Attention Jeff. Sick Mike is on your web.

I wonder if Jeff is aware that Mike who is a frequent commenter on his blog sent me an annonymous, insulting e-mail. The Jeff I know is great and has helped me a great deal. On the rare chance that Jeff should ever see this, I would like him to know what Mike is a vicious little liar. He poses as the 'voice of moderation' but in reality is a sick bigot.

End justifies means.

I notice most of the Republican presidential candidates are taking the position that the end justifies the means. So my example. Assume we capture an Iraqui and his three year old daughter. We know and the Iraqui knows a nuclear device will be set off, causing a minimum 50,000 American deaths. But we do not know where. Would we be justified in torturing the 3 year old if it would make the father give us the location of the device, saving 50,000 lives? Romney and the others (McCain excepted, but not on moral grounds) say yes. Same situation with torturing father. Now what does Catholic theology say about this; how does this fit into 'double effect' doctrine?


WC you are welcome to post here anytime, regardless of what the original post is about. We need your 'voice.'

blog open sex and the church

I am a first cousin of Jack Haynes who has this blog. His wife has given me permission to write out Mr. Haynes' thoughts on sex and the church. Some of you may know Jack was contemplating joining the catholic church, but was troubled by two issues. I am from San Jose, Cal. and will try to record his thoughts as he has written them before and as he has expressed them to me. Never having blogged before I notice that the person usually identifies themselves by initials or some clever name. My initials are RCA. If you have any doubt as to my permission to write this please ask his wife Alice who also uses this site. The other issue besides sex and the church is infallibility. I claim no expertise on these issues, not being catholic, but I think I know the general area enough to express with reasonable accuracy Jack's feelings. I have looked up the comments he has made as an aid in defining his stance.

Jack believes the catholic church is obsessed with sex. And in a negative sense. From sexual thoughts, to masturbation, to contraceptives, to sexual intercourse, to permissable "techniques" in sex Jack believes the church clearly says anathema to all. This of course is best shown in that all clergy, male and female,in the church have as their goal total chastity. Should this goal be achieved by all clergy both before their ordination, which it seems clear the church prefers, all church offices would be held by, pardon my bluntness, by men who have never had a sexual thought, have never masturbated, have never used contraceptives, have never had an orgasm, or indeed an erection. Of course, this would seem impossible, but is clearly a goal of the church.

Now to add to Jack's problem (and mine ,RCA) this group of men, ideally absent any sexual thought, desire, or experience are empowered to tell the one billion, (I believe) catholics how to conduct their sex lives. This idea must surely boggle the mind, but Jack thinks this is clearly the church's position,as I believe the church desires(RCA).

Abortion, that is the prohibition of such, is clearly the sine qua non of today's church at least in America. Jack thinks this attitude is clearly sex driven. In all the "elevated" catholic stance on this is the clear saying "Sex has consequences." Or another way;"Sex is only for procreation." But staying away from the right or wrong of the practice the philosophy is sex has a price. I notice in reviewing these sites something called the "unitive" principle is always invoked. This, of course, is a concession to reality, and is obviously based on the principle of teleology, that is definition by outcome. A child defines a brick, for example, as something you build a building with. This type of thinking is outdated by hundreds of years. A brick is not define by what it is used as but by its material elements. But to the catholic, sex is defined primarily as something that produces children, which is of course pitiful logic. So catholics must to nothing to twarth that possibility. Why? Because sex is defined by the producing of offspring. Again teleology of the ancient philosophers. I have noticed on a couple of blogs that NFP, I believe it is called, that the bloggers have clearly shown their is no basic difference between NFP and physical contraception; they are both efforts to destroy the "purpose" of sex. As RCA I should add how is a totally celibate clergy to understand the "unitive" principle in sexual relations?

Again let me say, Jack is not arguing the morality of abortion here; only that it is driven by a demeaning of sex.

Now, I am sure, if this is read that catholic scholars will resurrect the dry bones of "natural law" in defense of the church, defining wheat as something to be eaten.

In the two days I have been here it has been my good fortune to reruse Jack's considerable library. He has a large book entitled "Catholicism" by a teacher or former teacher at Notre Dame. Glancing through it I notice he was careful not to discuss any teaching clearly defined by the church. The other bood(s) was a three volume history of philosophy by the Jesuit Frederick Copleston of course with an imprimatur meaning, I assume, nothing can be suggested that is contrary to catholic doctrine. Jack likes the philosophy books so this last sentence was RCA. If Jack had stayed around we could have had some great discussions. Good Luck to any who might read this. If I get time I'll try to give Jack's problems with infallibility. RCA

blog closed

this blog is closed. "owner" cannot blog nor respond. alice says she can't believe arrogance, and cruelty of some bloggers.

Maybe will meet again

I said a few weeks ago that I would no longer post. I have posted a couple of times since then. However this will be my last and the blog will be eliminated.

I believe I have conducted myself in a gentlemanly manner. Today, however, I was subjected to the most scurilous attack I have experience in47 years of debate both verbal and written. It was on a blog I had conficence in to the extent that I had revealed some of the most intimate details of my life. The blog "owner'" said the insulting comments were not intended for me. Should I suppose they were directed to Harry Truman.

Most of you have been most courteous, but alas, if the subject of abortion is even mentioned I must say a catholic looses all reason, respect, and any desire to engage coherently. I'm sorry, but am not willing to let my wife and daughter die{as in both cases could have happened} to saisfy the twisted logic of a church, twisted by being run by celibate men and with a long history of regarding sex as necessary, but a bit inferior to abstinence. {See JP2 obvious preference for nuns over married women].

My wife came home from mass today bringing her church bulletin announcing a workshop for those women to help eliminate their "shame" of abortion. And who created much of that shame?. Ah, what Christianity!!!

I must also refer you to the catholic clerics rather humourous comment that 'the church that claims to be the only church finds itself in the position of having to pay billions of dollars for child molestation' Andrew Greeley, I believe.

So my friends, goodbye. I am consistent. Have cancelled my reception into the RC church set for three weeks from this week. The Southern Baptist lost my respect by becoming merely an arm of the Republican party. RC has lost my respect as it becomes the one issue church. It's all summed up in the cartoon which shows Bush and a Soldier watching a casket of a soldeier being brought home and the soldier saying,"Don't worry , Mr. President, it's not a fetus."

Incidentally, no one in my family that I know has had an abortion, in case Karl Rove or your bishop told you to try that one. Jack Haynes