The Southern Baptist Convention recently approved a resolution asking that local congregations not have leaders that drink. Yeah, your point has been proven.
Dr. Blosser, on the one hand I couldn't agree with you more. It is obvious truth, just as the existence of God is obvious.
(BTW there was a good essay today on First Things by Joseph Bottum on the persecution of Robert J. Smith and others.)
On the other hand I hesitate to underestimate the deceits of the evil one. I suppose it's well-known to your readers that St. Therese of Lisieux suffered horrible temptations against faith in the last year and a half of her life. She called it her "Trial" and it seems like a remarkably excruciating Night of the Spirit in the St. John of the Cross (sanjuanist) tradition.
I guess the trial is pretty rough. St. John:
This night is a painful disturbance involving many fears, imaginings, and struggles within these persons. On account of the apprehension and feeling of their miseries, they suspect that they are lost and their blessings are gone forever. The sorrow and moaning of their spirit is so deep that it turns into vehement spiritual roars and clamoring, and sometimes they pronounce them vocally and dissolve in tears (if they have the strength and power to do so), although such relief is less frequent. David, one who also had experience of this trial, refers to it very clearly in one of the psalms: I was very afflicted and humbled; I roared with the groaning of my heart [Ps. 38:8]. This roaring embodies great suffering. Sometimes on account of the sudden and piercing remembrance of their wretchedness, the roaring becomes so loud and the affections so surrounded by suffering and pain that I know not how to describe it save by the simile holy Job used while undergoing this very trial: As the overflowing waters, so is my roaring [Jb. 3:24]. As the waters sometimes overflow in such a way that they inundate everything, this roaring and feeling so increase that in seeping through and flooding everything, they fill all one's deep affections and energies with indescribable spiritual anguish and suffering.
The reason I bring this up is that she seemed to suffer for unbelievers and on their behalf. They WOULD NOT believe; God permitted her to suffer the same temptations against faith as others might welcome--perhaps because God knew that she had become stable in her faith and WOULD believe:
At this time I was enjoying such a living faith, such a clear faith, that the thought of heaven made up all my happiness, and I was unable to believe there were really impious people who had no faith. …. During those very joyful days of the Easter season, Jesus made me feel that there were really souls who have no faith…. He permitted my soul to be invaded by the thickest darkness, and that the thought of heaven, up until then so sweet to me, be no longer anything but the cause of struggle and torment….. Just as the genius of Christopher Columbus gave him a presentiment of a new world when nobody had even thought of such a thing; so also I felt that another land would one day serve me as a permanent dwelling place. Then suddenly the fog that surrounds me becomes more dense; it penetrates my soul and envelops it in such a way that it is impossible to discover within it the sweet image of my Fatherland; everything has disappeared! When I want to rest my heart fatigued by the darkness that surrounds it by the memory of the luminous country after which I aspire, my torment redoubles; it seems to me that the darkness, borrowing the voice of sinners, says mockingly to me: "You are dreaming about the light, about a fatherland embalmed in the sweetest perfumes; you are dreaming about the eternal possession of the Creator of all these marvels; you believe that one day you will walk out of this fog that surrounds you! Advance, advance; rejoice in death which will give you not what you hope for but a night still more profound, the night of nothingness."
Anyhow, this is the line that gets to me in this context:
Jesus made me feel that there were really souls who have no faith
Now WHY they have no faith is a different story. Has the truth never been convincingly told to them? Have they been convinced by the unscrupulous who have something to gain by their impiety? Or, are they holding on to impiety because they have something to gain by being morally unaccountable to God?
I've talked with a lot of people who WILL NOT BELIEVE, about God, or about the subject at hand. It can become very deeply ingrained that at times I suspect they might not really "know!" A lot of times the reason is that they feel they would have to personally betray someone they love, in order to allow the Truth to take hold.
Knowing Austin and the University of Texas the way I do, I'm surprised he still has a job.
The hate that dares to speak its name...
"I believe that God creates us with different gifts," Presiding Bishop Schori said. "Some people come into this world with affections ordered toward other people of the same gender and some people come into this world with affections directed at people of the other gender."
Here is a bishop who speaks with the voice of Christ.
Spirit, most people (unlike you of course) find that sticking a penis into another man's poopy hole is quite frankly disgusting. It is absolutely revolting. Sick. Perverted. Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. Blech! In fact, one probably feels like vomiting after thinking about it. (and reading this comment).
"Here is a bishop who speaks with the voice of Christ."
Just great: a Catholic priest happy to see a Protestant denomination fall prey to the gay clergy crowd. As an Episcopalian I followed this woman, who advocates abortion, divorce... oh, just a whole list of Godly behavior. In your Brave New World, I suppose this is the Voice of Christ. Only a professionally-schooled theologian could get things so backwards. The voice sounds other-worldly, but hardly heavenly. As for her fruits, just watch as the genuine believers leave the Episcopal Church in droves, and it becomes the home of the Feminists and Same-Sex Atttracted Who Are Liturgically Oriented. And who cry 'hatespeak' whenever anyone dares question their moral choices.
Bishop Schori is not "an advocate of abortion"; rather she believes that "abortion is not a good choice".
Interviewed on CNN, Jefferts Schori was asked if it was a sin to be homosexual. “I don’t believe so. I believe that God creates us with different gifts. Each one of us comes into this world with a different collection of things that challenge us and things that give us joy and allow us to bless the world around us,” she said. “Some people come into this world with affections ordered toward other people of the same gender and some people come into this world with affections directed at people of the other gender.”
Budziszewski represents the "mother's knee" school of moral theory, which is a formula for immuring oneself in prejudice. I met a judge who preached it to me one day. I later heard he had given suspended sentences to a young men who killed a gay man in a park (one of the young men later raped a grandmother).
His mother's knee morality never told him that killing gays was wrong, you see. Just as many mother's knee moralists in the USA today, including 75% of Roman Catholics, have no moral compass to tell them that torture is always wrong.
Kathy seems to make the badness of anal sex and the reality of God both objects of the theological virtue of faith. There is a category error here. In Catholic teaching morality is determined by reason and by natural law argument, not by revelations demanding Faith. If one's belief in God is besieged, that is a trial of faith. If one doubts one's previous convictions that same-sex attraction is an "anomaly" (the Vatican's word) and that all sexual expression between two men or between two women is evil and disgusting, then that is not a trial of faith but a crisis of ethical reasoning, a crisis of growth for most people.
Budziszewski believes that contraception is inherently wrong not out of faith but out of insight into the moral law, a "moral sense" whereby we infallibly know it cannot be right. His critics say that his real reasoning is faith-based and that if he were not a conservative Catholic he would not be so convinced of this.
Well Dr Blosser has abandoned the twin redoubts of “Usury” and “Slavery” to the ‘heathens’ who argue a religious tradition of change and the retirement of dopey ideas.
The “big canons” of the canon lawyers are also left abandoned on the field. The “Lord of the Rings” last stand is upon us - the clash of good and evil – homosexuality equals sodomy nothing more needs saying - intuitively we all KNOW this - sexuality is mere mechanics.
Dr Blosser sits in his citadel of human sexuality and natural law clutching a copy of Budziszewski. Not for him the high Priests of natural law: Finnis or George (Oxford and Princeton those dens of iniquity) but rather the subtlety of a Yale man banished to Associate Professordom in Texas. So the drawbridge is up and now the hot tub Hottentots gather for nothing urges them on more than an academic on the run. Let’s rumble.
ARISTOTLE: FONT OF NATURAL LAW
So Dr Blosser we accept that the pagan Aristotle is the font of Natural law – what precisely was his reasoning for the assertion that all sexual activity was for the purpose of procreation? What did Aristotle say about philosophy being put into the service of authority (religious or otherwise)? Is it not possible to conclude that Aristotle’s assertion is just that: an assertion? Do we think Aristotle if he were alive today might not look at the actual evidence regarding the consistent incidence of homosexuality throughout all human civilisation at approximately the same proportion of the population? Are you suggesting he would ignore these universal patterns? What would he say about the application of human reason when looking at these patterns?
DR BUDZISZEWSKI: NATURAL LAW AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Tell us Dr Blosser it is the same Dr Budziszewski who is an advocate of Intelligent Design is it not? If patterns of consistently occurring irreducible complexity support the notion of a creator and are evidence of his will at work, does a pattern of consistently occurring irreducibly complex homosexuality in the human species not likewise support the notion of a creator and evidence his will at work? Or are some patterns evidence and others are not?
DR BUDZISZEWSKI’S LITTLE VOICE WITHIN AS MORAL COMPASS
Intuitively I quite like the idea – but then I think most people are common sensed most of the time. I guess in Australia the small voice within is telling most Catholics and Anglicans that homosexuality isn’t really such a big deal. But can the small voice be conditioned by evidence, or culture or religion? And what do we do if two quite nice intelligent serious minded Christians have a small voice that says something different to each on homosexuality? Or do you not accept that “true” Christians can differ on the issue. Perhaps you can hear the small voices within of those who believe that homosexuality is a normal incidence of human sexuality and therefore God given – perhaps you can tell they aren’t being true to their voice within.
Here's a grand little piece for all redblooded homophobes to drool over -- from the Cardinal Archbishop of Lagos, Nigeria:
"All these stories are geared towards destroying the marriage institution. It’s very strange, indeed very absurd. How could a man and a man or woman and woman be in a sexual relationship? It’s crazy. This is a curse. All they (gays and lesbians) want to do is destroy the human race.
"It is the same thing that made them to start using the condom. They call it family planning. People now want to have less children. So, they brought in the condom. Actually, there is a company that produces condom that wants to be located in Nigeria. They want to start producing condoms in Nigeria! That is besides the abortions they commit on daily basis.
"Haven’t you also heard about people doing sex exchange? Men transform into women and women can become men! These are all targeted at destroying human life.
"Those who are doing family planning now have two kids. A man gets married, gets a boy or a girl or two boys and hands up. He has had enough. After they have done all these and it is not enough, men now want to get married to fellow men and women want to get married to fellow women. Is it not absurd? Is it not sickness? Is it not like challenging God? But I thank God for the fastness of this regime to arrest the situation. They did not even waste time before coming up with a law. Nigeria factor did not come into force.
"You heard that a group of them (gays and lesbians) actually came out to flaunt their homosexuality and lesbian behaviours and are asking for official recognition. That cannot happen in Nigeria. Of course, it cannot happen in the Catholic Church. It’s an abomination. It cannot happen in this part of the world. No, it cannot happen.
"I thank God that the secular society did not leave the matter in the hands of the church. It acted appropriately and the church knows what to do now. I am hopeful that as stipulated, the government gets serious with it because we know that in some parts, homosexuals exist. It has to stop."
Philip Blosser may also like this: "Some homosexuals argue that they have an inborn, irresistible tendency to be sexually attracted to persons of same sex. Others say they simply enjoy it and are, therefore, entitled to their lifestyles. This is preposterous. Such strange, unnatural sexual feeling is indicative of demonic influence or personality disorder which requires either divine deliverance or psychotherapy, not complacency. It is like a spoilt, over-protected young man who has an Oedipus complex manifesting in a repressed desire to kill his father and marry his mother! He should not be left alone; he needs the attention of a pastor or psychotherapist. Legalization of homosexuality and gay marriages is ill-advised and morally reprehensible".
Argument by comment-swamp again Father? If you could bring yourself to hold the ad hominem and engage with any points raised I might actually read what you have to say.
As it is I scroll, and scroll, and scroll...
Yes I can see why BXVI is alarmed at the number of African's seeking the status and standard of living of a cleric - this man isn't top shelf is he. A prince of the Catholic Church not much better than a witch doctor. Usually Catholic prelates are among the sharpest knives in the draw but he's no better than all the other religious figures quoted in the appalling article.
Nigeria seems to be consumed with a sort of madness. A land of mega prod churches and megalomaniac preachers wearing white shoes and looking and acting like Don King. Internet scams involving African princesses accounting for a huge amount of their GDP. Muslims murdering Christian and Anglican prelates calling for retaliatory murders. Rampant corruption with most of its previous oil wealth all gone. A born-again President seeking to change the constitution so he can serve another term. All mixed in with a healthy dose of Sharia Law and the odd stoning or two. And then there is the Anglican ArchBishop getting law introduced to attack the freedom of expression and association which is endorsed by the Catholic Church and all other Christian sects and national representatives of Islam.
Yes it’s so clear – all of the problems of the unhappy Nigeria are the fault of the homos.
And this is the tune conservative Episcopalians want to dance too. Good grief.
'"I believe that God creates us with different gifts," Presiding Bishop Schori said. "Some people come into this world with affections ordered toward other people of the same gender and some people come into this world with affections directed at people of the other gender."
'Here is a bishop who speaks with the voice of Christ.'
Here is an anti-Christ who speaks with the voice of an idiot. Jesus did not come to validate whatever impulses (so-called "gifts") that happen to make us feel good and which in our foolishness we attribute to God. The voice of Christ raises us out of the muck of our self-deceit. The voice of "Bishop" Schori bids us to wallow in the muck. Worse than the voice of an idiot, this is the voice of the ancient snake in the garden.
Here is a bishop who speaks with the voice of Christ.
Why? He speaks a mere platitude, and you bow before him and shower him with this accolade? But we all really know why, don't we. Because it isn't a mere platitude, like God has made some flowers blue and some flowers yellow. No, it's that he has taken an issue we all know has been understood as representing the antithesis between health and perversion and expressed that as though it were nothing more than the difference between blue and yellow flowers. Of course. And you say that here is a bishop who speaks with the voice of Christ. Shame on you! And you go farther by suggesting that anyone who points to the moral law that stands for health and, therefore, a renunciation of the health of its antithesis a "hate that dares not speak its name." Does it nowhere speak it's name? In the Bible it appears almost ubiquitously as the "wrath of God," does it not?
Ah Dr Blosser
The "he" you refer too is actually a "she" pays to tell the difference can get you into all sorts of strife. I know it requires a bit of a stretch but Anglicans can have female Bishops.
Spirit, I am not Anonymous above, and I'd appreciate it if you don't jump to conclusions like that. If you recall I left my calling card even as Spritz II.
My question is, given the Schori framework: Is same-sex orientation a "challenge" or something with which to "bless the world?"
I take it to be the former, you (apparently) take it to be the latter, and that's not tomaato tomahto.
Spirit, your "category error" depends for its basic distinction upon a sharp break between the objects of faith (doctrine) and the objects of charity (morals). But as Dr. Blosser is pointing out, and as the discussions among the Anglican Communions on the homosexuality issue bear out, what is truly at stake here is whether there is a true interpreter of Scripture. How does the Catholic Church teach us to read Romans 1? Is that a matter of faith or morals?
Faith.
Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith.
The reason of this is that the species of every habit depends on the formal aspect of the object, without which the species of the habit cannot remain. Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith. Even so, it is evident that a man whose mind holds a conclusion without knowing how it is proved, has not scientific knowledge, but merely an opinion about it. Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will. (Summa T. IIaIIae 5.3.)
I can't begin to say how much I personally resent the "hateful homophobe" label that is used like a bludgeon by people like Father O'Leary and our prolix friend Atiyah. I do not hate gay people. The homosexual men whom I have known (honestly I've never known many lesbians) have impressed me as being intelligent, creative, professionally reliable, and good hearted. I have experienced geniune, heartfelt affection for many of these men. Nevertheless, I believe that their sexual affections and practices are gravely disordered. Personal affection does not preclude -- indeed it demands -- objectivity in moral judgment.
But Folks
Natural law does not depend on religious authority or any other authority actually - that's the whole point of it.
Why don't you guys want to play in the natural law field after all its supposed to be your thing.
Come come what patterns and evidence can we discern with human reason regarding the incidence of homosexuality in any population?
Atiyah, please clarify: by "homosexuality" do you mean the orientation, or the orientation + sexual behavior?
Also, you raise an important question: to what extent does the Church reserve to herself the interpretation of the natural law?
Thank you Atiyah for your fantastic posts. How nice to read a voice of sound reasoning here.
Dave:
excuse me?
"Here is an anti-Christ who speaks with the voice of an idiot."
You call this good, faithful, well educated wife with 39 years of marriage, this mother, this former scientist, perhaps a prime example of a faithful Christian an 'Idiot'?
In some ways I actually welcome such shrill comments since they bring for the average believer into sharp focus how much you guys have lost touch with reality.
I shudder when I project what others might think if an otherwise reasoned believer like you Dave, feels he has to slander really honest average good brothers and sisters in Christ. You think it is time to call this fine women an idiot, just because she happens to disagree with your deep felt disrespect of our SSA brothers and sisters - please give me a break.
Let me tell you, this will not help your cause in any way or form.
Grega, I did not say that she is an idiot. I have no doubt that she's a real smart lady. I said that this so-called "Bishop" is an anti-Christ who speaks with the voice of an idiot: she gives voice to what I think is an idiotic point of view. Smart people say idiotic things. Haven't you just said basically the same thing about me???
I stand by my characterization of this pretender Bishop as an anti-Christ. She is a false teacher who promotes false doctrine. That is the very definition of anti-Christ, according to St. John.
As for my "cause", let's face it, nothing that I say will help my cause with "Spirit of Vatican II", Atiyah, or you. This isn't about convincing and persuading. It's about getting all of our ideological cards out on the table.
C'mon, Grega. When I go into my homophobic rant, you might not say out loud "What an idiot", but I'll bet that you think it!
Come come Dave
You actually underestimate how interesting natural law theory is. Let's roll around in it like pigs in the mud. It is the rational underpinning of the Church’s position on homosexuality. It is Dr PB’s big play in this post – hopefully he will set us right if we get off track or our reasoning is faulty.
Look at the quote in Dr PB's post - its biological/mechanical. So first off what are the patterns that we can discern about the incidence of homosexuality in any population?
And then let’s get into the nitty gritty. Here is a bonus starter question: if sex is solely about procreation - why is it pleasurable? We all know the virtue of reproducing the species why get a bonus for the sexual act itself? If you don’t reproduce your line goes - pretty straight forward I would have thought. You need no physiological trigger and all these chemicals rushing around in your body to do your duty. And why can post menopausal women still achieve organism when they cannot naturally conceive? Why would God do that – all bonus and no duty.
Kathy:
Natural law is a branch of philosophy - it requires no authority to interpret it no revealed knowledge to make it work - you can by application of your own reason.
"Come come Dave" ...???
Er ... in the context ... yuck.
There is nothing wrong with a husband and wife finding pleasure in sex.
There is something clearly wrong with two men having sex, whether they happen to enjoy it or not.
Why is sex pleasurable? Why is anything pleasurable? 'Tis a mystery. The question is whether the pleasure is licit, or more precisely, whether it is obtained through a morally licit act. Sadists get pleasure from hurting people. That is an illict pleasure, or a pleasure obtained through an illicit act, because hurting people is wrong.
Dave
Concluding something is a mystery is this context is not an application of natural law theory but a default of it. You can reason the need to continue your line – why get pleasure as a bonus. Seems strange doesn’t it.
Logically the pleasure might have a purpose linked to procreation or independent of procreation since pleasure is possible whether or not in fact procreation is possible.
So tell me is sex with a post menopausal women (according to Dr Blossers quote) "Life, be swallowed in death" since no life is possible?
Dave:
" C'mon, Grega. When I go into my homophobic rant, you might not say out loud "What an idiot", but I'll bet that you think it!"
Honestly I have never thought of you in that way - I wrote exactly what I thought: that you do not help your cause/side by ranting against this fine women - you are no idiot.
How did you call her: the 'Antichrist' - nice going Dave. Again I appreciate the honesty - or as you said: your willingness to lay your "ideological cards out on the table".
And yes you might be correct, certainly a single opinion here will not have a good chance to change my mind on the issue at hand.
My opinion these days is very much influenced by the wonderful examples that many commited gays and lesbians in my neighborhood, in my parish, in my older sons school and my younger sons daycare give to our family day in day out.
You yourself write about your positive experience with fine gay men - somehow these insights do not 'stick' and you draw a different conclusion than myself. Not the end of the world in my view.
The majority of our fellow citizens today are actually right with you Dave I would admit.
The catholic church however is in a somehow funny position these days - obviously a significant portion (clearly beyond the 2-5% of the general population typically mentioned as SSA) of the all male clergy in our church has pretty clear SSA issues. But hey - don't ask don't tell.
I can just say, as the father of two little boy's I rather have our church sweep all those perhaps fine priests out of the closet and force them to be out and open about there inclination than to have them piously lurking around.
I am not naive Dave, the very medium that enables us to communicate here between very differing fractions within our beloved church is also heavily used these days to 'hook' up, to chat, to lurk , to arouse - you name it.
I do not think that the catholic church can go about it's business in the usual way with this new reality.
It is certainly asking a lot of young seminarians in our culture today with such instant internet access and all kinds of temptations to stay indeed chaste, and pure in thoughts and deeds.
Do not get me wrong - I do believe there are many that are indeed cut out to be just wonderful chaste devout Priests but it would be so much better for all of us if we could also welcome all the talented married men and as I happen to firmly believe also women into this profession.
No Dave this fine women is not the Antichrist - au contrare.
Let me leave you with this little story:
A neighbor of us, who happens to teach at a local catholic university with attached seminary told me for example that it is just too funny to see how many of the young seminarians are sitting over coffee and are clearly adoring each other.
Nothing wrong with that picture in my view as long as these guys can go on to openly embrace their natural inclinations.
I find the discussion on the basis of natural law fascinating, particularly in that in this thread and others we see the two schools of thought. The most common one today, which Heinrich Rommen characterized as the positivist approach in his book on the natural law, is able presented by Atiyah. The other, probably best characterized as Thomist, is defended by Dr. Blosser.
This brings to the fore what is probably the most important philosophical question of our day. How we think -- as well as how we believe -- determines the shape and course of our individual lives and, through them, the direction of society. When our underlying philosophy is running a temperature, it is a good indication that our society is very sick.
To explain, as G. K. Chesterton noted in "The Dumb Ox," his biography of Saint Thomas Aquinas, since the 16th century philosophers have been promoting philosophies rooted in something other than nature (i.e., "common sense"). Ultimately, by basing a philosophy on something other than God’s Nature ("Intellect"), we can do anything we want, and justify all of it. As Heinrich Rommen pointed out in his book on the natural law, by basing the natural law on anything other than the Intellect, the entire second table of the Law of Moses is abolished. This leads, ultimately, to pure relativism and nihilism.
By basing the natural law (and thereby the interpretation of Catholic teaching) on anything other than God’s Nature, we can violate the life, liberty and property of anybody, for any reason whatsoever. This is because we have received a personal command from God, or we have a personal revelation as to the real meaning behind the Bible, an encyclical or a papal allocution. Once we reject the idea that man is formed in God’s image with respect to his analogous capacity to acquire and develop virtue (thereby sharing God’s Nature analogously), everything is up for grabs.
The turning point came, as Rommen relates, with Hugo Grotius, the so-called "father of natural law." Grotius’ ideas came via William of Occam’s development of the thought of Duns Scotus with its emphasis on the primacy of the Will. As Grotius declared in "De Jure Belli," "What we have been saying would have a degree of validity even if we should concede that which cannot be conceded without the utmost wickedness, that there is no God, or that the affairs of men are of no concern to Him."
This opened up the floodgates for today’s rejection of Aristotle and Saint Thomas. As Friedrich Nietzsche logically concluded, "Without God, all things are lawful."
As a (former) professor friend of mine remarked to me not long ago, the problems in our society, as well as in our individual lives, can be traced in large measure to the failure of moral philosophy. If you don't know where you're going or why in this life, it's hardly likely that you'll end up where you hope.
Incidentally, my friend was forced to resign from his teaching positio
Oops, sorry. I exceeded the length. As I was saying,
...n at a Catholic institution of higher learning because of his refusal to state that he believed homosexuality to be in accordance with natural law.
[ Do we think Aristotle if he were alive today might not look at the actual evidence regarding the consistent incidence of homosexuality throughout all human civilisation at approximately the same proportion of the population? Are you suggesting he would ignore these universal patterns? What would he say about the application of human reason when looking at these patterns? ]
Atiyah, before we engage this assertion of your, could you please document it in some way? For my part, I very strongly doubt that evidence even exists to document "incidence of homosexuality throughout all human civilisation." Could you please cite the study(ies) that lay out this evidence?
Also, Atiyah, if it is proven that the greater susceptibility to alcoholism among Native Americans is physiological, would you encourage them to engage in that behavior since "that's just how God made them?"
One more shot here, Atiyah, and then I really will shut my yap.
Let's suppose that you concede that the biological order was designed by an intelligent being. Is it not a pretty decent argument that the female genitals are *designed* to accomodate the male genitals, but that the rectum is not. Is it not perfectly reasonable to describe the insertion of male genitalia into recta (and even the desire to do so) as quite literally disordered?
Now let's suppose that I concede that Darwin is da man and that this all came about through a combination of random mutation and natural selection. Is it not true that a natural "orientation" that renders an organism incapable of reproducing is a catastrophe of the highest order, an evolutionary disaster? Would it not be perfectly reasonable for me to hope to God......no, wait, to hope to Darwin that none of my offspring are so defective? And wouldn't it be reasonable for any healthy population to make absolutely sure that there would be no influence anywhere that would have any of its offspring even pretending to have such an affliction. We would not celebrate it, eh? We would erradicate it.
Frankly, I think this is a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument and it's only muddleheaded nonsense that manages to skirt around the hard facts from either major philosophical/theological vantage and conclude with "Oh, it's just such a blessing to be gay!" What do you think?
Q. Re: 'natural law' -
Atiyah wrote: "Come come what patterns and evidence can we discern with human reason regarding the incidence of homosexuality in any population?"
Response. I do not think many really grasp what 'natural law' philosophy is about. I suppose the answer many gay supporters want to hear (wrongly), or want to give (wrongly) - is that homosexuality or homosexual behavior is 'natural' to a portion of the human species, and that this 'sexual orientation' and activity is commonly felt and practiced by a percentage of persons in any given human population – They say, 'It happens, it is a biological, psychological and social 'fact', so therefore it is obviously 'natural', and thus in accordance to 'natural law'. - This is what I understand many gay supporters and activists to be saying.
Let me try to respond to your question with a question, and another example re: 'natural law', and biological/ psychological/ social facts:
Q. 'what patterns and evidence can we discern with human reason regarding the incidence of Zoophilia or Zoosexuality (bestiality/ 'zoosexual activity') in any [human] population'?
I am not sure how reliable the sources are on this topic, but here reportedly are some statistics from the social sciences to start with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Bea...t_of_occurrence
Beastiality, as a sexual orientation, and as a sex practice, appears to be a biological/ psychological/ social fact. BUT IS IT MORAL? Last I heard, bestiality (like homosexual sex) is a sin, a behavior not in accordance with the natural law i.e., it is not a reasonable use of our human nature and sexuality, - thus immoral, or unnatural. I understand it is prohibited by the Catholic church too.
Earlier in the same Wikipedia article (see link above), it reads: "There is presently considerable debate whether some aspects of zoophilia are better understood as an abberation or as an orientation. The activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology under DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the person."
- Just like human homosexuality and practices? I kind of see an analogy. I suppose next we will hear calls for human/animal/cross-species sex-rights, sex legislation, sexual orientation protections, anti-discrimination laws, U.N. recognition and funding, a new definition of marriage, and….the horror!
==
"They say, 'It [homosexual sex] happens, it is a biological, psychological and social 'fact', so [...] it is obviously 'natural', and thus in accordance to 'natural law'. And therefore it is GOOD, RIGHT and MORAL- This is what I understand many gay supporters and activists to be saying."
They are wrong.
==
Thank you Atiyah for once again treating me like an ignorant child.
Anyways, there are obviously different theories of what the natural law is--what falls under it, what perdurance it has, etc. Why don't just the educated Catholics respond: Does the Catholic Church reserve to herself the interpretation of the natural law?
Grega,
Your points are reasonably stated and well taken, despite the obvious areas of disagreement between us.
Your closing anecdote is especially interesting:
'A neighbor of us, who happens to teach at a local catholic university with attached seminary told me for example that it is just too funny to see how many of the young seminarians are sitting over coffee and are clearly adoring each other.
Nothing wrong with that picture in my view as long as these guys can go on to openly embrace their natural inclinations.'
As it happens, I am currently re-reading Brideshead Revisited. The picture that you described puts me immediately in mind of Charles Ryder and Sebastian Fyte. There is no question that those two young men adored each other (so long as we do not use "adore" in its religious sense). There is also no question (in my mind, at least) that Charles is NOT a homosexual. Sebastian's orientation is not entirely clear (again, that's my perception), but even if he is gay, the story suggests no possibility of homosexual sin between these two friends. So, as far as your anecdote goes, I agree that there is nothing necessarily wrong with that picture. Yet you start to lose me when you go on to say '... as long as these guys can go on to openly embrace their natural inclinations.' If that means what I think it means (and I think it does), then I most decidedly disagree.
As for dear "Bishop" Schori, I stand by my contention that a Church leader who promotes false doctrine is an anti-Christ according to St. John.
By the way, a person can be attractive, well-educated, charming, and morally virtuous, and still be an anti-Christ in St. John's sense of the word.
'So tell me is sex with a post menopausal women (according to Dr Blossers quote) "Life, be swallowed in death" since no life is possible?'
Atiyah, your anal-ogy is ridiculous. A barren womb does not represent "decay and expulsion". Besides, who says that no life is possible in a barren womb? Have you forgotten the story of Elizabeth, the cousin of Mary? You're writing too much and getting sloppy, Atiyah. Come, come. Let's aim for quality, not quantity.
Listen.... I can hear the liberal progressive activists now... listen to them speak:
"Zoophilia. 'Barn-buddies'. Educate yourself! Teach the children! Change the laws!
There is (1) heterosexual 'straight' zoophilia, and (2) same-sex 'queer' zoophilia. Don't forget the (3) Bi and (4) Trans varieties. Then there is group sex, or 'herding'. There are combinations of 1, 2, 3, and 4. Zoophilia. Some are just born that way. They are not cannibals, they just love animals.
Right-wing fundamentalist fascist Bible-thumping Papist zoophobes, i.e., good Catholics, they just can't morally accept or tolerate cross-species dating, zoosexual relations, or cross-animal love, sexual expression and marriage (do not forget the right to adopt, and create offspring in test-tubes!).
Zoophilia. So what if one partner can't speak (human)! There is 'consent', do not let the animal rights crowd fool you - there is stimulation, sexual response, and so on. That is consent, more than one can expect from most human encounters.
'They' (Catholics) say our expressions and gifts are against 'nature' and sinful, but zoosexuals love nature, in an intimate way. Let's face it: Those damn Catholics treat human homosexuality and practices the same way, the condemn love and pleasure (because of Augustine) and they are wrong in doing so - them and their Pope and 'natural law'. Discrimination! Down with the Church! They changed their mind on usury, and slavery, - they have been wrong before! They are wrong now!"
==
"Bishop Schori is not "an advocate of abortion"; rather she believes that "abortion is not a good choice".
Puh-lease.
Despite the fact that Fr. Joseph O'Leary practices an obscurantist theology, he does say this:
'11. Spirit of Vatican II Says:
'December 1st, 2005 at 10:40 pm
'Why am I a Christian?
'Because I embrace Jesus Christ as my Savior and as the Savior of the world.'
Source: http://catholica.pontifications....ons.net/?
p=1225
Ok, I'm trying to be fair. I want to understand. Frankly, I am confused.
Can someone help me here? What is the hidden meaning in Fr. O'Leary's seemingly straightforward confession of faith? Is there a hidden meaning? Have we gotten Fr. Joe all wrong?
Sorry if the above comment is off topic. However, I will not sleep tonight without an answer.
PB tells me that Bishop Schori "speaks a mere platitude". But of course much of what Christ and St Paul said is "mere platitude" today. Anyway I am happy that you distance yourself from those who see her remark as anti-Christ.
Oops, spoke too soon: "it isn't a mere platitude, like God has made some flowers blue and some flowers yellow. No, it's that [the bishop] has taken an issue we all know has been understood as representing the antithesis between health and perversion and expressed that as though it were nothing more than the difference between blue and yellow flowers."
Well, Philip, the "platitudes" of Christ and St Paul did EXACTLY that, for the antithesis between internal and external, Jew and Samaritan, Jew and Gentile, Pharisee and lay, male and female, slave and freeman, leper and whole, sinner and righteous. "Thus he declared all foods clean" (Mk 7). Yes, she does speak with the voice of Christ. But of course the voice of Christ has often been rejected as the voice of Satan: "It is by Beelzebul prince of devils that He casts out devils"; and Paul was seen as a heretic. These "platitudes" require prophetic judgment.
"And you say that here is a bishop who speaks with the voice of Christ. Shame on you!" This is your prophetic discernment. But the testing of spirits is still afoot.
"And you go farther by suggesting that anyone who points to the moral law that stands for health and, therefore, a renunciation of the health of its antithesis a "hate that dares not speak its name." "
No, this is not accurate. Look at the lewd posting from Anonymous above -- which was prompted by your own posting, in that as Atiyah pointed out you reduce gay sexuality to a single sexual act you abhor (and that is more widely practices by heterosexuals) -- and you will see what I mean. (Btw, Kathy, I did not in any way associate you with this lewd poster; nor do I recall how I could possibly had "traumatized" you on a Mozart thread.)
"Does it nowhere speak it's name? In the Bible it appears almost ubiquitously as the "wrath of God," does it not?"
Ubiquitous? Same-sex behaviour of any kind (and there is much debate as to exactly what Paul had in mind) is referred to only three or four times in the NT, and about the same number of times in the OT. The declarations of Leviticus are quickly relativized if you look at the other non-kosher things regarded as "abominations" worthy of death. Paul's uses of Lesbianism as an illustration of the wrath of God is an unfortunate incidental to his main argument, quite untenable as an aitiology of lesbianism, and not taken seriously in any of the patristic commentaries I have seen. They skip over it.
Must we always be in biology 101, psychology 101, moral theology 101, exegesis 101, anthropology 101 -- or rather out in the schoolyard scoffing at all these sciences -- when the dreaded gay topic raises its head on this weblog?
Christina Rees writes:
In Bishop Schori, ECUSA has a leader who has the confidence and support of her fellow bishops – she was, after all, elected – and the intelligence, experience and character to provide the kind of leadership ECUSA so urgently needs now.
It is an additional strength and delight that Bishop Schori was an oceanographer before she became ordained. She will be able to provide valuable knowledge and insight to the wider Churches’ response to the increasingly important issues of the environment, and she will be able to engage with these issues both as a Christian and as a scientist.
Contrary to what some commentators have been saying, Bishop Schori will be a unifying figure for her own Church and for many across the Anglican Communion. One eyewitness at the General Convention this week reported a tense, dreary, lack-lustre atmosphere which, at the news of her election, erupted spontaneously into ‘unrestrained delight’ by the majority of those present. Perhaps the Spirit of God who was moving over the waters in creation is still moving over the somewhat murkier waters of Church governance.
Bishop Schori is female – a problem for some, for others, a blessing and a boon. As a woman, wife and mother, as well as a scientist and bishop, she will, at a stroke, be able to speak with personal and particular experience about many of the issues which specifically affect women and girls.
She calls for a focus on mission and reconciliation, and for a new vision of the ‘inbreaking of the Reign of God in our neighbour’s lives as well as in our own.’ Significantly, in a Church currently experiencing and expressing its sharp divisions over a number of issues, she expresses her desire that the world will once again be able to see the love Christians have for one another, and also, the love we have for ‘those beyond their bounds’.
In the light of Bishop Schori’s election, it feels as if we are in danger of spending our time and energies squabbling about the details of issue of women as bishops, when the reality is that, for most of us in the Church, this is no longer an issue. What concerns us more is how the Church intends to reach out to those in our society who have not yet heard the Good News of Jesus Christ, what we are doing to address the scandal that the most common cause of death for young men aged between 18 and 25 in the UK is suicide, what our Church’s response is to thousands of people’s growing dependency on drugs, prescription and otherwise, and to the oozing sore that is our over-crowded prison population. These issues, among many others, have created an epidemic of despair in our country and around the world. In this context, I rejoice in Bishop Schori’s election as Presiding Bishop of ECUSA, and pray that we will move with trusting confidence to allowing some of our own gifted and experienced women to take their place alongside some of our gifted and experienced men as they seek to lead our Church, by the grace o
I thought I heard of a film about people and animals and wilderness coming out (no pun intended), a sequal to the famous 'Brokeback Mountain', which as we all know (even if we did not want to), focused narrowly on 'human' homosexuality. The new film is called 'Bareback Hill: A Beautiful Tail of a Horse and His Cowboy'.
On related matters. I understand modern biblical scholars have made an important observation, never made before: *nowhere* in 'Q' - the 'sayings' document (the most ancient and written prior to most if not all the Gospels) - does Jesus condemn Zoophilia or Zoosexuality (bestiality/ 'zoosexual activity'). As well, homosexuality (again according to the same modern biblical scholars) is *probably* not condemned there either. However, there are some minor questions and discussions about at least one of the 'Q' sayings (in Luke), which reports: "10:12 I tell you, it shall be more tolerable on that day for Sodom than for that town." Nor is there any evidence that Jesus ever condemned Weapons of Mass Destruction, such as nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.
==
I wonder, now that the homosexual issue has, in an affirmative way, advanced so far in the ECUSA, if they (the new Bishop and her theologians, etc.) will examine and advocate for Zoophilia or Zoosexuality as well? To do less is unliberal. Is ECUSA a church with walls, sexual barriers and specism, or a Church of ‘inclusive love'?
==
When Jesus abolished the distinction beween sinners and righteous, he did not thereby declare sin itself to be righteousness.
Sodom is not associated with homosexuality in Scripture, but rather with sins against hospitality, justice and peace. In that sense, homophobia is one form of the sin of Sodom. The Nigerian lawmakers and their clerical supporters are Sodomits in this sense.
The Sodom story itself and the similar story of Gibeah, Judges 19, involves a threat of gang rape by males against guests; this is hardly a comment on homosexuality (the orientation) or on sexual acts as such.
If you were to build your morality on rather primitive OT stories of this kind, you would have to glorify the slaying of your own daughter as an act of faith (Jephtha). This is a necessary consequence of your hermeneutics. Whereas all that can be said of the "zoophilia" analogy is that it is not excluded by the liberal hermeneutics of Scripture that sees Scripture as not fundamentally condemning homosexuality at all.
Scriptural hermeneutics -- that is, how the Church uses and interprets Scripture -- often overrides the letter of Scripture. Because it is now learning to override Leviticus and Romans 1 in regard to homosexuality, as it previously overrode biblical support of genocide, racism, slavery etc., does not mean it will be in any way forced to override Scripture on any other given point, or that Christians will be in any way forced to adopt moral positions because they are not ruled out by the scriptural text. For one think, the Spirit leads the Church in its ethical discernments; for another the principles of reason and natural law come into play in Christian reflection. So the letter of Scripture is not an insuperable obstacle to advances in moral insight -- as the history of Christianity shows (capital punishment is another theme in which this is being shown); and the absence of a scriptural condemnation of something does not impede Christians from discovering something is evil.
Today is the Solemnity of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. A fitting reminder that our relationship with Jesus Christ is a relationship with a Divine Person, not an "encounter" with an "eschatological event". Heart of Jesus, burning with love for us, inflame our hearts with love for you.
Jesus declared many things not to be sin or unclean that the Pharisees regarded as sin or unclean. I fail to see why this paradigm does not apply to Bishop Schori's view that homosexuality is not a disorder, an anomaly or something God does not like, but in fact a gift, made for love, like heterosexuality.
The encounter with Jesus Christ is an encounter with the eternal Word of God and with God the Father.
But it is more than that -- it is encounter with that Word as it has entered history, taking fleshly form in the event of the life, death, ongoing life and expected future coming of a human person.
My point is that this event of Incarnation is not a magical zap that touches history only at a tangent. It is rather the consummation of the light of the Word breaking in on creation from the beginning. Jesus -- born out of human evolution and human history and out of the history of his people Israel and founding the new history of his followers, his mystical body -- is the one who leads creation home to its final goal. This entire process centered on (the human heart of) Jesus is what we call the Incarnation: by it "the Word was made flesh and tabernacled amongst us and we have seen its glory, glory as of an onlybegotten from a father, full of grace and truth" (Jn 1.14).
"Conjugal sex means self-giving, making one flesh out of two. By contrast, when a man puts the part of himself which represents new life into the cavity of another man which represents decay and expulsion, at the most basic of all possible levels he is saying 'Life, be swallowed in death.' We cannot overwrite such meanings with different ones just because we want to."
NOTE that the critique of anal sex changed grounds in mid-flight here. He began with the unitive nature of vaginal sex, then, knowing that many gay men claim to find a unitive significance in anal sex too, he shifted to the idea of Life.
He made much of the anus as a place of decay. But the vagina also is a place of decay (urine) as is the male member. "Love has pitched his tent in the place of excrement". Life and death go together.
We might revisit D. H. Lawrence's amazing phenomenology of anal sex in "Women in Love" and "Lady Chatterley's Lover". It may be totally unconvincing, but it shows the possibility of finding something deeper in this sexual practice than its detractors do. And all sexual practices, even the most "ridiculous" -- such as sucking your beloved's toes -- can be vehicles of tenderness.
I think the ethics of Jesus, that it is not what goes into a man but what comes out of him -- namely the thoughts of the heart -- that can be corrupt, would lead to the conclusion that there are no sexual acts are evil in themselves, and that it is manichean to paint one category of acts as inherently evil (with the inevitable tendency to paint all sex as inherently tainted).
not sexual acts are SHD BE no sexual acts that are
That may be too sweeping. Enough to say that love covers a multitude of sins, and that sexual irregularities can take on a different status when a constructive loving attitude presides.
Kathy:
Most educated Catholics don’t actually know what natural law theory is nor do they need it in order to get by in their faith. Dr Blosser does little to enlighten you he prefers just to “shock and awe” you with “sodomy sodomy; all about me is sodomy.” For him revulsion is a quicker path to establishing that he is right and Fr. ‘hot tubing” O’Leary is wrong. He wouldn’t get away with this in a lecture – it is an abdication of his responsibility as a teacher and it’s intellectually lazy. Of course the tactic says more about him and his regard for you capacity than is any revulsion probative.
If pushed Dr Blosser will recommend a book or two that you will probably never buy or have the time to read. Thus you struggle to enter into a meaning conversation because it’s hard to pin down what exactly is meant. Catholicism is rich and complex. Most settle for authority, tradition and scripture in that order which is very Catholic of course. Few need to reply on the philosophical “trophy bride” of natural law theory. But hey it’s “nature” and nature’s good it’s God’s creation after all and that means we’re good too so it’s good to tack it on to winning an argument.
As a branch of philosophy it is very much a side stream that almost dried up outside the Catholic Church. There is now some renewed interest in it. But even then it’s basically Catholic philosophers who are the proponents. It needs cleaning up regarding the defence of fundamental human liberties that I would argue are the very essence of any conception of human dignity or the right to life.
Lets try 2300 years of natural law in the following 5 posts - stay with me Kathy.
1. NATURAL LAW: ITS NATURE JIM, BUT NOT AS WE KNOW IT
Forget the natural world - the world of the natural sciences that is not the “natural” referred to in natural law theory. When it comes to sex and of course being good Catholic Thomists you can dwell on the genitals, the fluids, touch on the animals but never the sexual organ of the mind, or genetics or hormones or psychology - any of that stuff. Thomists should never play in the muddy field of the natural sciences (the Ox gets bogged down) only in a narrow abstraction of that world.
Nature here is a particular philosophical construct or model if you like – view it as universal application of objectively good norms or rules (some argue that the only rule is “goodness” or “justice” but that’s a bit minimalist). Thus nature here is a statement about the application of these norms and their location which is in a place other than the natural world.
The honorary Catholic Fr. Aristotle sat on a rock and looked at the world around him. He noticed some patterns. No society, be they Greek or not likes murder. But how can two peoples who have not met come to the same conclusion about murder independently – what’s the chances of that. Let’s open up a human body and look for the mind - that will tell us how they come to the same conclusion. What is this!!!!! The mind cannot be found but it does exist. Therefore it must be elsewhere. An interesting idea: something exists but cannot be found yet we know we all have a mind so logically its external to us. If the mind is elsewhere and people are acting the same way all over the world, these rules must also be elsewhere too. This “elsewhere” isn’t part of nature that’s why the norms located there can have universal application - there are no physical or worldly constraints. We know these norms exist because we all act the same way. So we can discern the existence of these universal norms regarding sexuality by examining the genitals, their form and function and from this examination conclude the purpose of sex is procreation, but we can’t examine the mind because it doesn’t exist in nature, it’s elsewhere.
Fr. Aristotle wasn’t keen on homosexuality which is unusual for an ancient Greek for they invented it. It’s unnatural because it doesn’t conform to the universal norms that are discernable from an examination of the genitals. Interestingly he says male homosexuality is probably caused by the molestation of young boys – deeply ironic in the circumstances.
2. AQUINAS PICKS UP AND RUNS WITH NATURAL LAW
When Thomas wasn’t running away from women (whom he had a mortal fear of) he was running with natural law. Initially the Church didn’t like it because of the pagan origins. But think on it for a moment: if God is elsewhere, these norms are elsewhere and we conflate the soul and mind this natural law stuff could sing sweetly. Thus natural law becomes the servant of God and religion which was never Fr Aristotle’s intention. But we no longer start from the point of view of the observable patterns of human behaviour from which we elucidate the existence of external norms. Instead we start from the norms/rules and we know what these are because the Church tells us so – they are God’s will. The difference between the norm/rule (God’s will) and patterns of human behaviour is explained by individual fault in reason and fake freedom, wilfulness or choosing sin. Adherence to these norms (God’s will) is likewise explained by true individual reason and true freedom. The role or purpose of man is to strive to be in accord with these norms (God’s will) – that is his true nature – no rational man would chose to be otherwise.
Thomas doesn’t spend a lot of time on homosexuality (but does on animals and fluids) but we have some pointers. His position really falls out of the Aristotelian procreative purpose of all sexual activity. Thus homosexual acts are unnatural as they are not procreative and the homosexual orientation itself a defect, like blindness. You may or may not be morally culpable for the orientation but one is always culpable for the acts. One can therefore bring about the defect I guess by becoming homosexual just as one could poke out one’s eyes to become blind.
3. A LIST A LIST … I HAVE A LITTLE LIST
Modern natural law theory keeps up the Aristotelian procreation line on homosexuality and all other sexual activity. It slips and sides about on sterility and menopause. If you are firing blanks its still firing it’s still procreative or has procreative “potential” or in theory procreative. We are also a long way from looking at patterns of human behaviour this is terribly naturalistic as in natural sciences “naturalistic” and therefore a no no. No scientific or other information is admissible post Aquinas unless it relates to abortion or IVF or stem cells, otherwise the Aristotelian/Thomist examination of the organs and fluids is all you’ve got. .
Today one need only create a set of objective “goods” like say: life, religion, marriage, health or play, (whatever) there isn’t much rhyme or reason why these things are on the list and others are not. If you do not freely comply with these your reasoning is faulty you’re not truly free - therefore you can be made to comply. If you differ with my list your reasoning is faulty. Of course he who draws the list holds the whip. He who fleshes out the list and determines its application in detail wields the whip.
It is actually damn near impossible to discuss it nicely for the proponent just writes off the opponent of any particular list as irrational. It’s heavily stateist and authoritarian as individual human liberty is only the mechanism for achieving the norms. Thus for example the Catholic Church can support legislation that savages the freedom of association and expression in Nigeria, as no rational Nigeria could consider assembling to discuss gay marriage. This isn’t true freedom
4. PHILOSOPHY IN THE SERVICE OF AUTHORITY
Aristotle wouldn’t recognise his baby today for at its root on sexuality the proposition is this: agree with me or you are irrational. And by the way: God is on my side. And by the way I can force you to comply because it’s good for you. Nor was he big on authority he thought it the antithesis of philosophy.
Most classical liberals are weary of Natural law because it’s so flexible what is in or out of the set of “goods” or norms is anyone’s guess. In the wrong hands can be extremely dangerous. Natural law proponents can support restricting freedom of expressing, of movement, religion, conscience, democratic rights and use all the coercive powers of the State to make you comply with their particular list of “goods.” Existing civil laws that don’t comply with their list are not laws and therefore unenforceable and immoral. Nation states can also be made to comply with super-national government even if they have democratically chosen another path. Humanity is but clay to be moulded, but moulded for its own benefit of course.
So when the Catholic Church speaks of true reason and true freedom in a natural law sense what it is really saying is that no free and rational person can disagree with her proposition – and if they do they are irrational. Thankfully this isn’t the world we live in. Thankfully most of her reasoning is tested both within and from outside.
5. FR ARISTOTLE SAVE US
The assertion about procreation being the purpose of sex is just that – an assertion. If Fr Aristotle could understand how the brain worked and that it is in fact part of the natural world he might draw a different conclusion. Armed with an understanding of genetics and psychology he might just understand the notion of sexual orientation. He could reason thus:
All human life starts out without gender – heat randomly determines this to provide roughly equal numbers of men and women.
Initial random hormone levels coupled with some genetics determine sexual orientation. Most men and women will be largely heterosexual and minority of men and women will be largely homosexual, the ratio between the two groups is by and large consistent. Most sexual activity performs a bonding function in these complex social beings (it’s our thing) and most of that is procreative or has the potential to be. This is the universal pattern of human sexuality to which all humans adhere irrespective of civilisation, time, culture, ethic group, race, religious, legal or other social taboos. The universal norm on human sexuality is a fundamental bonding with another. Thus it would be unnatural to attempt to prevent this incidence of human sexuality which like its heterosexual counterpart is one of the major ways humans express their deepest regard for one another. What is unnatural is sexual activity not in furtherance of bonding whether that is heterosexual or homosexual activity.
Of course latterly the Catholic Church formally recognises the importance of this bonding in heterosexual marriage. It’s called love. It’s strange the word so rarely comes up from Dr Blosser except in the form of a sneer.
'I think the ethics of Jesus, that it is not what goes into a man but what comes out of him -- namely the thoughts of the heart -- that can be corrupt ...'
Fr. O'Leary, it is more than the "thoughts of the heart" that can be corrupt. Jesus includes a number of external acts among his list of "evil things" that come "out of the heart of man" and "defile him", including fornication, theft, murder, and adultery.
Is it not at least possible that Jesus might be thinking of sodomy (in both its homosexual and heterosexual variants) when he speaks of fornication as being one of the "evil things" that defile and corrupt the human person?
I think that you have totally misunderstood Jesus' words at Mk 7:14-23. Jesus is not excluding a multitude of sins (including homosexual acts) at a single stroke here. To the contrary, he is CONFIRMING a multitude of sins, including the sin of fornication (which might well include homosexual acts!). All that he excludes here is the idea that eating certain foods in a certain way is sinful.
Homosexual couples are not the same thing as fornication, porneia -- just ask any gay couple you know. Porneia (fornication) is in any case a vague word, suggesting sex with prostitutes. The point, anyway, is that Jesus is stretching -- or constricting -- the limits of what is moral, appealing to what is inside a man, just as Paul did later, and just as the Church has always done.
I'm afraid that Fr. O'Leary and Ayitah are leading me into the sin of pride. In a previous thread I made the point, possibly not clearly enough, that these discussions would continue endlessly without resolving anything until a consensus was reached on the basis of the natural law. I suggested a reading of Heinrich Rommen's book, "The Natural Law" as a good starting point.
What's causing me to swell with pride are the postings above that reiterate every argument examined by Dr. Rommen, thereby substantiating my incredible insight and wisdom.
Seriously, I do think it's rather pointless for either Fr. O'Leary or Ayitah to continue posting until and unless they can reach an agreement on the basis of the discussion. Ayitah has made a stab at this, but in terms that suggest that he has already rejected the other side's position, and his position is not all that clearly stated in any event. (By merest coincidence, as I write this I just happened to read the Epictetus quote over to the side -- "It is impossible for anyone to begin to learn what he thinks he already knows.")
Without this consensus on the basis of the discussion -- any discussion, for that matter -- both "sides" will continue talking right past one another, leading to accusation and counter-accusation of foolishness and knavery. I really do think it would be of great benefit to read Dr. Rommen's book. Again, it's not long and relatively inexpensive, and I assume it can be ordered from Amazon or Barnes and Noble.
BTW -- I can't find it on this thread; perhaps it was earlier, and I believe it was Kathy (?) who asked whether the Catholic Church reserves the interpretation of natural law to itself (or words to that effect). I can answer that -- No. The Church claims a fullness of truth, not a monopoly, and, further, that the natural law is "written in the hearts of all men" (or something like that; it's in one or more of the encyclicals, but my brain is going). That's because, in Thomism, the natural law is based on God's Nature which is analogously reflected in human nature which (as you might expect) is common to every human being, and the natural law is thus discernable by human reason.
No, Father, the point is that what comes out of a man includes both internal and external acts. If a gay couple engages in anal sex, that is an external act that defiles both persons from within. Jesus only excludes the idea that eating porkchops off an unwashed plate defiles a Jew.
No, Jesus was also a Sabbath-breaker. There are varying positions on divorce in the NT. The way the NT resolved moral controversies was never a matter of "going by the book" but of discerning the spirits. Today in a radically different culture we seek to establish the values that count just as they did, and their struggle mutually enlightens ours. The presumption that same-sex sexual acts are intrinsically defiling is shown up as a presumption, and we go back to query into the purpose and function that such acts may have within loving relationships. Jesus and Paul shocked people in those days, though we in another day what was so shocking about their innovations. Future generations (like very many in the present) will wonder "what was the big deal?" when they look back on how we wrestled with the ethics of homosexuality etc.
Good question, about "the basis of the discussion".
My basis is that samesex orientation is a godgiven charism and that all individuals have the right to explore and express their sexuality with due regard for the rights of others. I believe these views can be defended on grounds of reason, backed up by observation.
Second, I believe these views are in accord with the basic principles of Christianity, and that teachings that occulted these principles were mistaken (just as teachings on slavery, torture etc. were) so that a development is now becoming necessary (along with repentence for past errors, as we repent our errors in regard to Jews and to those enslaved and tortured and murdered with the Church's blessing or at her behest).
So: primary basis -- the rational ethics of justice, rooted in human nature.
Secondary basis -- the values of the Gospel, love, freedom etc.
Again I point out that I am not a moral theologian, so my views are rather simple. But they are views that are increasingly widely shared by Catholics today.
The basis of Phil Blosser's views is a different interpretation of natural law, focused heavily on the biology of anal intercourse and a "mother's knee" theory that moral correctness is always immediately intuitive and undeniable.
He also appeals to the Gospel, but in a puritanical style.
He makes no attempt to listen respectfully to the claims of gay men and women, and that is a weakness in both bases of his argument.
See also
http://
josephsoleary.typepad.com...lesh_and_t.html
http://
josephsoleary.typepad.com...r_church_a.html
A. Nonymouse 8:03 am
Here is Rommen on Aquinas:
“Good is to be done: such is the supreme commandment of the natural moral law. The highest and basic norm of the natural law in the narrow sense, then, may be stated thus: Justice is to be done. Yet this principle is altogether general. It needs still to be determined to what extent the object striven for by means of a concrete action is a true good. ...Good is that which corresponds to the essential nature. The being of a thing reveals its purpose in the order of creation, and in its perfect fulfillment it is likewise the end or goal of its growth and development. The essential nature is thus the measure. What corresponds to it is good; what is contrary to it is bad. The measure of goodness, consequently, is the essential idea of a thing and the proportionateness thereto of actions and of other things. That is, "Good is to be done" means the same as "Realize your essential nature." Morever, since this essential nature issued from God's creative will and wisdom in both its existence and its quiddity, the principle continues: "You thereby realize the will of God, which is truly manifested to you in the knowledge of your essential nature." [p. 43]
So let’s apply it: Is it ok to support removing the right to meet (freedom of association) and the right to discuss (freedom of expression) in Nigeria in order to defend marriage? To advocate for gay marriage in Nigeria or to do anything that appears to promote homosexual affection is criminalised including of course advocating for a law change to this particular law. Is this good or bad?
The Catholic Church says yes this legislation good as it defends marriage.
That stuff is so disgusting. I mean, c'mon Father! What's the deal?!? Do you have anal sex all day long with some other heretic? Seriously, are you gay Fr. O'Leary? I think most people probably suspect that you are. Is that why you're trying to justify sticking your penis in other men's shit-holes? Hello? Sodomy=Sodom. IT'S WHERE THE WORD CAME FROM!!! I'm surprised Dr. Blosser tolerates you at all. You advocate EVERY liberal thing on Earth. That's insane. I'm not going to refute your points either. Most here believe in the Bible as God's Word, and believe it to be equal with Tradition. Christians have never condoned any acts of depravity, straight or gay. That's the Truth of it.
By the way, please don't respond with a bunch of lengthy posts that I will merely scroll over. Thanks.
-One REALLY disgusted listener.
Father, you are so desparate for Jesus to approve of gay marriage that you refuse to accept the plain and obvious meaning of his words. Jesus affirmed that there is such a thing as a sinful act, an act of the will that comes out of a man's heart and defiles him. Does Jesus specify homosexual sodomy as such an act? No, but neither does he specify slavery, capital punishment, and other "social sins" that you would like the Church to condemn.
Discerning the spirits is precisely the issue here. The Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has discerned that homosexual sodomy is among the acts that come out of a man and defile him.
The "shocking innovation" that Jesus introduced into the Jewish religion was himself as the new temple, not an overturning of the moral sense. Let's keep our eye on the essential thing here, on this Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. It's not about us and getting Jesus to validate our political agendas and our every natural impulse. It's about putting Jesus himself ahead of all of our all-too-human impulses and agendas.
A. Nonymouse
Fair enough. But in Thomism, unaided reason makes a lot of errors and without special revelation cannot even reliably come to know God-as-end, which is, according to Romans 1, knowable from the natural order.
Oops! Should be:
"I wonder, now that the homosexual issue has, in an affirmative way, advanced so far in the ECUSA, if they (the new *Presiding* Bishop and her theologians, etc.) will examine [...]." the other love that won't shut up.
By the way, beware of trying to do research on the web (with Google, etc.) on the subject of bestiality (Zoophilia). You will get a search engine full of links to their pornography sites. Scary. Is it possible that bestiality (Zoophilia) is quite popular, like homosexuality in some respects? In time, it will perhaps be as 'acceptable' (tolerance/social acceptance) as homosexuality has become? Sick. I am not surprised that it is reportedly legal in such places as Sweden and the Netherlands. Evil.
==
"Again I point out that I am not a moral theologian, so my views are rather simple. But they are views that are increasingly widely shared by Catholics today."
That is what I am afraid of. The evil philosphers, such as Peter Singer, are happy with the new situation.
==
The last couple of days I kept asking myself - 'Why in the world does the good Dr. Blosser torture himself and his web followers with a post that is clearly meant to get everybodies blood just boiling?' - One answer of course was right in front of me all the time - whenever I log on here the first thing that comes up before anything else is this little Amazon.com thingy.
While I do not know how much the above post does CCC 2358 justice, I certainly recognize that it is worded in a fashion that does not exactly help the many, that quite frankly don't give a damn about the tribulations of our brothers and sisters with SSA.
The church indeed requests chastity from our SSA friends similar to that required from all our unmarried Friends. Period.
The church otherwise orders us to accept SSA person with respect, compassion and sensitivity.
All of us fancy heterosexuals would be welladvised to read the CCC section "Offenses against Chastity" CCC 2351 to 2356.
Those among you without sin through the first stone.
"the other love that won't shut up."
This was in reference to the great multitude of pornography websites peddling bestiality (Zoophilia). Zoophilia, the other violation of natural law and reason.
==
Kathy:
Right on (er, not the hippie phrase, but "you're right on the mark"). The Catholic Church is the best or premier interpretor of natural law because it is guided by revelation, and thus gets the whole picture, so to speak, and is also specially guarded against error.
My private take on this is that a sound interpretation of the natural law is not precluded outside the Church, but that, absent the Church's guidance, mistakes can be made and probably will be made. Even Aristotle goofed when he decided that not all human beings were analogous in their capacity to acquire and develop virtue -- which Saint Thomas took as a given due to revelation.
We see this in some of the responses above, esp. where Ayitah has taken a positivist approach to understanding Dr. Rommen -- in a book written to refute the basis of positivism. Positivism may be a legitimate philosophy, but it is the wrong basis on which to attempt to refute a Thomist argument.
As Saint Thomas himself noted, you must argue not on the basis of Scripture or the Fathers or anything except the arguments themselves. To do anything else is to mix apples and oranges, or, to put it another way, to call black wrong because it isn't white.
BTW, I am not castigating Ayitah -- I am pointing out that his method of argumentation reinforces my point: that there must first be a consensus on the basis of the argument itself before you can argue. I see both Fr. O'Leary and Ayitah making the effort, but there is obviously not yet a consensus.
More dialoging clearly needs to take place, and I am embarrassed to say that I don't have too much time to participate. The business in which I am a partner is reaching a critical point, and I owe my partners the bulk of my time and effort. I would *rather* do this, but I feel myself getting sucked into a black hole with other committments, and can only justify an occasional comment.
"Let's keep our eye on the essential thing here, on this Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. It's not about us and getting Jesus to validate our political agendas and our every natural impulse. It's about putting Jesus himself ahead of all of our all-too-human impulses and agendas."
Thanks! Yes, and the less-than-human impulses and agendas as well.
==
You are quite right, Grega. ALL OF US should pay heed to ALL of CCC 2351-2359. Unfortunately, "Spirit of Vatican II" would have us ignore (or deconstruct) 2357-2359.
He would also have us ignore (or deconstruct) the clear and mighty word of God transmitted through the Apostle Paul:
'[T]he men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.' (Rm 1:27)
What could Paul possibily be referring to if not that act so vividly (and accurately) described above by Anonymous?
I'm not throwing stones here, Grega. I'm standing firm in the Truth.
Grega
Thanks for you comments on the other thread..
The Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Bill 2006 was introduced in the Nigerian National Assembly in March and endorse by both the Anglicans and Catholics in Nigeria. Homosexuality there is already punishable with up to 14 years in prison.
Cl 7(3) of bill reads
“Any person who involved in the registration of gay clubs, societies and organisations sustenance, procession or meetings, publicity and public show of same sex amorous relationship directly or indirectly in public and private is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a term of 5 years imprisonment.”
Other provisions prohibit publication in the media or on the net and prohibit any club in any institution or any other body anywhere in Nigeria.
The freedom of assembly is curtained often because registration of your group is required before you can lawfully meet otherwise its unlawful assembly (usually a group of 3 or more persons assembled is the harshest old standard formula in ex UK colonies). Of course registration isn’t lawfully possible. Therefore any group of homosexuals meeting anywhere could be declared an unlawful assembly and can be dispersed with reasonable force or face arrest by the police (assuming the old standard formula of unlawful assembly applies)
I guess the Catholic Church’s position is that this discrimination is just and charitable because it defends marriage. All I know is that when this Bill is passed at the urging or both Christians and Muslims, individual liberty will be that much less in Nigeria.
When next the Church speaks of human dignity forgive me if I am a bit cynical. I expect little tolerance from organised Islam and the Anglican Primate is a bit mad, but I honestly expected more from the Catholic Church.
“Atiyah has taken a positivist approach to understanding Dr. Rommen”
Not at all I merely quoted Dr Rommen directly from his 1947 first published work in English.
I think he is far too wide and imprecise in his definition of what is included in natural law. Robert George adopts a list approach which at least one can get your hands around even if we argue about what is or is not on the list it is at least specific.
You are right on the reason not revelation point.
"The last couple of days I kept asking myself - 'Why in the world does the good Dr. Blosser torture himself and his web followers with a post that is clearly meant to get everybodies blood just boiling?' "
Maybe because fidelity to the truth is always most needed at the points where it is most widely being decried. And because sexual sins are in many ways the most insidious.
Another question would be: Why in the world is a defense of the Church's constant teaching on homosexuality being so instantaneously, constantly, and loudly disputed when the offfical stance has been so clearly and with nuance decreed?
'Another question would be: Why in the world is a defense of the Church's constant teaching on homosexuality being so instantaneously, constantly, and loudly disputed when the offfical stance has been so clearly and with nuance decreed?'
Because some things never change:
'It is actually reported that there is immorality among you ... And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? ... Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?' (1 Cor 5:1-2;6)
In Romans 1, Paul is talking about pagans. In 1 Corinthians 5, he is talking to Christians. The darkening of mind is even more to be lamented in the latter case.
Fr. O'Leary wrote: [ Paul's uses of Lesbianism as an illustration of the wrath of God is an unfortunate incidental to his main argument, quite untenable as an aitiology of lesbianism, and not taken seriously in any of the patristic commentaries I have seen. They skip over it. ]
Uh, sure. You're here to tell us that no patristic commentary you could find sees Romans 2 as pertaining to homosexuality? Yeah, right.
but then he writes,
[ Sodom is not associated with homosexuality in Scripture, but rather with sins against hospitality, justice and peace. ]
And how many patristic commentaries associate the sin of Sodom with hospitality versus how many with homosexuality, hmmmmmm? Father, you crack me up!
Emerging from this discussion is the evident fact that the question of Christology is inseparable from the question of moral doctrine:
Who is Jesus Christ?
What does he expect of his disciples?
How do we arrive at certain (dare we say infallible?) knowledge of who Jesus is and what he expects of us?
In other words, is it enough simply to say:
'11. Spirit of Vatican II Says:
'December 1st, 2005 at 10:40 pm
'Why am I a Christian?
'Because I embrace Jesus Christ as my Savior and as the Savior of the world.'
???????
Of course, Fr. O'Leary will (rightly) reply that a confession of faith is not sufficient. Faith without works is dead. As Catholics, we agree on that point. The question is, what are the works that reveal the true sons of God, the true disciples of Jesus Christ?
Yet how can we answer the question of works, if we have not fully answered the question of faith? Who IS Jesus Christ? How do we arrive at infallible knowledge of the Lord?
The question was: if sex is solely about procreation - why is it pleasurable?
The answer is: the pleasure attached to coitus is necessary as humans are so self-involved that, barring a selfish incentive to engage in coitus, they would die by drowning in their own vast pool of self-reflection.
Kathy,
Here it is, only a couple of days since I've posted this, and already there are some ninety comments between your comment and mine ... How can I hope to catch up! (sigh...)
You raised an important point, and I don't have time to do it justice, but here is a brief thought. You wrote:
A lot of times the reason [people say they don't believe] is that they feel they would have to personally betray someone they love, in order to allow the Truth to take hold.
I think this is part of the key. There are levels of 'knowledge.' There's what we tell ourselves we know. But this may not be what we actually 'know.' There are two universals (in my example, for example) in antithetical conflict: universal moral knowledge and universal desire to evade it. The first one we owe to our creation. The second we owe to our fall.
Fr. O'Leary condemn's "mother's knee" morality, which, he says leads people to kill gays and provides them with no moral compass. He cites an example.
Why should this impress me? I can offer a counter example. Here's the story of the forgotton Mary Stachowicz, murdered by Nicholas Gutierrez, a homosexual who became outraged when she, a Catholic, questioned his life-style and asked him why he liked having sex with boys. He brutally punched and kicked her, then mutilated her with multiple stab wounds, then put a grabage bag over he head, strangled her, and jammed her body under the crawl space beneath his Chicago apartment. So you want to Celebrate Matthew Shepherd? You want to generalize what people learn at their mother's knees and bat-mouth it as bigotry? What does that prove? That you're a bigot?
Bishop Schori is not "an advocate of abortion"; rather she believes that "abortion is not a good choice".
Neither was Heinrich Himmler an advocate of killing Jews (Jewish genocide); rather, he believed that it was the unavoidable "final solution" to a tragic national problem.
Kathy seems to make the badness of anal sex and the reality of God both objects of the theological virtue of faith. There is a category error here.
Maybe, and maybe not. While it's true that there's nothing to prevent a person believing by faith what another would believe by rational argument, St. Thomas Aquinas would certainly allow that knowledge of God belongs to the preambles (not articles of faith) and thus to the domain of reasoning and natural law argument.
Further, in the two-fold division of the Decalogue, some would reckon our duties toward God as NOT being part of the natural law, since these duties presuppose some sort of faith. Natural law tradition would seem to agree up to a point. Aquinas, for example, says that all ten Commandments are in some sense self-evident, but distinguishes between those which are evident to every mind and those which are evident to the faithful mind (ST I-II Q 100, a. 3). Many would suppose that if some (like our duties toward God) require faith, this must mean that they are not evident. However, when one understands that faith readjusts disordered mental faculties to recognize the evident as evident, one sees there is no contradiction here. Faith and reason aren't faculties with juristictions over separate compartments or domains. Their work is collaborative. I wonder if "Spirit" does not miss this.
'The basis of Phil Blosser's views is a different interpretation of natural law, focused heavily on the biology of anal intercourse ...'
Is that really true? Let's re-examine the quote from Budzieszewski:
"Conjugal sex means self-giving, making one flesh out of two. By contrast, when a man puts the part of himself which represents new life into the cavity of another man which represents decay and expulsion, at the most basic of all possible levels he is saying 'Life, be swallowed in death.' We cannot overwrite such meanings with different ones just because we want to."
On the surface, Budzieszewski's analysis has the appearance of having a "biological" focus: "puts the part of himself", "cavity", "decay and expulsion". Yet in reality the focus is metaphysical, i.e., a seeing through to the MEANING of human acts that are rooted in the biology of the human being. (Name a human act that is NOT rooted in the substrata of human biology!) Budzieszewski's analysis is thus informed by a moral READING of the human act (which by its very nature is rooted in biological reality), whereas Fr. O'Leary's propoganda in favor of homosexual acts is informed, not by a reading of the act itself, but by a reading of literary sources, e.g., Plato and D. H. Lawrence.
Who is the more faithful adherent to natural law reasoning?
Budziszewski believes that contraception is inherently wrong not out of faith but out of insight into the moral law, a "moral sense" whereby we infallibly know it cannot be right. His critics say that his real reasoning is faith-based and that if he were not a conservative Catholic he would not be so convinced of this.
I wonder at the cavalier confidence with which the good Father O'Leary pontificates on what this University of Texas Professor believes and knows. Has he read his book? Does he know him? Is he clairvoyant? Or does he merely presume? I suspect the latter.
It's difficult not to presume a cheap shot. Let me illustrate in kind how it would look if the tables were turned:
"Spirit" believes that sodomy is inherently morally benign, not out of prejudice, but out of insight into the moral law, a "moral sense" whereby we infallibly know it cannot be wrong. His critics say that his real reasoning is based on prejudice and that if he were not a liberal cafeteria Catholic he would not be so convinced of this.
You see, such ad hominems cut both ways and actually prove nothing. Despite all of his puffing and crapping about the lack of serious rational argument by other commentators in these comboxes, he hasn't here produced a single argument, despite appearances. Circumstantial ad hominems make a good show of argument, like sophistry generally does, but prove nothing, argue nothing, infer nothing.
In fact, not only Budziszewski but all of us actually know that treating things contrary to their natures is wrong and, a fortiori that treating human beings as means to be harnessed to our own selfish purposes of pleasure rather than as ends in themselves is wrong without question. It's not ultimately at the conclusion of a syllogism that one comes to the knowledge of such truths. These belong to "first knowledge," or first principles. Faith cannot ultimately be pitted over against reason in matters such as this, and once the nature and purposes of contraception are understood fully, it requires no argument to see its wrongness. The arguments are merely to stave off objections to a truth one already sees and can't not know once the obfiscations have been cleared away. (See Contraception, Why Not?, by Janet Smith).
The "he" you refer too is actually a "she" pays to tell the difference can get you into all sorts of strife. I know it requires a bit of a stretch but Anglicans can have female Bishops.
My apologies. I should have been a gentleman, Atiyah, and made use of the H.L. Menken provision -- the contraction of "he-or-she-or-it," which becomes "h'or'sh'it."
I always notice a certain ugly dynamic in the conversations with Fr. O'Leary which is characteristic of the Modernist mind.
Discussion begins--or returns to periodically--a plea for "dialog" and a complaint that voices of dissent should be "tolerated" in the Church.
But almost immediately it becomes apparent that there is no attempt at a real discussion that is being sought. Any opposing views--no matter how long-held, no matter how authoritativesly taught--are derided and ruled out of court as "fundamentalism" or "homophobia."
We all know what discussion and dialogue really are. They are a mutual seeking of truth in which the ideas of others are accorded respect and are entertained and truly explored. But this is not the typical Modernist pattern and not the pattern that Fr. O'Leary exhibits.
These folks don't want a Church in which pro-homosexualists, for example, concede that anti-homosexualists have a powerful position and a solid and unbroken tradition with weight and substance behind it. We could imagine such a desire, in which the pro-homosexualist begins by conceding a lot of ground, but patiently and respectfully tries to make the case that what might seem impossible or repugnant is really compatible with Tradition and Scripture though it might not seem so at first glance.
It would begin by conceding that Catholics in general simply did not think the way the Modernists want us to think today for two thousand years and try to persuade us that there is a deep continuity despite the apparent divergence.
This air of mutual respect, this idea that the Modernists are engaged in a project that might quite reasonably seem to destroy Christianity as it has been understood, this natural sympathy that one would expect from someone engaged in the task of persuasion is almost always lacking--utterly lacking.
And I don't think that's any accident. When such folks get control of seminaries and university departments, they don't try to seek a balance between "conservatives" and "liberals". No, at best they may include a token or two if there is no way out. And the token had best keep his head down if he isn't to be driven from his post by accusations of various kinds: bigot, homophobe, fundamentalist, advocate of gay murder.
No.
This is not an attempt at dialogue or conversation. It's not a plea for tolerance. IT'S A PLAY FOR POWER. Just as in the political realm, tolerance of homosexuality is the goal. The goal is to deride, to silence, to overwhelm, to destroy any last redoubts of resistance to a moral and theological revolution.
It is--WICKEDNESS. Big time wickedness. And make no mistake--these guys are waging a battle and they know it. They know that if it ever comes to real tolerance and mutual respect, they lose.
The notion that such notions as Fr. O'Leary espouses can be treated as subjects of free discussion among Catholics won't work. An
(cont.)
The notion that such ideas as Fr. O'Leary espouses can be treated as subjects of free discussion among Catholics won't work. And it's not what the other side wants anyway. It wants victory. It wants triumph. If it can't get those things, it will settle for intimidation. A priest afraid to condemn homosexuality, a bishop unwilling to discipline his priests, a professor too embarrassed to teach "outmoded" and "anti-intellectual" "nonsense."
They know they can't win without WINNING. And one of these days, we will have to begin to get a handle on what is acceptable discourse and what is not. The discourse of "Fathers" like O'Leary is unacceptable. It misleads and destroys conscience. It befuddles the moral faculty. It deceives the spirit with phantoms.
It is unclean and wicked. I don't think he should be silenced on this blog; I like people to be able to talk. But I DO think we should simply bring what he says to the attention of those in authority over him, whoever they may be. Irish or Japanese bishops; dicasteries in Rome. They won't do anything, probably. Or at least not for many years.
But things are trending the right way in the Church and the battle is underway. People complaining about priests who engage in malfeasance HAS had a notable if marginal effect. What would you think if you were Fr. O'Leary's bishop and you read the sort of things he writes here and on his blog?
I would think: No one who promotes such things has any business functioning as a Roman Catholic priest in good standing.
I like to think that the real battle goes something like this:
When the Bible says the gates of Hell shall not prevail, it's not that the Catholic Church is on the defensive, it's that Hell is on the defensive, and the (orthodox) Catholics are on the offensive, battering the gates with every virtue!!
The Devil knows he's losing, but he'll keep trying to capture as many souls as possible. Father O'Leary is dangerously close to getting there. Repentance is the only answer.
Liberals are traitors to Christ, his Church, and ultimately to God.
What's this? Morning dawns without us finding an endlessly scrolling thread of heterodox commentary? Has the "Spirit of Vatican II" been reduced to humble silence? Not bloody likely.
Ah, well. Let us enjoy the welcome respite. Happy Birthday, John the Baptist!
Perhaps this thread is dead, although Atiyah does raise a very interesting point:
'The universal norm on human sexuality is a fundamental bonding with another. Thus it would be unnatural to attempt to prevent this incidence of human sexuality which like its heterosexual counterpart is one of the major ways humans express their deepest regard for one another. What is unnatural is sexual activity not in furtherance of bonding whether that is heterosexual or homosexual activity.'
That is precisely the question, isn't it? Does homosexual activity futher the fundamental bonding of human beings? Is anal sex between two men truly an expression of love?
Do we really require a lengthy philosophical analysis to KNOW the answer to that question?
ThomistWannaBe:
EVIDENCE
Question: "incidence of homosexuality throughout all human civilisation." Could you please cite the study(ies) that lay out this evidence?
“Documentary” evidence – just look for the many older prohibitions on homosexuality these are pretty universal – this supports the notion that it existed at a high enough incidence to warrant the development of social, cultural, religious and legal taboos. Surprising with all of these prohibitions (except maybe for those strange ancient Greeks) the condition is still with us. What’s with that?
Best scientific evidence also supports the above contention – google it.
PREDISPOSITIONS
As to genetic predispositions to say the affects of alcohol, rheumatic fever, tuberculoses etc. these seem to result from a lack of previous exposure in that population – some of us have been boozing for 10,000yrs maybe. However no one seriously suggests homosexuality results from exposure to it nor is it prevented by avoiding exposure it. The Catholic Church sadly and shamefully knows this herself: some young heterosexual men where molested by predatory priests in their formative years – it had awful affects on them but it didn’t “make” them homosexual. Many of her finest clerics are homosexual and were never molested by anyone in the Church or elsewhere and hail from hearty healthy loving Catholic families.
It is true that some people seem to have a predisposition to addictive or compulsive behaviour, tobacco, alcohol other drugs, gambling, sex, hand washing the list is endless and the causes are complex.
Some “gay re-programmers” (mostly prods but some Catholic) do attempt to reinforce a heterosexual or change a homosexual orientation in 3 and 4 year olds. Most of their written stuff is not published in peer reviewed scientific journals and their professional associations (if they are allowed to belong or actually have a professional qualification in psychiatry or psychology) regard this as nothing short of child abuse and the practitioners as quacks.
CAREFUL WHERE YOU STICK IT – IT’S NOT DESIGNED FOR THAT
Regarding genitals and what they indicate regarding purpose - they are in fact connected to the brain/mind. Try removing your brain and see if your genitals work. Thus I would look at both if I were trying to figure the mind of a “designer” on the issue. I think you are in error to assume sodomy = homosexuality. Some homosexuals are sodomites but not all sodomites are homosexual. People do all sorts of strange things with their bodies: circumcisions, ear piercing, tattoos, breast enlargements, hip replacements tooth fillings. All these too are contrary to nature/design on your definition.
ThomistWannaBe:
DARWIN
Yes you are correct anything that makes it impossible or even difficult for an organism to reproduce itself will result in the loss of that species sooner or later. Many species have so disappeared. Some currently are endangered because say they breed so slowly or they suffer high rates of genetic mutation or low rates of fertility - much of this is linked to having the necessary critical mass in the population.
Of course if the sun disappeared we’d all be dead.
If you view homosexuality as a randomly occurring defect (as Thomas allows) then this defect occurs at such a low rate as to have no affect the survival of our species. It took 2 million years for humanity to reach 3 billion souls or thereabouts (including 2 million years of homosexuals) in 1945. It is now over 6 billion and counting.
One could model the rate of homosexuality (exclusively so) in any population before it was imperilled – would be interesting. As your population increases so the rate of incidence of homosexuality could rise also without affecting the survivorship of the species.
Some evolutionary biologists suggest that actually the ability to produce a consistent low incidence of homosexual offspring in humans is a genetic trait that has been selected for since it offers evolutionary advantages for the survivorship of our species when lived in small wondering kin groups.
ThomistWannaBe you are doing very well. Here is a question for you:
If one is in a small nomadic tribe as Father or Mother you might be upset if your Son didn’t like girls. Thus you might adopt rules requiring coupling for breeding whether you son wishes too or not and prohibitions against exclusively homosexual couplings so all of breeding age know the drill. If you settled and engaged in agriculture you would adopt even harder prohibitions since inherence is the major way family wealth is transferred to each generation – someone’s gotta get the goats and land – there is no contracts or deeds just occupation and mixing your labour with the soil - and violence to protect it from thieves.
Of course nomadic peoples will leave behind the sick and old should they not be able to cross a snow fed river in the summer pursuit of fresh pastures. Should we adopt the mores and practices of nomadic and early agrarian peoples?
'Many of [the Catholic Church's] finest clerics are homosexual ...'
Evidence, please.
Also, I would like to know if Atiyah and Fr. O'Leary agree with the silencing of Robert J. Smith, and, more importantly, if they agree with the underlying "Mother's knee" theory that no rational or moral person could possibly hold the view that homosexual activity is morally deviant. In other words, do they agree that the offical teaching of the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality is prima facie and self-evidently irrational and immoral? Are their prolix fulminations against the teaching of the Church really NECESSARY, or is it just fun?
Atiyah, while you're at it, will you please explain for us (in as much detail as you'd like) how anal sex between two men is a sublime expression of human and divine love?
I shall not be able to reply until much later today. I earnestly look forward to your comments.
Dave:
You seem to be looking for a bite - this isn't set and forget fishing.
Keep up the search for the interest free mortgage since to pay interest would be to knowingly co-operate in sin
I am actually kindly disposed to Catholicism at the moment despite the Nigerian thing because the death penalty has been abolished in the Philippines. It is a sign of civilisation and the Church can take a large measure of the credit for it – she provides the moral ballast for the move.
And then I see the post in this thread referenced below which is way over the top and simply abusive. It has not been yanked by Dr Blosser who to his great credit actually allows a fair degree of freedom here and isn’t keen to be a censor –he expects us to play nicely. But common decency suggests this should be deleted.
I cannot tell but if I were Fr. O’Leary I would be extremely hurt. You may not agree with him but he does not deserve this treatment and then to have everyone else blithely sit by and allow it to stand isn’t very nice.
This is way way too far: Anonymous | 06.23.06 - 8:36 am
Atiyah said: Of course nomadic peoples will leave behind the sick and old should they not be able to cross a snow fed river in the summer pursuit of fresh pastures. Should we adopt the mores and practices of nomadic and early agrarian peoples?
That is most amusing: a culture that aborts children as a bloody offering to the god named “Choice” as well as offering elders through a rite called “compassionate euthanasia” to the same named god views its mores and practices as different, more refined perhaps, than its Neolithic forbearers.
I’ve noted, casually, the tendency to belittle the past in effort to make some small difference in the present much larger. Hence the “Dark Ages” become much darker than any record can bear out so the “Enlightenment” can be far lighter.
The argument that homosexual persons represent an evolutionary event is spurious. Likewise I seriously doubt any evolution in morals.
'You seem to be looking for a bite - this isn't set and forget fishing.'
Looking for a bite? Fishing? I'm looking for an intelligent answer to a reasonable question. I can explain why genital intercourse between a husband and wife is a sublime expression of human and divine love. Here is one reason, rooted in the meaningfulness of human biology: the male and female genitalia are designed for the mutual fulfillment of a transcendent end (i.e., procreation) that surpasses the teleologies of the individual actors (e.g., genital pleasure). Menopause and sterility do not diminish that transcendent design. A racing car with a broken piston is still essentially designed for speed. A cathederal that has fallen into ruin is still essentially designed for worship. An eye that is blind is still essentially designed for sight. Now, I'll grant that this reading of the heterosexual act is open to debate, but it is open to debate because it is at least reasonable. I'm waiting to hear a reasonable reading of the homosexual act, since you and Fr. O'Leary seem to think that the homosexual act is at least as submlime as the heterosexual act, if not more so.
I think that it is also reasonable for me to ask your opinion regarding the silencing of Robert J. Smith, as well as regarding the "Mother's knee" theory that supports that despicable action.
You see fit to press us Trads and Fundies for answers to your interrogatories. Now it's your turn.
By the way, I agree with you, Atiyah, that the anonymous attack on Fr. O'Leary was clearly against Da Rulz and that the comment should be removed from these pages.
"A Day At The Episcopal Convention [...] By Dave Hartline"
http://www.catholicreport.org/?id=191
"Final Report At The Episcopal Church [...] By Dave Hartline"
http://www.catholicreport.org/?id=193
==
Paul (Dr Doolittle) Borealis:
You are a good researcher my friend.
This bestiality thing seems a theme for you. Let me assure you that the consent of an animal to sex with a human cannot be tested or verified, thus no consent is possible whatever stimuli is received. My advice: stop searching the net on it and please leave the beasts of the field to their own kind.
I do however enjoy Reading Peter Singer over a nice juicy steak
Receiving only slightly less of your interest than the beasts of the field is Katharine Jefferts Schori the new Presiding Bishop of the ECUSA. You can hear an interview with her here – she seems a very sensible women – almost sounding a bit too Catholic on this “justice and the poor” stuff.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
worldservic..._religion.shtml
Trog:
You are no troglodyte. You say sex is pleasurable because pleasure acts as an incentive to do it … and repeatedly so. Good reasoning if not a bit evolutionary. Still does not explain why most sex is pleasurable but yet only a minority of that can result in procreation.
And what of those mushy feelings sparked those chemical triggers for that “love” feeling that is associated with it. We love that “love” feeling that initially is chemically inspired and that turns to “comfortableness” over time.
Perhaps biologically speaking giving birth and raising infant humans is extremely expensive, they are a long time immature and very dependant. Need a lot of bonding to hatch em and grow em. Best if the team sticks together and others help especially if you are on the move 150,000 yrs ago. Could also be a bit of mate competition in the group though – might cause a bit of strife even death. Life is marginal and tough we die young and orphans are common. Management of these interpersonal relationships and minimising mate competition will be key to survival. The group that hunts/defends together and doesn't fight together wins.
Trog doubts that homosexuality is an evolutionary event (the ability to randomly produce a low incidence of homosexual offspring is a selected for trait). Then maybe it’s a randomly occurring defect. Either way one is presented with a difficulty making the sexual expression of it morally illicit.
Trog our booster of Neolithic Man notices a tendency to say that all that was old is bad and all that is new is good.
I have noticed that those who advance the notion that this tendency exists most often also hold the view that all that is new is bad and all that was old is good. Perhaps the truth is that old things can be either good or bad and new things can be either good or bad. Perhaps the history of human civilisation across generations is a pattern of decent with modification. Hey that looks similar to “genetics plus time” in biology. Strange that.
Okay, here it goes.
I'd like to apologize to everyone on this board for the rude and crass comments I made earlier. They did not help with the conversation at all.
I'd also like to say I'm sorry to Dr. Blosser who has to put up with the likes of someone like me. What I did was totally immature and juvenile.
Finally, I'd also like to apologize to you Father O'Leary. If you are reading this Father, I truly am sorry for the personal attacks against you. I should never had done it. They were totally out of line and out of place. They did not express the love of Christ at all. I am less of a Christian than anyone here because the very thing I lack is charity. I've been experiencing some anger in my life, and I took it out on you. I feel really guilty, especially after rereading what I wrote. I humbly ask for only one thing from you Father: Will you please forgive me?
That is good of you repentant listener.
Dave:
You ask a series of complex questions and I am trying not to be long winded.
HUMAN BONDING AND THE SODOMY THING AGAIN
On Sodomy see my comments to ThomistWannaBe.- “careful where you stick that..”
We appear to agree that what is unnatural is sexual activity not in furtherance of bonding whether that is heterosexual or homosexual activity but you doubt homosexuals can experience that meaningful bonding. As evidence of this you sing sweetly regarding the meaningfulness of your sexual relationship with your wife. Whom I am to doubt the pleasure and joy you receive from it - your mind is hardwired that way and you wouldn’t have it any other way. Anecdotally I have noticed that heterosexuals do like heterosexual sex and intimate emotional bonding with their opposite sex number. Anecdotally I have noticed that homosexuals do like homosexual sex and intimate emotional bonding with one of their own sex. It’s their thing. They seem to be hardwired like that. I am relaxed about both. I am far more interesting in the lives people lead, the contribution they make and how they treat their fellow man.
The racing car analogy is a good one but forget the broken piston. Rather is it still a racing car if it is without an engine? Can you understand a racing car or a race without at least looking to the engine? Are all engines the same, or are some hybrids? The mind propels sexuality like the engine moves the racing car.
CLERICS ARE SEXUAL BEINGS TOO
You ask for evidence that many of [the Catholic Church's] finest clerics are homosexual. I hope you are not looking for a prurient “outing.” Most clerics are either homosexual or heterosexual all are theoretically chaste. But not all clerics are among the Church’s finest clerics. Therefore some of it’s finest clerics will be either homosexual or heterosexual. Stands to reason really.
WHO IS THIS SMITH MAN AND WHO CARES?
Probably this Robert J Smith fellow is the ex Metro director. The Metro directors oversee a $1 billion operating budget and nearly 10,000 employees. They set policy for the nation's second-busiest subway and fifth-busiest bus system. Metro carries more than 1.1 million riders a day. Is this him?
He was sacked by the Republican governor for making a public statement on t.v. in a private capacity that homosexuals are persons of sexual deviancy. The voters will have their say on the governor’s actions when he faces them in an election. Should he have been sacked. Well I think this answers it: “Smith, 47, a Gaithersburg architect, could not be reached by phone last night. Earlier in the day, he said he served at the pleasure of the governor.”
Atiyah,
Your answer to my question about anal sex amounts to basically, "If it feels good to you, and you're not hurting anyone, just do it." It appears that you understand "fundamental human bonding" (or "love") in a purely subjective and emotional sense. I was looking for something a bit more objective. In any case, let's drop it. I don't want to talk about anal sex anymore. It's disgusting.
Regarding the case of Robert J. Smith, you ignored my question. I'll try again. Smith's critics suggest that no rational or moral person could possibly hold the view that homosexual activity is morally deviant. Do you agree? Do you think that the offical teaching of the Roman Catholic Church regarding homosexuality is prima facie and self-evidently irrational and immoral?
repentant listener,
I can't speak for Fr. O'Leary, but I've noticed that he gives as good as he takes on this blog.
That said, I'm sure that Fr. O'Leary will forgive you. Don't be too hard on yourself. All of us fall short of the Christian ideal.
Pax Christi,
From Hartline's report:
'Perhaps the new head of US Episcopal Bishops, Katherine Jefferts Shori, sent a message in her first homily by saying, "Mother Jesus."'
Wow. Is that true? Did she say THAT?
Does anyone have the text of "Bishop" Schori's homily? Her views on human sexuality are perhaps the least of her problems.
Yep, it appears that she said it:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focu...n/1653229/
posts
Schori encourages us to give up fear. Hmmm... be careful. "Fear" is a politically loaded term these days. Consider some of the "fearful" habits that Schori might encourage Christians to give up:
'Yesterday however, the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops refused to even consider a resolution that would affirm the exclusive Lordship of Jesus Christ as "the only name by which any person may be saved." The Rev. Canon Eugene McDowell of the Diocese of North Carolina explained, "This type of language was used in 1920s and 1930s to alienate the type of people who were executed. It was called the Holocaust."'
Is it an accident that nowhere in Schori's first homily does she refer to the "Lord Jesus"?
I stand by my earlier "anti-Christ" comment regarding this pretender Bishop. I don't care how smart, intelligent, and charming this lady is. She speaks with a serpent's tongue.
From the Gloria:
'For YOU ALONE are the Holy One, YOU ALONE are the Lord, YOU ALONE are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father.' (emphasis added)
"Bishop" Schori and her fellows in the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops would no doubt consider such language in the Roman Catholic Mass to be non-inclusive and full of "fear".
Oh, what a great day for ecumenism! Not.
One last comment then I'll give my yap a rest on this Sunday.
Elsewhere in these pages, Fr. O'Leary has observed that Vatican II proclaimed the Lordship of Christ in a more "convincing" way to modern sensibilities. I was puzzled by this observation, but now "Bishop" Schori's first homily has finally captured Fr. O'Leary's meaning, to wit: proclaiming the Lordship of Jesus Christ in a "convincing" way means proclaiming a transgender Jesus who somehow isn't quite really the Lord of all.
Earlier in this thread I remarked on the connection between Christology and moral doctrine. Hate to say "I told you so", but ...
What was that yanked "hurtful" post? Anyway, tutti assolve il mio perdon.
In Christ there is neither male nor female, so I think Bp Schori is making a good point.
Also Christ walked with leper, with prostitutes，with sinner, and gave them precedence over the so-called righteous. Today he would walk with pedophiles, and he would certainly condemn the awful homophobic ranting of the Cardinal Archbishop of Lagos, from whom none of the antigay crowd here has seen fit to distance themselves, despite his clear defiance of church teaching...
O'Leary writes:
That is not a wholly accurate statement in the light of evidence from ancient Greek documents. While porneia initially referred to prostitution, it gradually broadened out to encompass all acts deemed illicit by Christians, including homosexual acts.
O'Leary's comment did not show up in the box, for some reason. But I was referring to his remarks on porneia in this comment box.
There is good New Testament foundation of the image of Jesus as our mother, and this is in turn built on Old Testament images of Yhwh as a mother to his people.
Porneia no doubt became an all-purpose word, meaning something like "uncleanliness" (notably providing a reason for divorce in Matthew). But I don't think it's of much use for "reading" gay sexual expression. Phil Blosser can "read" sexual acts by projecting onto the abstracted physical datum a meaning. But I would think that sexual acts can take on very different meanings according to relational context. Vaginal intercourse can be sacramental within marriage and vilest rape elsewhere. Anal intercourse can be "operose and diabolical" (Shelley) as practices in British public schools or as a contraceptive method; but many gays claim to find in its more positive meanings. You can "read" sexual acts through the prism of Sade or of Lawrence; in the former they are instruments of degradation, in the latter they can be that but they can also be celebrations of the glorious, godgiven life of the human body etc.
I am beginning to wonder if the Vatican's teaching the same-sex orientation is an anomaly since it is an orientation toward objectively disordered acts is not based on the same crude schoolboy anal obsession. When the Vatican thinks of gays does it think first and foremost of the anus? That would certainly be in its tradition - as the foremost advocation of killing "sodomites" in history. It is curious that homophobes spend much more time thinking of anal intercourse than gay men do (not to mention gay women). How are we to "read" this?
A wave to the 400,000 who marched in the Gay Pride event in Paris and to the 200,000 spectators!
"It is curious that homophobes spend much more time thinking of anal intercourse than gay men do (not to mention gay women). How are we to "read" this?"
How are we to read a homosexual priest's lack of shame inb even posing such a question? Sheesh.
Atiyah
The knife is not so sharp after all. Use your God-given reason my friend (you do believe in the Christian God, right? um, are you 'Catholic', even 'Christian'?)...
It was your odd 'question' or 'challenge' relating in a fashion to 'natural law' and the social fact of homosexuality, etc., that allowed me (nay, damn near forced me) to draw a bit of attention to the strange similarities (analogies) between homosexuality (homosexual gay/lesbian practices, etc.) and zoophilia/bestiality (immoral sexual conduct with animals, etc.).
Very simple really. Both do occur/happen - in some individuals, societies,... in history, nature, etc. - but still are properly seen as disordered from a 'natural law' philosophical perspective. If you knew this, you might not have made the 'challenge'.
But who knows, you may have conscious, subconscious or personal reasons for not wanting to acknowledge such sickening and immoral similarities. Sound familiar?
And honestly, when you and others here argue for 'homosexuality', it appears as silly and absurd to me as some sick (twisted?) person trying to argue for social acceptance of zoosexuality. Both sex practices are wrong, and for the same basic reasons.
By the way, are you a Christian? you never said - it is time to tell, and speak clearly. Why are you fighting for the gay sex movement, and so seemingly (to me at least) ill-tempered?
==
It does not seem possible to limit porneia to "uncleanness," even in Matthew (5:32; 19:9). Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker (BDAG) Greek-English lexicon suggests that the sexual unfaithfulness of a woman is being discussed in that account. Cf. 1 Corinthians 10:8ab.
Moreover, Jude employs PORNEIA with reference to the denizens of Sodom and Gomorrah (Jude 7). He writes:
hWS SODOMA KAI GOMORRA . . . EKPORNEUSASAI. EKPORNEUW here can hardly mean "prostitution" or uncleanness.
See Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon (semantic domain 88.271).
At least, EKPORNEUW (Jude 7) is not reducible to the act of having relations with a prostitute or simply committing acts of uncleanness.
"By the way, are you a Christian? you never said - it is time to tell, and speak clearly. Why are you fighting for the gay sex movement [...]?"
This is the only question I want answered. The only response I will listen for.
Why? Because I am sick of this stinking hellish homosexual issue. Please, all you liberal gay sex supporters, just leave the Catholic Church - all you want to do is destroy Christ! Please, I beg you. If you want to stay, then Repent. Find God.
==
Paul Borealis, you must be sick of the Catechism as well, which has many nice things to say about "homosexual persons". Look it up.
And very, very far from hate-filled fundamentalistic homophobia is the following series of articles from Osservatore Romano http://www.ewtn.com/library/huma...manity/
homo.htm.
As to the letter of Jude, of course the behaviour of gang rape is porneia at its worst. When I say porneia is translated uncleanness, of course I mean sexual uncleanness. It is a vague word, like other such words: gluttony, greed, selfishness, envy, sloth, etc.
Paul (Inquisitor General) Borealis:
I am in an irrepressibly good mood as a friend and his wife have just had a baby and I am going to visit.
Here is your answer, hum if you can:
A man walks down the street
It’s a street in a strange world
Maybe it’s the third world
Maybe it’s his first time around
He doesn’t speak the language
He holds no currency
He is a foreign man
He is surrounded by the sound
The sound
Cattle in the marketplace
Scatterlings and orphanages
He looks around around
He sees angels in the architecture
Spinning in infinity
He says Amen and Hallelujah
The L'Osservatore Romano stuff on homosexuality looks very interesting. I trust it has the assembled Blosserite’s approval since it is linked from the ewtn website – a sure fire sign surely that it’s authentic.
'In Christ there is neither male nor female, so I think Bp Schori is making a good point.'
Oh, please, give us a break, Fr. O'Leary. The point is not that there are no sexual differences in the Body of Christ, but rather that there is no sexual opposition, competition, conflict, etc. We are of equal dignity in Christ, not of the same sex or non-sex. Do you really think that our Mother Mary in heaven is neither male nor female???
Maternal metaphors aside, there is no foundation in scripture or tradition for us to call Jesus "our Mother". You know damned well, Fr. O'Leary, that Schori's reference to "Mother Jesus" was all about sexual politics. You of ALL people should know this ... and your little wave to the Gay Pride parade proves it!
'There is good New Testament foundation of the image of Jesus as our mother ...'
No there is not. One mother hen metaphor does not of Jesus a mother make.
It's sexual politics all the way.
Fr. O'Leary,
Vaginal intercourse can be either sacramental or brutal depending on the context. Anal intercourse is a vile perversion, irrespective of context. Rape takes something beautiful and turns it into something beastly. Anal intercourse is beastly and can never be made beautiful.
By the way, we don't have to look only to anal sex to identify the self-evident perversion of homosexual acts. We can add french-kissing, fellatio, genital fondling, and a host of other forms of sexual contact between men. All of them are disgusting and immoral.
'And very, very far from hate-filled fundamentalistic homophobia is the following series of articles from Osservatore Romano http://www.ewtn.com/library/huma.../huma...manity/
homo.htm.'
Thanks for sharing the link, Father. Everything in the OR series appears to support the basic position of the evil Blosserites, i.e., gays are human persons worthy of respect, but their sexual activities are not to be countenanced from a moral point of view. Gay marriage is out of the question, according to the articles in the series that deal with that issue.
Thanks again for the helpful documentation!
'... hate-filled fundamentalistic homophobia ...'
Blah, blah, blah. Give it a rest, Father. Yeah, we all hate gays. That's what this is all about.
The lesson here is that if you keep repeating the same lie over and over again, someone will believe it. There is a certain notorious figure in history who knew that technique quite well.
In case no one was watching closely, I just made a nasty little insinuation that tarred the good Padre with the Hitler brush. This is one of the more delightful pastimes of the PP blog, if indulged occassionally and with prudence.
'A wave to the 400,000 who marched in the Gay Pride event in Paris and to the 200,000 spectators!
Spirit of Vatican II | Homepage | 06.25.06 - 8:33 pm | # '
Hmmm ... perhaps "repentant listener"'s repentance was a bit premature.
If you french-kissed your girlfriend, Dave, would you think it right to be bawled out by your Dad or the priest for "disgusting and immoral behavior"? If you would, then you are applying the same standards to gays and straights. But if you wouldn't you are indulging in homophobic discrimination.
Of course in both cases you would be a sexual puritan, but that is another matter.
I have some respect for puritans, even for the Taliban, if they apply strictly to themselves the same standards they apply to others.
To pursue that point a little, Dave, you call on all gays to live lives of perfect chastity -- defined as total continence -- under pain of being called practitioners of perverse and disgusting behaviors. Do you prescribe the same life for all unmarried or widowed males? Do you regard the peccadillos of straight men in a milder light than those of gays?
The fact that you can't see the moral difference between a man french-kissing a woman (hopefully his wife!) and a man french-kissing his homosexual male lover ... well, obviously, that's why we are caught in this interminable argumentative loop, isn't it?
Puritanical? I think not. Merely Catholic. Sex between husband and wife: good. Sex between a man and another man: bad. Sex between a priest and another man: very, very bad.
'Do you prescribe the same life for all unmarried or widowed males?'
I don't prescribe anything. The Catholic Church prescribes chastity for all unmarried persons. Check your Catechism.
'Do you regard the peccadillos of straight men in a milder light than those of gays?'
Sin is sin, Father.
Do the peccadillos of gay men cause me a stronger gut-level repulsion? Yes, I must admit that they do.
Nor do I expect perfection from anyone, gay or straight. That's why we have Confession.
A strong gut-level revulsion when a man kisses another man, kindness and understanding when a man kisses a woman.
OK, if you had a gay son who was sexually active, much as a straight son of that age was likely to be, would you regard him with revulsion?
Try as you might, Father, you are not going to persuade me to join you in celebrating the blessedness of homosexual attraction nor of any of the myriad forms of sexual expression by which said attraction might be realized -- even if it is in the context of a so-called "loving" lifetime "partnership". Neither twisted reasoning nor repetitious name-calling (homophobe, hateful homophobe, hateful fundamentalist homophobe) will have any affect.
There is love, and there is disordered love. The Catholic Church and natural reason give us the measure for determining which is which. If you want to make up your own rules and try to find eternal life according to them, then good luck to you.
Freud admits to feeling revulsion at the idea of kissing -- perverse oral copulation of the digestive tracts -- I guess I am lucky that I do not feel any revulsion at the thought of anyone kissing anyone else. I just don't see what is so terribly wrong about a man kissing a man or a woman kissing a woman.
'OK, if you had a gay son who was sexually active, much as a straight son of that age was likely to be, would you regard him with revulsion?'
No. I would love him with all my heart, even though I would find his behavior repulsive. I would reason with him. I would pray for him. Ultimately I would accept him. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
The image of the "hateful homophobe" really has a lock on your brain, Father. Someone must have done you a bad turn.
"Try as you might, Father, you are not going to persuade me to join you in celebrating the blessedness of homosexual attraction nor of any of the myriad forms of sexual expression by which said attraction might be realized -- even if it is in the context of a so-called "loving" lifetime "partnership"." Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
" Neither twisted reasoning nor repetitious name-calling (homophobe, hateful homophobe, hateful fundamentalist homophobe) will have any affect." Effect.
"There is love, and there is disordered love. The Catholic Church and natural reason give us the measure for determining which is which." But some of the great saints loved others of the same sex -- and were in all probability same-sex in their sexual orientation. So you are quarrelling not with me but with the Creator who endowed these men and women with the charism of same-sex love.
" If you want to make up your own rules and try to find eternal life according to them, then good luck to you." I don't think pouring scorn on your gay brothers and sisters is the path to eternal life. I thought that Love was the first commandment, but you have cut in into shreds.
'I just don't see what is so terribly wrong about a man kissing a man or a woman kissing a woman.'
I understand that you don't see it. There is no way that I'm going to make you see it. We've reached a dead end. Good night, Father.
I wonder if you looked at those Osservatore articles carefully; some are very defensive, others less so -- the following for example http://www.ewtn.com/library/huma...anity/
homo6.htm
OK, Dave, I accept that you are not a hateful homophobe -- towards persons; though your horror of sexual expression seems excessive. But that hateful homophobes exist and go on the rampage is evident. You would at least agree with me that the Nigerian Cardinal whose views I exposed somewhere here is a hateful homophobe? That he hates not only the "sin" but the "sinners"?
Perhaps Dave and Philip and Kathy missed my posting about that Nigerian Cardinal. Otherwise their silence may signify that they are quite happy with his hateful homophobia. Here, I'll give you another chance to make a decent comment:
"All these stories are geared towards destroying the marriage institution. It’s very strange, indeed very absurd. How could a man and a man or woman and woman be in a sexual relationship? It’s crazy. This is a curse. All they (gays and lesbians) want to do is destroy the human race.
"It is the same thing that made them to start using the condom. They call it family planning. People now want to have less children. So, they brought in the condom. Actually, there is a company that produces condom that wants to be located in Nigeria. They want to start producing condoms in Nigeria! That is besides the abortions they commit on daily basis.
"Haven’t you also heard about people doing sex exchange? Men transform into women and women can become men! These are all targeted at destroying human life.
"Those who are doing family planning now have two kids. A man gets married, gets a boy or a girl or two boys and hands up. He has had enough. After they have done all these and it is not enough, men now want to get married to fellow men and women want to get married to fellow women. Is it not absurd? Is it not sickness? Is it not like challenging God? But I thank God for the fastness of this regime to arrest the situation. They did not even waste time before coming up with a law. Nigeria factor did not come into force.
"You heard that a group of them (gays and lesbians) actually came out to flaunt their homosexuality and lesbian behaviours and are asking for official recognition. That cannot happen in Nigeria. Of course, it cannot happen in the Catholic Church. It’s an abomination. It cannot happen in this part of the world. No, it cannot happen.
"I thank God that the secular society did not leave the matter in the hands of the church. It acted appropriately and the church knows what to do now. I am hopeful that as stipulated, the government gets serious with it because we know that in some parts, homosexuals exist. It has to stop."
'I wonder if you looked at those Osservatore articles carefully; some are very defensive, others less so -- the following for example http://www.ewtn.com/library/huma...y/huma...anity/
homo6.htm'
It's getting late and my eyes are getting blearly, so I gave this article just a quick scan. I have no objections. I understand that homosexuality is a complex phenomenon. I appreciate objective and scientific studies of the issue such as presented by Professor Zuanazzi. Perhaps they are useful in toning down my extreme repulsion toward homosexual acts, a reaction which is probably not very Christlike. That said, the Catholic moral teaching remains intact.
Good night!
I'll grant that some his remarks are extreme and hateful. Okay? G'night.
The passage in Jude 7 does not condemn gang rape per se. Notice the expression TON hOMOION PROTON TOUTOIS in that passage, which is a reference to verse 6, wherein one reads about angels who committed sin by assuming human form and taking wives to themselves.
The story of angels illicitly cohabiting with women has a protracted and venerable history. The account appears in Gen 6:1-4 as well as in the book of 1 Enoch (part of the Pseudepigrapha). Whether one affirms the historicity of the story or not, the point is that Jude compares the sin of the Sodomites to the sexual sin wrought by angels, a sin that did not involve forcible seizure or gang rape. Rather, the sin that Jude allues to in his Epistle is illicit sexual intercourse of all types.
Additionally, PORNEIA is not a vague word (USUS LOQUENDI or IN CONCRETO). A cursory look at the various Greek lexica in our midst confirms this point with ease. For instance, Moulton-Milligan's _Vocabulary of the Greek NT_ (a lexical source dealing with Greek payri) notes that PORNEIA "came to be applied to unlawful sexual intercourse generally." Moreover, PORNEIA seems to be broader in meaning than the term MOIXEIA, though similar in some respects.
Finally, the pre-Nicene testimony is clear: sex should be confined to one man with one woman. Homosexual relations are viewed as an abomination by the pre-Nicenes. Rodney Stark has adequately documented this point (from a sociological perspective) in his work _The Rise of Christianity_.
Atiyah,
Of course I am a troglodyte. Self-identity is the name of the game is it not? Of course, I am a very open-minded troglodyte. For example, the stalactites think the are above me but I admire them as my equal.
Again, you point out an individual incentive to reproduce. So we have the pleasure attached to orgasm, the heat of the dopamine induced state, and the specific dopamine addition for the object of one’s love. Does that not strike you as a great deal of apparatus around reproduction? Perhaps it has less to do with the amount of time needed for gestation and infant care and more to do with the incidence of death-by-childbirth. To engage in coitus was to accept with death oneself or give death by lethal injection.
Back to your parental sexual mores forced upon the child: it seems more likely that a parent would condone homosexual behavior rather than have their child, the one in whom they invested such time and effort, seek death.
And yet we find no universals that condone homosexual behavior. In other words, there are no grounds for building a case for a morally licit homosexual act because there never have been any grounds.
My point of view: there is nothing new under the sun.
Spirit of Vatican II:
You said “Also Christ walked with leper, with prostitutes with sinner, and gave them precedence over the so-called righteous.” Was that because of who they said they were? Or who they said He was? Or a another dynamic?
Atiyah,
Not as clear as I had hoped, but I am pleased to hear that you are in a good mood. I suppose we might as well be trading song lyrics and tunes, so here is one below (which I have always thought provocative and interesting for various reasons, not least its unusual and mainly decadent source) from the strange and bad old days. I might get the boot for this one.
-
Have you ever thought about your soul? Can it be saved?
Or perhaps you think that when you are dead you just stay in your grave.
Is God just a thought within your head or is he a part of you?
Is Christ just a name that you read in a book when you were in school?
When you think about death do you lose your breath or do you keep your cool?
Would you like to see the Pope on the end of a rope? Do you think he's a fool?
Well I see the truth.
Yes I've seen the light and I've changed my ways.
And I'll be prepared when you're lonely and scared at the end of our days.
Could it be you're afraid of what your friends might say
If they knew you believed in God above?
They should realize before they criticize that God is the only way to love.
Is your mind so small that you have to fall
In with the pack wherever they run?
Will you still sneer when death is near
And say that you may as well worship the sun.
I think it is true it was people like you that crucified Christ
I think it is sad the opinion you had was the only one voiced.
Will you be so sure when your day is near say you don't believe?
You had the chance but you turned it down now you can't retrieve.
Perhaps you'll think before you say God is dead and gone
Open your eyes, just realize that he is the one,
The only one who can save you now from all this sin and hate.
Or will you jeer at all you hear?
Yes! I think it's too late.
('After Forever' - by Black Sabbath, 1971)
==
Atiyah,
After several days, I'm trying to find a point at which I can come back and join in the conversation with you, but it's quite difficult, because you run on-and-on without really offering any argument. Plenty of little jibes as asides, but I don't consider these arguments -- just taunts. I can't do much with those but either respond in kind (which is cheap), or ignore. But since you persist so gallantly, let me make a run at it. One place you write:
Natural law does not depend on religious authority or any other authority actually - that's the whole point of it.
Well, is that true? Does natural law depend on no authority? I suppose it depends on what you mean by depends, doesn't it. A natural law argument wouldn't have to appeal to any sort of authority beyond the argument of natural reason itself, which is probably what you mean; and I agree. Yet this hardly means it doesn't depend on authority. Traditionally, the authority of natural law is found by Catholics (who believe in God) in the Creator, its content in the design He imparts, and the power by which we recognize it in the faculty of reason (which is part of the design and includes conscience). In the older natural law terminology, the first is called the "binding norm," the second the "discriminating norm," and the last the "manifesting norm." So, yes, natural law does have authority in that sense; and I hope you would agree.
Much of what you write about natural law -- referring to "Fr. Aristotle" (cute,) Aquinas, and so forth -- seems to me to confuse natural law with natural law theories, which is another matter. One can understand the demands of natural law -- that we should be just, that we shouldn't gratuitously harm others, that we should keep our promises, etc. -- without knowing anything about theories of natural law, or having even heard the term "natural law." These aren't things one is born knowing (innate knowledge), but it's knowledge that is underived (per se nota), just like our knowledge that a whole is greater than one of its parts, which we immediately 'see' as soon as we understand the meaning of 'whole' and 'part.'
The basis of Phil Blosser's views is a different interpretation of natural law, focused heavily on the biology of anal intercourse and a "mother's knee" theory that moral correctness is always immediately intuitive and undeniable.
So mine is the "different" interepretation, eh, Father? I've come along and introduced a novel interpretation of natural law, while your view of "gay-friendly" natural law interpretation isn't "different" at all, eh?
He also appeals to the Gospel, but in a puritanical style.
Oh, and I'm "puritanical"? Thanks for that lucid argument, Father. Compelling indeed.
He makes no attempt to listen respectfully to the claims of gay men and women, and that is a weakness in both bases of his argument.
So what strengthens an argument is "listening respectfully to the claims of gay men and women," i.e., accepting their testimony as to what should count as "natural"? What's "natural" is what "seems natural to me"? Get a grip, Father! That's not what "natural" has ever meant in natural law. Or do you buy the testimony of the college-bound girl who delivered her child in a toilet stall, strangled him, stuffed him in a garbage can, then returned to the prom, later to report that she "felt she had no choice" in the matter. Reducing the "natural" in natural law to such nonsense is like trying to revive a drunk with vodka. Good luck, Father.
Grega insinuates that I deliberately post on a subject calculated to get readers' "blood boiling" in order to profit from that little "Amazon.com thingy" on my webpage.
Grega, c'mon, my friend. Get real. I haven't gotten a single dime from that link that I know of in the last year. Nor have I received a single donation, though I have a "donation thingy" posted too. That's not what animates this blog, believe me.
Perhaps Dave and Philip and Kathy missed my posting about that Nigerian Cardinal. Otherwise their silence may signify that they are quite happy with his hateful homophobia.
On the contrary, our silence -- let me speak for myself: my silence-- signifies that I have another life outside this combox listening to you pump same sex partnerships, homosexual kissing and copulation. Thank God. I refuse the term homophobia. I recognize only the term heterophobia. So clearly there are no relevant connectins here. Injustice is injustice, whomever it involves, whether saints or sinners. But that doesn't remake an abomination into a 'glory be.'
Unfinished business ...
Fr. "Spirit of O'Leary" notes the antithesis I draw between health and perversion and the ECUSA bishop's attempt to construe it as nothing more than the difference between blue and yellow flowers -- and then Father O'Leary comments:
Well, Philip, the "platitudes" of Christ and St Paul did EXACTLY that, for the antithesis between internal and external, Jew and Samaritan, Jew and Gentile, Pharisee and lay, male and female ... He doesn't quite get the Bible verse right, as he would have if he had been raised a good Baptist, but he also misses something else: this is NOT AT ALL what St. Paul is "EXACTLY" doing.
Let me explain. The difference the ECUSA bishop is dealing with is a moral difference between the willingness to embrace sexual health or perversion. The difference St. Paul is dealing with is ontological differences between Jews and Gentiles, males and females, slaves and free, etc.
Now the difference between these differences is precisely the difference that Fr. "Spirit of O'Leary" would like, like the ECUSA Bishop, to collapse into a mere ontological difference, so that the difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals could be viewed simply as analogous to the difference between Jews and Gentiles, or males or females, etc. But that's begging the question.
This is one of the most common pieces of fallacious reasoning employed by dissidents across the board. Where they appeal the the celebration of "difference" and "diversity," note that they eschew any clear definition. They don't want it to be clear that there are different kinds of differences -- some differences that are, true, (a) ontological: matters of color, gender, race, ability, disability, etc.; but also other differences that are (b) moral: matters of value-orientation: are you a neo-Nazi skin head, warm-hearted Bush-loving Republican, or a cold, heartless, blood-curdling Democrat baby-killer? 
Spirit of Vatican II,
A last set of questions, questions to which I do not have an answer and it seems that you will as you seem to be current on post-post-modern nomenclature:
1) Above you relay that a man who expresses moral disapprobation upon seeing two men French-kiss is guilty of homophobic discrimination;
a) What is a man guilty of who expresses moral disapprobation upon seeing a mother French-kiss her son?
b) What is a man guilty of who expresses moral disapprobation upon seeing a father French-kiss his daughter?
Assume, in the above cases, all parties involve meet or exceed the age-of-consent as expressed in local legislation. Also assume the appropriate dopamine levels and cortical activity to convince Atiyah the parties are biologically “in love”.
2) Secular laws discriminate a particular behavior or a particular scenario. At what point does a secular law—or the support of a secular law—become unjust?
I’m back to the cave now. Cheers!
Dr. Blosser,
Thank you for the subject as well as the opportunity to comment. I appreciate it.
Cheers!
I was not talking of moral disapprobation but of gut-level disgust. Of course French kissing is often morally objectionable.
Pb, you say the difference between Jews and Gentiles is ontological but that between gays and straights is not. But since homosexuality is exactly like heterosexuality in that it is not a chosen orientation, it has as much right to claim "ontological" status as Jewishness or Gentileness has. Ontology may not be the issue anyway, Paul and Jesus may think rather in terms of social groups, and express a preferential option for the despise outcastes.
When I said your view of natural law is different from mine, I was merely making an observation, and was not using the word "different" in any pejorative sense. You agree, it seems, that natural law for you is a matter of reading biological acts, and whether the semen goes to the right receptacle. This is what Yves Congar excoriated as "the morality of the sacrosanct semen". If natural law cannot take into account the relational dimension it is not about human nature but more suitable for pigs and dogs.
'Paul and Jesus may think rather in terms of social groups, and express a preferential option for the despise outcastes.'
I think that Jesus has a preferential option for people who cling to him for dear life. That is the issue to which Jesus wishes to draw our minds, not whether it is okay to be gay.
Sure, but if Jesus said it is not ok to be same-sex attracted, that would be as if he said it is not ok to be black. I do not think that Jesus would say being gay is an anomaly, as the Vatican says.
On the morality of gay sexual expression, Jesus and Paul would leave that to reason (common sense -- as in Jesus' parables, or natural law -- mentioned by Paul) and the guidance of the Spirit. As in every other field of ethics, there are many factors to be taken into account, and once discussion begins its range is vast.
Trog
Being true to self is the name of the game for all else is artifice. Come out of your metaphorical womb, warm safe and comfortable though it may be. Feel the sun on your back and the thrill and danger of the chase. Yes life is risky but that’s the charm of it.
To construe sex and childbirth as somehow on balance pathological is strange. If this were so in most cases, then you will struggle to explain why there are so many of us about. As a novel idea first seen in blue and green algae I think we can conclude that the idea of sex is overwhelming successful – birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it.
But you are dwelling on the evolutionary aspects of sex in humankind and any evolution is a good thing especially in preference to Dr Budzieszewski’s Intelligent Design. 150,000 years ago man grunted like a teenage boy on a Saturday morning when questioned on his whereabouts the previous night. But we basically looked the same. Something has happened for we evolved faster than can be explained easily. Human sex is the key. For us it’s a more social behaviour than in any other species by a country mile.
Women achieve organism – this is unique. Women have no obvious sign of fertility no detectable chemical or physical trigger – this is rare. Humans face each other in sex – this is unique we are drawn to faces. Women are the major players in mate selection (try chasing one who isn’t interested you). On average men and women chose in the other someone who is of equal intellect. Females of the father’s direct line are safe from the father - unlike in many species incest is extremely rare.
Getting the point. One only gets so far with the form and function of the genitals. Physiology and chemicals take us further still. But cannot understand human sexuality without understanding the role of the mind, it’s the major sexual organ.
I cannot say for certain that homosexuality results from a specifically chosen for trait or is a consequence of another desirable trait. Perhaps it’s a reoccurring defect (like the inability to sing or the fact that white people have no rhythm) but whatever the cause it is no basis for making the natural expression of homosexuality illicit.
The father of genetics Mendel published his findings in 1866, but his discoveries were ignored till 1900 when a number of researchers independently rediscovered his work and grasped it’s significance. It disappeared because the Abbott who replaced him on his death burnt all his papers. After Galileo, Catholic science died for well over 200 yrs and innovation shifted entirely to the Protestant Northern Europe. First time around 200+ years. Second time around 34 yrs. Things are on the improve. Decent with modification in action. Stay with the Science Trog.
Spirit of Vatican II, I don't believe in the gay agenda. I myself suffer from same-sex attractions and find same-sex intercourse to be really disgusting and vile. I would never want to engage in it. It's unnatural and it's just gross.
I pray that one day God will heal me, and I also pray that you'll repent of your views.
"Sure, but if Jesus said it is not ok to be same-sex attracted, that would be as if he said it is not ok to be black."
Once again, the insulting of God-created racial and ethnic groups by equating them with sins or maladies of the soul. . . .
"I do not think that Jesus would say being gay is an anomaly, as the Vatican says."
Jesus' doctrines of marriage and sex and love conclusively rule out your personal opinion. But even before we consult divine revelation, all we need to do is notice that, well, being homosexual is an anomaly. Those who suffer from that sexual perversion number about 3 percent or less of the human race. If that doesn't qualify as something anomalous, what does? Then we can notice that to engage in homosexual activity, one must defile and mutilate one's genitalia and excretory apparatus. In light of these readily observable facts, what Catholic could possibly believe that his Lord and Savior would not tell the truth about homosexuality? Would you worship a man who insisted that the earth is flat? Then why would you worship someone who wouldn't admit homosexuality is an anomaly?
'Sure, but if Jesus said it is not ok to be same-sex attracted, that would be as if he said it is not ok to be black. I do not think that Jesus would say being gay is an anomaly, as the Vatican says.'
To be same-sex attracted is to be attracted to sin. That attraction, if followed, will lead nowhere else but into sin. That is the nature of the anomaly. The attraction needs to be resisted. Help needs to be sought.
Does this offend you? Am I pouring scorn on you? Am I tearing to shreds the commandment of Love? That is not my intention. Think on this. I believe that Jesus is close to gay people -- when they are alone in their wretchedness. I do not think that Jesus draws near to gay people when they are on parade, celebrating their sin. I venture to say that Jesus departs from them, when they twist and distort his Gospel in the name of sexual politics.
Good luck with that splinter in your eye, Father. I have a beam in my own eye to deal with. When you finally recognize your sin as a crossbeam, you will be blessed, for Jesus will draw near to you again.
"After Galileo, Catholic science died for well over 200 yrs and innovation shifted entirely to the Protestant Northern Europe."
Yeah, I too used to believe that Know-Nothing racist bilgewater when I was a Protestant. The truth, as always, is far more complicated and far more interesting than the anti-Christian and anti-Catholic legends and myths would lead one to believe.
3% of people are gay? -- I think it is more complicated than that. What about bisexuality and that Kinsey scale?
Anyway, 3% is a huge number of people. If you equate MINORITY and ANOMALY then you can prescribe that every tiny ethnic group is an anomaly.
Again this anal obsession of homophobes. If you son came to you and said "I love men" (as Dreadnought said in coming out to him mother), would your first thought be that your son was into anal sex?
In any case I accept the testimony of gay couples that their sexual life is a bonding and unitive experience. Sorry if you can only see it as "disgusting and vile", but surely this reflects merely the limits of your own experience and your inability to take on board empathetically the experience of others?
fumigation needed -- again I must turn to our Anglican brethren for a bold Christian voice, for the parrhesia of St Paul, instead of all this morose Leviticus self-flagellation: http://www.thewitness.org/articl...cle.php?
id=1100
The racist bilgewater Jordan alludes to was shared by the Roman Catholic Church. The Vatican had prayers for Ethiopia, whose population were seen as under the curse of Ham. Cutting off science in one department does not ensure you are more advanced in another. The Vatican regularly placed anti-slavery tracts on the Index of Forbidden Books -- which suggests a pretty benighted racist outlook.
So, teste David, same-sex attraction leads to nothing but sin? Ever heard of Plato, of how the soul is raised to the vision of the Good by same-sex attraction? Read Benedict XVI on that and spare me your pharisaical self-righteous posturing, bud.
Andrew Sullivan on Benedict XVI:
“The Symposium, the source of Benedict's description of eros, treats same-sex love interchangeably with opposite-sex love. Benedict must know this. He’s a deeply learned man. Why rest his own treatment on sources that clearly embrace gay love? Beats me. He even cites Virgil’s Eclogues, a deeply homoerotic work. Part of me thinks that Benedict’s anti-gay posture is just orthodoxy, made more reactionary by the social revolution of our time. And then I wonder if he doesn’t have an esoteric meaning as well. Nothing in this encyclical couldn’t apply to same-sex eros.”
It was from the Eclogues that André Gide drew the title of his once scandalous Corydon (1923). Another reference to a homoerotic classic occurs in Cardinal Ratzinger’s 2002 message to Communione e Liberazione:
“Certainly, the consciousness that beauty has something to do with pain was also present in the Greek world. For example, let us take Plato’s Phaedrus. Plato contemplates the encounter with beauty as the salutary emotional shock that makes man leave his shell and sparks his “enthusiasm” by attracting him to what is other than himself. Man, says Plato, has lost the original perfection that was conceived for him. He is now perennially searching for the healing primitive form. Nostalgia and longing impel him to pursue the quest; beauty prevents him from being content with just daily life. It causes him to suffer. In a Platonic sense, we could say that the arrow of nostalgia pierces man, wounds him and in this way gives him wings, lifts him upwards toward the transcendent.”
Jordon Potter
You may doubt that following Galileo Catholic science went to sleep and innovation shifted North. I guess with history the truth, as always, is far more complicated and far more interesting than generalisations. Same goes for the “godless enlightenment” as I am sure you will agree as a history buff. I think sexuality is also much more complicated and interesting too.
Of course the arguments used against Galileo are the same being used against those here who suggest a change in the treatment of homosexuality. No this change can and will never happen. It is out of the question. Ummm I wonder.
“To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin” Cardinal Bellarmine
The Cardinal appears quite inflexible.
Yet the Church appeals to acknowledge the explicit genetic factor in homosexuality.
“In short, the cause of homosexuality probably lies in a variety of factors: we can assume the presence of a biological potential [read as “genetic” although the word seldom actually appears] underlying sexual behaviour, but the way this potential is utilized depends in large part on the environmental influences affecting the subject, as Stoller asserts, and on the subject's free initiative. The interaction between biological, environmental and personal factors is always a problem that calls for a good dose of prudence” Gianfrancesco Zuanazzi
http://www.ewtn.com/library/huma...anity/
homo6.htm
This begs the question why would one make illicit sexual behaviour which is consistent with an individual’s genetic inheritance.
Dave
You ask whether the Catholic Church is irrational in her Natural Law argument regarding homosexuality.
Of course it is her position that anybody who disagrees with her is irrational. It is never said this bluntly or though Dr Blosser comes close (a matter to which I shall return). She asserts that it not possible to on the evidence to come to any other conclusion other than hers. She said the same about Galileo as well of course.
The short answer is no. On her evidence it is perfectly rational to come to her conclusion. Same with Galileo of course. But she excludes much evidence. She is much like a crooked judge in her own cause – she fiddles the evidence and then claims to be right and rational on the matter. And then piles on revelation and authority just for good measure. Much like she did with Galileo of course.
Her incarnation of natural law theory owns more to Aristotle (a pagan who believed that the mind wasn’t part of the body) than it does Mendel (a Catholic). It is in short a natural law theory that excludes much evidence from the natural word to reach its conclusion.
Here is my advice: regard as suspect anything that asserts to be natural and yet excludes much actual consideration of nature. It probably results in the wrong conclusion but rationally so.
Mr O'Leary,
I would like to post a few closing thoughts in this comment box.
(1) Being African-American, I resent the comparison between being black and being gay. One certainly has no choice in being black or red (vel cetera). However, it is more debatable whether homosexual acts result from orientation or volitional behavior. From the standpoint of the OT and NT witness, homosexuality cannot be a matter of sexual orientation since Leviticus identifies homosexual acts as abominable and the apostle Paul refers to Christian men who stopped having sexual relations with other men (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), implying that one can choose to practice same-sex relations or abstain from this practice. Additionally, some psychologists I've conversed with who are not beholden to the Christian worldview also think homosexuality (as act qua act) is chosen behavior. Admittedly, there are others taking a different stand on the issue.
(2) Plato does not necessarily encourage or condone same-sex attraction: his view is more complex than that. The Athenian philosopher makes explicit derogatory statements in the Republic and in Laws 636-638 regarding men having sex with other (young) men. The most that can be said of Plato is that he may espouse a form of sublimated pederasty. However, it is clear that his dialogues do not encourage the practice of men lying sexually with other men. Reference Xenophon's remarks on Socrates as well as Plato's in the Republic concerning Socrates' temperance and refusal to take advantage of young men or his refusal to be seduced by a man. I would recommend a further reading of Plato in the light of modern scholarship.
"One certainly has no choice in being black or red (vel cetera). However, it is more debatable whether homosexual acts result from orientation or volitional behavior."
Black persons can somehow pretend to be white -- as in the novel by Philip Roth, The Human Stain. Gay persons throughout history have pretended to be straight to avoid prejudice and discrimination, even marrying people of the other sex without any sexual attraction to them.
Homosexual acts result from volitional behavior, of course; all acts do. But homosexual orientation is exactly as non-chosen as heterosexual orientation. And that is quite close to the non-chosen character of one's skin color.
"From the standpoint of the OT and NT witness, homosexuality cannot be a matter of sexual orientation since Leviticus identifies homosexual acts as abominable and the apostle Paul refers to Christian men who stopped having sexual relations with other men (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), implying that one can choose to practice same-sex relations or abstain from this practice."
The Bible has only one statement on sexual orientation and it happens to be wrong -- it claims that people turned lesbian or gay as a punishment for idolatry.
Paul talks of people who gave up same-sex activities, not of people who changed sexual orientation (as desired in the homophobic fantasies of NARTH and others).
"Additionally, some psychologists I've conversed with who are not beholden to the Christian worldview also think homosexuality (as act qua act) is chosen behavior." And I agree with them!
" Admittedly, there are others taking a different stand on the issue." And I disagree, if they mean that people cannot freely choose to have sex or to stop having sex (except in cases of addictive behavior).
(2) "Plato does not necessarily encourage or condone same-sex attraction: his view is more complex than that." The Charmides, Phaedrus and Symposium are aglow with same-sex attraction. The Laws, a sour late work, may be different.
" The Athenian philosopher makes explicit derogatory statements in the Republic and in Laws 636-638 regarding men having sex with other (young) men. The most that can be said of Plato is that he may espouse a form of sublimated pederasty." Yes, but that it what I was talking about. This sublimated pederasty is an ardent passion, and its unsublimated forms are all around Socrates as well.
Plato's example disproves Dave's claim that samesex attraction is oriented only to "sin" (defined as anal intercourse). Benedict XVI points out the same thing.
But since homosexuality is exactly like heterosexuality in that it is not a chosen orientation, it has as much right to claim "ontological" status as Jewishness or Gentileness has.
AGAIN! Begging the question! You know very well you're collapsing the question of chosen value-orientation into the question of inborn disposition by saying this, but that these are not the same thing, and that you're deliberately concealing the difference behind the ambiguity of the term "homosexuality," which can stand for either.
There seems to be an insistence that our accidentals determine what we are, rather than impose limits on our essence or substance that may be circumvented. Our genes are not us, any more than the number or form of our limbs, our hair color, or any other part of our body.
Even if it could be shown that there is a genetic predispostion to homo- or heterosexuality, it would make no difference, as the human person is defined by his or her capacity to acquire and develop virtue, not by his skin color or other feature determined by his genetic makeup. You cannot assert that homosexuality is normal or virtuous without proof, and citing instances or frequency is not proof, however much doing so may tend to validate a proof already given.
It wouldn't matter if every single human being was shown to be homosexual in his or her accidentals if a valid argument has not been presented. A difference in degree is NOT a difference in kind, regardless of the magnitude of the act or incidence. The example I generally use is that whether you steal a penny from a blind beggar or a nickel from Bill Gates, it is still, objectively speaking, theft. Circumstances may ameliorate the subjective guilt of the offender, but the objective fact of sin remains. Absent a valid proof -- and not a string of logical fallacies -- any discussion as to whether or not homosexuality is normal or acceptable begs the question.
'So, teste David, same-sex attraction leads to nothing but sin? Ever heard of Plato, of how the soul is raised to the vision of the Good by same-sex attraction? Read Benedict XVI on that and spare me your pharisaical self-righteous posturing, bud.'
Your nasty tone is revealing, "Spirit".
I said that same-sex attraction, IF FOLLOWED, leads nowhere but into sin.
There is a world of difference between a) being attracted to the beauty of the human form (male or female) as a symbol and herald of the beauty of God and b) being attracted to the human form as an object of sexual desire. A man who is attracted to another man in the sense of b), and who follows that attraction to its fulfillment in a sexual act, will have been led by his attraction into sin.
Spare me the self-important posturing ("ever heard of Plato", "have you ever taken a course in biblical studies", etc.) of a gay priest who mangles the Gospel to serve his homosexual agenda.
May the Lord have mercy on you, Father O'Leary.
Chris is right, Fr. Joe. There is no common ground with you. For all of your erudition and theological subtlety, you have revealed your true identity in this most recent thread: a militant gay with a radical political agenda. Your objective here is not "dialogue". Your aim is to WIN. Theology is a cover for politics.
Your little wave to the Gay Pride parade was the real kicker. Gay PRIDE indeed. Jesus loves gays, but he can't get close to them when they are celebrating their sin and priding themselves in it. What a shame.
As St. Paul said to the Christians in Corinth who thought that incest was something to celebrate: Your boasting is not good.
A. Nonymouse
You try to sound profound but just miss the mark.
“Our genes are not us, any more than the number or form of our limbs, our hair color, or any other part of our body.”
True to a point but isn’t that exactly what the Church is doing. I would never say that any person is reduced to genetic trait I prefer to rest on the content of their character. However just try passing on your genetic material without your genes. It’s a wee bit like trying to have sex without a brain.
“Even if it could be shown that there is a genetic predispostion to homo- or heterosexuality, it would make no difference, as the human person is defined by his or her capacity to acquire and develop virtue, not by his skin color or other feature determined by his genetic makeup”
I just love Catholic resistance to a genetic role in human sexuality – I shouldn’t expect Mendel to be made a saint anytime soon. Yet the contribution he made to understanding life is significant.
But why conclude that homosexual sexual activity is necessarily inconsistent with virtue. You simply reason in a closed loop here.
Try and tell a heterosexual man that the sexual attraction to his wife is an “accidental”. It’s actually fundamental. It’s probably how you got here. And if you are heterosexual try a homosexual relationship on for size I doubt it will work for you.
You raise the prospect of the beggar and the billionaire. Is the beggar any less worthy than the billionaire because one is inherently entrepreneurial and the other is not? Some suggest there is a genetic basis to risk taking behaviour which is present in entrepreneurial people. Would this be a good basis upon which to build a moral system? Objectively entrepreneurialism benefits society. Why not? Or maybe beggars have value too - they can be philosophers.
Mr O'Leary,
You suggest that carnal relations between persons of the same sex can be a beautiful or spiritual experience. The apostle, however, categorically states that men who lie with men will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Moreover, he affirms that some in the first century ceased engaging in same-sex activity. Why did they stop if they were undertaking sexual acts approved by God or Christ?
I'm glad that someone above properly represented Plato's embodied intentionality in the Symposium. Plato emphasizes the supersensible Form of Beauty, not the mere beauty of a mortal. The Republic is not a late "sour" work. Yet, it does not abound with same-sex attraction. Even your theory about the "sour" nature of the Laws is questionable since the Republic and Symposium clearly illustrate Plato's views toward same-sex acts or pederasty. As you know, one who sublimtes feelings of same-sex attraction or pederasty does not engage in either activity. So I don't see how any statement in Plato lends support to the notion that homosexual acts can be beautiful or spiritual in nature.
Finally, you dogmatically make claims about sexual orientation, which have yet to be demonstrated logically. The modern notion of sexual orientation is freighted with the metaphysical assumption that humans evolved from other species. Such assumptions need to be demonstrated, not asserted. I have yet to see conclusive evidence that demonstrates the plausibility of sexual orientation. Also absent from this discussion, as far I as I tell, is any explicit reference to the Edenic Fall and its possible relation to same-sex attraction.
Fos
You doubt evolution as a scientific proposition underpinning all biological sciences which certainly includes human sexuality?
And looking at it in a religious way you doubt God could have chosen it as a mechanism?
I think the Pope spoke of Christ as evolutionary event (I might be mistaken). Quite liked it actually. The idea is worth exploring. Decent with modification as a pattern matches the Catholic Church.
All of this talk of Plato is beside the point. We all know that "same sex attraction" means the desire to possess a person of the same sex in a sexual way. "Same sex attraction" is not an aesthetic sense. Fr. O'Leary would like to couch it in those terms in order to distract us from the real issues that are addressed by Catholic moral doctrine. Understandably, Fr. O'Leary and others in his position do not like the moral doctrine of the Church concerning homosexuality. So far he has failed to prove that that doctrine is wrong according to any objective standard.
Atiyah, the Pope most certainly did not refer to Christ as an evolutionary event. I've read the Pope's statement somewhere, but don't have it at hand. Perhaps someone else might be able to post it.
Madness.
Atiyah,
I am not an advocate of evolution nor do I believe that God has chosen evolution as a cosmogenic mechanism. Statistically speaking, evolution seems highly improbable. Additionally, I do not believe that the fossil record sufficiently buttresses Darwinism or the similar theories it has spawned. Most importantly, Scripture does not seem to indicate that God chose evolution as a mechanism nor do the early church fathers that I have read put much credence in the idea that the cosmos came about by happenstance, etc.
One book that gives much food for thought, where evolution is concerned, is Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek's _I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist_. I'm not saying that you are an atheist; but they provide a number of good arguments contra evolution. Another work that I am going to read soon is Lee M. Spetner's _Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution_. It is supposed to be an excellent read.
Fos
Well my friend if that is your position then you deny the underpinning of ALL understanding of the biological sciences.
The Catholic Church's position seems to me to be more flexible less closed minded that you allow. She certainly appears to have avoided the Intelligent Design scientific Cul de Sac – supreme good judgement in my view.
Charles Krauthammer writes nicely on the point.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...5111701304.html
I am also quite taken by the Vatican's chief astronomer George Coyne’s reconciliation of science and faith, very warm, very calm, and very Catholic – he has done a great service in dumping on Intelligent design as a scientific theory. Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn appears to have gone quiet on the matter and “re-clarified” his position – a good sign in a smart man. I guess after some quiet reflection the Vatican decided to be a bit more cautious about this latest bit of American nuttiness. It's boosted by Dr Budziszewski and probably Dr Blosser. Take a look at Coyne here:
http://www.livescience.com/
other...ID_vatican.html
Let’s be mature, there is a tension between science and religion but it isn’t primarily about describing the natural world about us but rather the question of the intersection of morality and science which I would say is every bit as complex if not more so.
I once heard a Rabbi speak about a curious and learning God, an interesting concept I thought.
A. Nonymouse:
"Madness" a little less than a meaningful contribution - perhaps a confession?
Typical me-oh-my obtuseness from Dave, who is surely cleverer, or at least more cunning than this: "All of this talk of Plato is beside the point. We all know that "same sex attraction" means the desire to possess a person of the same sex in a sexual way"
The whole point of quoting Plato is as the supreme authority on the pont that same sex attraction does NOT mean only desire for "sexual possession" -- a point that Christianity fully embraces (including Benedict XVI in his Phaedrus allusions). To airily dismiss this as irrelevant is to show a truly booetian ignorance of Christian tradition.
"Madness" is a comment on your evident rejection of an invitation to dialogue, as well as your immediate resort to ad hominem attacks to "settle" arguments with anyone with whom you disagree.
A. Nonymouse
Actually I don’t like argumentum ad hominem.
Longum iter est per praecepta, breve et efficax per exempla
Then it is probably better to avoid it, isn't it? rather than use it or examples presumably to clinch a weak argument.
A. Nonymouse
Argumentum ad hominem can never clinch any argument irrespective of whether it is weak or strong.
You are being illogical
“Examples” are always worthy of consideration and extrapolation.
??????
Exchanging thoughts with you is like talking to a character in "Alice" or any five year old.
"I know you are, but what am I?"
If "the vagina is virtually impermeable to viruses" as you claim, how come that Aids is the major cause of death among African American women aged 25 to 34, and how come that half the world's HIV carriers are women? Are you saying that they are all practicing anal intercourse?
for the data see http://www.thewellproject.org/Di...V7JN0!-
94790604
oops, that is part of my argument to conduct a scientific argument with out host.
Thanks for the post. I bought the book a month ago and am now very much looking forward to reading it.
Commenting by HaloScan
