that the law should not give legal recognition to other intimate relationships if there is a wish for this even if the wish is from a tiny minority.
Kathy, consider carefully whether you truly want public power (sourced ultimately is it is in coercion) to attempt to shape “society” in accord with your particular standards or view of what is in the “common good” Once you pull this lever, others will reach for it and there will be no end.
In Nigeria homosexuality is punishable by up to 14 yrs in prison. And now the Anglican Primate Peter Akinola supports the following legislation on same sex unions:
http://okrasoup.typepad.com/
blac...ia_gay_bill.pdf
The proposed law goes much further banning freedom of speech on this issue and preventing registration of organisations supporting same sex unions. The Most Rev Peter Akinola claims the Bill is in accord with most Nigerians view of human sexuality and by inference is consistent with Christianity and Islam. And thus the full weight of the state in that unhappy nation will be brought to bear on homosexuals and the supporters of same sex marriage. Perhaps it is they who are responsible for all the trials and tribulations of Nigeria?
If the Lord himself disavows compulsion and avers freedom should we not also be wary of the shapers of “society?”
Yes, Kathy, the Song of Songs loves kisses, and if its author was male it is full of male admiration for male erotic beauty! I would take the Song of Songs any day too. But don't forget that for 2500 years the Jewish and Christian world regarded the reading of the Song as a straightforward sexual love-poem as heretical. Benedict XVI's embrace of it as an erotic poem in his recent Encyclical is actually rather revolutionary. As Andrew Sullivan points out, that Encyclical could be the first step to an embrace of gays by the Church. Search "Song" and "Sullivan" on http://
josephsoleary.typepad.com...conquers_a.html.
Atiyah, the situation in Nigeria may be even more scandalous than we have realized. It is being claimed that the draconian law was actually prompted directly by Akinola, who wants the liberal Anglican group CAN ("Change Attitudes Nigeria") criminalized. He has smeared the leaders of CAN in shameless libels. I can only pity the conservative Anglicans is this is their leader.
I would be interested to know what the Catholic Church of Nigeria says about this - I cannot find anything of the Conference of Nigerian Bishop's website.
Can the Nigerian Catholic Church whose Clerics rightly slam the corruption in Nigeria that saps the wealth of the nation be trusted to defend fundamental liberties even when she might dislike how they are used? It is a test. Or does she side with a crystal clear case of oppression?
I for one will be writing to the local Anglican Bishop enclosing a copy of the Bill (boosted by his brother Bishop in Nigeria) and asking where they stand and inviting them to tell Akinola (who appears to be mad) to jump - he would do everyone a favour in the West.
Africa is a basket case - Nigeria one of the worst. If that is the future of Christianty then heaven help us all.
if its author was male it is full of male admiration for male erotic beauty
Spirit, you crack me up. Unfortunately my laughter must always be crowned with sadness. If your thinking weren't so gross and obscene and totally distorting of the plan of God, so very irreverent especially of Scripture, I could just revel in a good loud laugh instead of weeping aloud for your soul.
The Song of Songs is between a man and a woman, "O thou fairest among women,"--someone with breasts like twin fawns that feed among the lilies. Not exactly like the language on finds in male erotic literature, I would imagine.
(Is Andrew Sullivan a noted exegete, by the way?)
Kathy, a male who evokes male erotic attraction as powerfully as the author of the Song of Songs does is hardly an author you should invoke against homosexual feelings.
Andrew S. did not comment on the Song of Songs but on the Pope's use of Virgil and Plato.
The obscenity you see in my posting is in your own mind. I see nothing obscene in the Song of Song's celebration of physical beauty and erotic longing and tenderness, though to be sure thousands of years of Christianity might be invoked to say that only a spiritual, allegorical reading of the Song is allowed. I stand by Dietrich Bonhoeffer on this (as quoted on the weblog article I linked to).
Or are you saying that a woman wrote the woman's words in Song and that a man wrote the man's words. For a man to appreciate male beauty or for a women to appreciate female attraction would, in your opinion, be obscene? What about the beauty of Jonathan, as evoked in 2 Samuel?
You should make a more sincere effort to understand the feelings and godgiven sexuality of your gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. You might take some hints from the new Presiding Bishop of ECUSA, who is a woman.
"The Song of Songs is between a man and a woman, "O thou fairest among women,"--someone with breasts like twin fawns that feed among the lilies. Not exactly like the language on finds in male erotic literature, I would imagine."
The Song IS male erotic literature. I think you mean HOMOerotic literature.
Now look at how Plato describes masculine beauty (see the Charmides, the Phaedrus, the Symposium). Then look at how the Song describes male beauty ("His cheeks are like beds of spices... his hands are golden rods... his belly a plaque of ivory.. his whispers are sweetness itself... ") and at how the opening words "O that he would kiss me with the kisses of his mouth" are preached on at great length in Cisterican homilies such as those of St Bernard. I think that the literature of love does not mark any stark distinction between hetero and homo such as you insist on.
So pathetic.
Homosexual activity cannot be justified on any reasonable or religious grounds. Yet here you are degrading Scripture and God's activity of creation with your perverse interpretations, and meanwhile trying to shame me into having "a more sincere understanding." But YOU are the one who is deliberately misunderstanding the truth. You think you have compassion, but you have no compassion for God. And without compassion for God you cannot have TRUE compassion for your brothers and sisters. You can have a John Lennon I'm okay and you could be too if you smoked more hash compassion, but not a compassion in accord with truth--which is the only compassion that matters.
There's a role that Christians ascribe to the one who tries to make sin look like virtue. It's the Temptor.
Isn't it interesting that no one can tell me where the Catholic Church stands on this appalling attack on the freedom of conscience and the freedom of assembly in Nigeria. Can the Catholic Church be trusted to defend fundamental freedoms even if she doesn't approve of how they are used?
"Homosexual activity cannot be justified on any reasonable or religious grounds"
Kathy Kathy this comes of too much Green Acres watchin - turns the mind to mush. Homosexuality is a NATURAL thing for homosexuals - they're doing what God made'em to do. Get over it - ya just makin yourself and them unhappy by fussin over it (sorry I have trouble writing as they talk on Green Acres)
And then there is the hash thing again - you seem a bit tripy over the drug issue. Bong are the days when you should be getting so ... well... spaced out. I mean these are the nineties
Pa, we gotta get us one of these here bills in Hooterville:
http://okrasoup.typepad.com/
blac...ia_gay_bill.pdf
'You should make a more sincere effort to understand the feelings and godgiven sexuality of your gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.'
About 2000 years ago there were some brothers and sisters in the Church in Corinth who boasted in their "godgiven sexuality"; then it was a case of incest. Here is how the early Church addressed that situation:
'It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber -- not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. "Drive out the wicked person from among you."' (1 Cor 5:1-13)
Interesting especially to note the liturgical connection:
'Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.'
The more things change, the more they stay the same ...
Atiyah Atiyah wouldya quit with the patronizing? It's really offensive.
BTW, I'm not fussing over it. I'm fussing back, at people who can't take "NO I DON'T THINK HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY IS PERMISSIBLE IN CHRISTIANITY" for an answer. You and Fr. O'Learey seem bound and determined to make other people agree with you. Well, no, since I don't agree with you, I won't agree with you. When you agree with something that accords with the truth, then I'll agree with you. Why are you trying so hard to change my mind?
I dunno, Jethro, sounds to me like Provision #7 could get out of hand in the law enforcement sector. I'd say that particular bit, if it's not already draconian on paper, would probably wind up being persecutorial. Other than that, it looks like good legislation to me.
Hey, Jeb, I sure do like that there Apostle Paul feller. He knows how to whip a Church into shape. Them Nigerian lawmakers is good, too. Get'r done.
Kathy
There you go some insight on Cl 7. I only wish the Catholic Church would be as clear as you on this issue.
" So pathetic." Patronizing?
"Homosexual activity cannot be justified on any reasonable or religious grounds." Actually there are strong arguments on both grounds, but it is true that the Church, so far, rejects them.
" Yet here you are degrading Scripture and God's activity of creation with your perverse interpretations, and meanwhile trying to shame me into having "a more sincere understanding." But YOU are the one who is deliberately misunderstanding the truth." Nope, I read the record of God's revelation in Creation as well as in Scripture. And even in Scripture same-sex attraction seems sometimes to get fairly benign treatment.
"You think you have compassion, but you have no compassion for God." I never heard of "compassion for God" -- do you mean "compassion for those who speak in the name of God, or claim to"?
"And without compassion for God you cannot have TRUE compassion for your brothers and sisters. You can have a John Lennon I'm okay and you could be too if you smoked more hash compassion, but not a compassion in accord with truth--which is the only compassion that matters."
I am usually the one accused by feminist theologians of "a masculinist hang-up on truth". And in fact I am MORE interested in the truth about homosexuality than about compassion, and I believe that we are currently at a great learning moment where that truth is concerned. The Spirit is leading us into all truth, as Jesus promised, and the lessons of truth are found not only in the pages of Scripture but in the book of Creation itself.
"There's a role that Christians ascribe to the one who tries to make sin look like virtue. It's the Temptor." The role was attributed to all who called for leniency in church teaching on usury and other matters where the church was unreasonably severe. This is question-begging.
I'm glad, Spirit, that you are interested in the truth about homosexuality. I had almost given up hope that you were open to the truth. I'm very happy to hear that I was wrong.
No. I mean "compassion for God." Something like the compassion I feel for Jesus when people have hardened their hearts against Him. Compassion for God is ardent love for the Creator.
I hope I am open to the truth and I hope that you are too.
I am too. Bring it on.
Truth:
1)The "causes" of Homosexuality are still a matter of debate.
2) The causes of homosexuality are of utmost importance: if homosexuality is merely something we are born with, then it is inappropriate to condemn someone merely for having his genetic tendencies. [This should not, however, be taken as a carte-blanche excuse for acting on those tendencies.]
It stands to reason that homosexuality can not be genetically transmitted. Rare diseases can be transmitted on recessive genes, but the unwillingness to transmit life itself, genetically, is a nonsensical genetic trait.
Chris, I disagree with: The causes of homosexuality are of utmost importance.
The source of a temptation is never too significant. What matters is the act of human freedom in response to the temptation.
What I mean, Kathy, is that if Fr. O'Leary's contention can be accepted and demonstrated, that people are simply born that way, then he could try with more cause to claim that these perverts should be a "protected" class of people.
Sorry Chris, but that is totally irrelevant.
These are the salient points:
-The activity is wrong.
-Everyone has human and civil rights. Certain restrictions can be placed on these rights as a result of unlawful behavior.
-Society has rights (and obligations) to establish moral norms for the sake of the common good.
-Churches have freedoms, among which are the freedoms to establish its own norms for attitudes, behaviors, standards required for leadership.
Truth:
1)The "causes" of Homosexuality are still a matter of debate. AS ARE THOSE OF HETEROSEXUALITY.
2) The causes of homosexuality are of utmost importance: if homosexuality is merely something we are born with, then it is inappropriate to condemn someone merely for having his genetic tendencies. AND THE CHURCH DOES NOT CONDEMN ANYONE FOR BEING HOMOSEXUAL.[This should not, however, be taken as a carte-blanche excuse for acting on those tendencies.]
It stands to reason that homosexuality can not be genetically transmitted. Rare diseases can be transmitted on recessive genes, but the unwillingness to transmit life itself, genetically, is a nonsensical genetic trait.
BUT HOMOSEXUALITY IS INCORRECTLY DEFINED AS "THE UNWILLINGNESS TO TRANSMIT LIFE". IT IS A POSITIVE ORIENTATION OR SENSIBILITY. VERY MANY GENETIC TRAITS DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO PROPAGATION OF THE SPECIES BUT TO OTHER QUALITIES ALSO NEEDFUL FOR ITS EVOLUTION.
Kathy:
I grant you that, morally speaking, you are quite correct. Nevertheless, the vitriol which Fr. O'Leary has just poured onto my post illustrates that I'm on to something.
Homosexuality is a disease, a malformation, or an abhorent practice, whose causes need to be investigated, if only to help those tempted to commit them to avoid doing so.
So I'll challenge Fr. O'Leary (but he won't answer me directly) to explain what he means to imply by this:
VERY MANY GENETIC TRAITS DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO PROPAGATION OF THE SPECIES BUT TO OTHER QUALITIES ALSO NEEDFUL FOR ITS EVOLUTION.
in regard to homosexuality or the practice of homosexual acts. What qualitites.... needful for its evolution does this failure to transmit life but instead violate the laws of Nature contribute?
Chris:
You said: "Homosexuality is a disease, a malformation, or an abhorent practice, whose causes need to be investigated, if only to help those tempted to commit them to avoid doing so."
You are fairly new to the catholic religion you said?
You of course are aware that our religon does not subscribe to your view on homosexuality as a disease, aren't you?
Homosexuality is an orientation of the entire person to appreciation of the beauty of members of the same sex and to love of members of the same sex. It is thus a found of friendship, sympathy and community between men or between women. It has often been noted to be associated with high levels of sensitivity and artistic creativity, also very valuable, indeed necessary, for the flourishing of the human species.
Grega, unfortunately Vatican documents (signed by J Ratzinger) call same-sex orientation an "anomaly" and "objectively disordered", though of course it does not use the homophobic language of Chris.
What vitriol is Chris referring to?
You are quite correct Father o'Leary when you say:
"It has often been noted to be associated with high levels of sensitivity and artistic creativity, also very valuable, indeed necessary, for the flourishing of the human species."
We as a society all but sealed the deal to give our brothers and sisters with same sex attraction the legal and emotional protection that all committed loving relationships deserve.
The church as an institution that is based on ancient scripture has of courses no way to catch on as fast as would be required. On the other hand as you know in our church we have always incorporated the sensitivities and talents of our SSA brothers and sisters. It gives me much hope that the unusual high percentage of SSA men and women serving in our church on all levels will help a rapid transformation once the unavoidable tidal wave of the next profound societal changes will wash over us all.
I view the fact that some have to argue negatively and talk about 'disease', have to trot out sexually explicit language of the worst kind etc as a profound weakness of argument. The average human being will be swayed by the examples that the majority of homosexuals set for us day in day out as friends, neighbors, colleagues, fellow family people, artists, musicians.
Excuse me, Father. "Vitriol" was the wrong word. Your insistent use of capital letters always reminds me of someone shouting.
Now -- why would homosexuality be deemed the unwillingness to transmit life? Surely this is true because it consists in the commission of an action which, in itself, every time it is committed is incapable of transmitting life.
Commenting by HaloScan
