Let's assume you are a young man of about 18 years. You have noticed that you have a sexual affinity for other males. But you are a catholic. And you know your church has identified this affinity as "gravely disordered." This means , or course, that you are gravely disordered. You try to fight this affinity, but to no avail. You hear your friends and family constantly using the word "queer" in reference to boys/men in your position. Maybe you have heard your mother say " I would die if one of my boys was "queer." The head of your church, the pope, adds, yes you are very perverted. Maybe you can't help it {but I suggest you can), but even if you can't help your feelings they must never be put into action' he says.. The pope adds 'certainly if you are "queer" you should not associate with others like yourself, because then you become part of the "gay" culture and not worthy to serve the church in most capacities.' The church says do not tell your fellow catholics of your situation. because that may cause "scandal."
In a spot---well yes. You try to think it out. Where is your girlfriend? It will be wonderful, your mother says, when you find the 'right' girl and make me a grandmother.
Then it occurs to you. If I could become a priest in our church, then people would think I had given up all sex for a higher duty. My family would be very proud of me. No longer would people think I was a "queer." Of course the training to be a priest wll be hard; but I'm smart and can pull it off. I'll have to be interviewed before I can be accepted as a potential priest, but the chances are good that won't be so difficult. After all there's a good bet one of the interviewers is "queer" himself. And the point of the interview won't be whether I'm "queer", but am I strong enough to repress all sexual thought before it becomes action. Can I be celibate, is the point.
Well, I decide to become a priest. Why not? I am a conscientious catholic, so this minor little flaw nature (God) gave me will be offset by my service to the church and others. I can be whole again.
This blogger believes that this happens thousands of time each year. It's not so bad. A "queer" priest doesn't bother me in the least. Maybe I'm a prude, but I'm so square I really think it's kind of bad taste to spectulate on the "sex' acts of others, straight or "queer." (I had to here to make my point.) I sometimes like to think the Queen of England and certainly the Pope don't have...well, bodily 'functions.':) I don't look down on the young man I described above. I know he is no more likely to sexually abuse a child than is my family lawyer. But I do feel sorry that this young man had to make his career choice the way he did. But I wish him the best of luck and think he will probably serve our church and others well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jack,
ReplyDeleteI'm going to be responding to things you have written all over the place, so I will quote you a lot to show what I am responding to. :)
Where are you getting your South American information? Of course, there are mixtures of the "old" ways and Christianity.So you do accept that American catholics are not worth listening to.
I gave some references already. I'll repeat that part:
********************
An interview with an African bishop: “Is it true that Africans are more traditional on sexual morality?
Yes, it is true. There's a basic cultural value in our heritage in which sexuality is sacred and respected.”
Or how about this article, which says:
“The most successful Southern churches preach a deep personal faith, communal orthodoxy, mysticism, and puritanism, all founded on obedience to spiritual authority ... American Catholics, for instance, talk about the necessity and the inevitability of reforms (reforms that Southern Catholics would most likely not condone), ... Catholics there are more concerned with the traditional, more willing to accept authority and leadership, more prepared to insist on orthodoxy. Whereas in America and Europe we tend to have cafeteria Catholicism, as in, I'll take a little bit of this, a little bit of that,”
Or here: “In fact, some Africans and Eastern Europeans [at a conference on ethics] in Padua expressed doctrinal views that, by the standards of northern theological debate, could seem quite "conservative," especially on sexual ethics.”
You might also read this article, which points out the growth and size of the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement, especially in the global south, and that – among other things – they tend to have a “conservative moral code on issues such as homosexuality, extra-marital sex, abortion and divorce”.
*******************
You say that there are sometimes mixing of the “old” ways and Christianity. If you are dismissing a belief that abortion is wrong as one of the “old” ways, then I would say that Christianity itself is a pretty “old” way. Something being old is not enough to prove that it is not true. That's a mistake that I think a lot of Americans, and maybe others too, make these days. Strangely, I think it kind of goes along with our lack of respect for our elders. Our culture worships youth and newness, blowing off our elders and ancestors as “old fogeys” instead of respecting them. Which is not to say we should take as true everything anyone older than us believed; but neither should we be quick to dismiss anything which is “old”.
And no, I do not accept that Americans are not worth listening to. I think Americans have valuable contributions, for example, in the fields of racism, freedom, the relationship between religion and politics, anti-clericalism, and religious diversity. And individual Americans are worth listening to on a wide variety of topics. I just also happen to think that Americans are wrong if and when they support abortion, sex outside of marriage, contraception, homosexual sex, and (generally) divorce.
Anna, you know I love you(don't tell Ken) but your response on the responsibility of the aborting mothers is not up to your usual standards. Most murderers are in some kind of dire circumstances, but couts do not accept this.
Yes, the KKK man is condoning murder. I'm not sure I follow you.
To be consistent, if the KKK man who does not believe black humans are “people” still condones murder, then the pro-choicer who does not believe the unborn are “people” also condones murder, in my opinion. Personally, I am in favor of trying aborting mothers under the same conditions that we try any infanticide. Courts make a habit of discerning between mitigating circumstances and non-mitigating (even if dire) circumstances. I am willing to let them apply this to abortion; I am not willing for abortion not to be recognized as something which would need mitigating in the first place. The point that I was trying to make, though, was that those pro-lifers who are willing to let the mothers off do so only because they for some reason believe the mothers are likely to be in sufficiently dire circumstances that they are not responsible. Why they think that, I don't know. But it is not hypocritical of them to be in favor of trying the abortionists (whom they assume are not in dire circumstances) without trying the mothers (if they assume them to be in mitigatingly-extreme circumstances).
I repeat: the great majority of people, our laws, our customs, our common sense---none accept a single cell as a human person. Life, yes (as my hair) but not a person.
And I repeat – a great majority of Catholics worldwide accept that abortion is wrong. It is not “common sense” that makes Americans reject this. Americans think this primarily because their imaginations are dominated by (1)images of pregnant women in distress, (2) images of the unborn as amorphous blobs. Also because Americans in our focus on our own pleasure and convenience believe that sex without children is a right. Since contraception sometimes fails, abortion is necessary to maintain that right. I think that for anyone who has thoroughly rejected the idea that sex is a right, “common sense” tells them that, when considering when a person becomes a person, the only not-arbitrary point is conception. (Incidentally, I have already linked to Et Tu's story of how she became pro-life, and I think you read that. Much of that got put into an article in America magazine. Since then, she responded to a bunch of people's questions and replies. You might be interested in reading all that here.)
Anna, could not the soul be in the sperm? Could be, I guess. It could come from the parents. So what is your point?
No, the soul cannot be in the sperm. A sperm is, biologically, part of the father's body. My soul cannot reside in my parent's body; it must reside in my body. My body first exists at my conception; my soul cannot be attached to matter before my body exists. Why are you so intent on denying that God meant us to be both body and soul, that he meant the two to go together?
On the hotel. I'm afraid you lost me. If Hitler had killed one Jew not millions are you arguing there is no difference? You seem to be.
Murdering millions is worse than murdering one; it is a choice between an evil and a greater evil. But the hotel situation is not murder; it is a choice between saving one and saving many. Even if it is a choice between a good and a greater good (and I am by no means sure that this is so), I do not think it is a sin to choose the lesser good, as long as it is really a good.
O course, nothing is absolutely certain. But one cell with no brain waves is a person? How would you susject we determine death. Just keep the body forever.
Yes, Jack, one cell with no brain waves can be a person. Personhood is a spiritual thing. It cannot be determined with absolute certainty by physical means. When it comes to death, we have no better option than using whatever we can to determine if the person is dead or not. This used to be measuring a pulse; now we say that brain waves are a better estimate. Probably in the future, an even better method will be devised. But the difference between determining the end and the beginning of personhood is that in the case of death, there is no question of killing the person ourselves. At most, we will fail to prolong their life as much as was possible; there is a big difference between failing to save someone and actually murdering them. If you are not sure when a person becomes a person, then you must not take the chance of killing them yourself.
On the acorn and the oak tree. The acorn is the beginning of the oak tree, a previous oak tree is the beginning of the acorn,the acorn is from an earlier oak tree, which cames from an acorn ad infinitum.So all life began billions of years ago.
You don't get it, Jack. Life, generic life, began billions of years ago. But the organism that is an oak tree did not begin billions of years ago. It began when the male gamete and the female gamete of its parent tree(s) combined. That organism ends when that oak tree dies; the organism does not continue just because it has offspring that continue. Just because an acorn got its life and matter from its parent does not mean that it does not have a life of its own. It can live or die, separate from its parents, because it has a separate body from its parents.
Your priest answer is so vague. It could be a few seconds or years? Is that your point?
My point is that, when you are considering sins that go on purely in the mind, that the timing of when or how long it goes on has nothing to do with whether or not it is a sin. Whenever you become aware that you are thinking something that is not consistent with respecting people and their sexuality as they deserve, that is when you become responsible for suppressing such lustful thoughts. And generically, you have a moral obligation to try to be aware of the choices you are making.
I will explain later what the hierarchy of the church has invested in these unusual teachings.
There is nothing “unusual” about the Church's teachings. For most of our human existence, societies have condemned, at least in principle, sex outside marriage, homosexual sex, etc. and have regarded children as a blessing instead of a burden to be killed off. Societies like ours are the ones in the minority, the unusual ones.
I just put up a new post. You might take a look. Do you agree with Weigel that any judge who follows Roe v.Wade should absent himself from communion. Is not Roe the law at this time?
I would like the Supreme Court judges to overturn RvW, since they created the problem in the first place. I'm not sure what role in that lesser judges would play. I suspect that the formula "any judge who follows RvW should not receive communion" is too simplistic. But I don't really know. In general, I am willing to be in communion with murderers and thieves, although I hope they stop being murderers and thieves. So who does or does not receive communion is not a high priority issue for me.
My answer to the “I suspend” post would be to say that both A and B are in the wrong. Only God can actually judge people's souls, to know how much each person is responsible for their actions, to know who is really farther from him than another, a calculation which takes into account a near-infinity of considerations which were not and could not have all been included in your analysis. In terms of objective morality, I might say that A is worse on the grounds that he has actually done something; B has not actually performed an abortion, only believed it is ok to, which is wrong, but not as wrong as acting on it. Really, though, Jack, I think you are too concerned with comparing evils. In my mind, the only thing that accomplishes is to make people feel as if it is ok to do lesser evils, since they aren't the “really bad” things.
Anna, could you comment on my slippery slope argument under "I suspend, part two.
Ok, comments on that to follow.
Having no luck finding the difference between "evil" and "intrinsic evil" other than a confused definition by Aquinas which really says nothing---'we seek what is good.' Oh?
Killing is evil. Murdering an innocent is intrinsically evil. The difference is that killing someone, while generally evil, has a few exceptions where it is not evil (such as self-defense). There are no exceptions where murdering an innocent is not evil, therefore it is intrinsically evil. Taking someone's property is evil, but not intrinsically evil, because there are some exceptions under Catholic theology. Torture is intrinsically evil, as is rape, because there are no exceptions where it is not evil (although the limits of what is or is not torture is sometimes debated). For me, if I am trying to decide if something is intrinsically evil or not, I tend to ask myself “if someone were holding a gun to my child's head, and told me they would shoot if I did not do X, then is it ok for me to do X?” If the answer is yes, then that thing may be normally evil, but it is not intrinsically evil. If there is something which I must sacrifice my child rather than do, then it is intrinsically evil.
Now, some people use this to say that things which are intrinsically evil are more important issues for our politics to deal with than things which are not intrinsically evil. I don't really buy this. War may not be intrinsically evil – “just war” is an exception when it may be legitimate – but it is still extremely, extremely, important for our government to get this right.
The total anti=abortion defender needs to argue that the one cell is just as fully a person as a 5 year old. Both are equally absurd positions and are rejected by all common sense.
You know, you SAY this Jack, but saying it doesn't make it so. Brushing someone off as absurd is... pointless. Technically, I believe it's considered a fallacy in rational discourse. I could call your position absurd, too, but it doesn't really get us anywhere, does it?
And you know your church has identified this affinity as "gravely disordered." This means , or course, that you are gravely disordered.
You didn't ever read that bishop's document on homosexuality that I linked to, did you? I highly recommend you do so. Here it is again.
And an excerpt from that:
“It is crucially important to understand that saying a person has a particular inclination that is disordered is not to say that the person as a whole is disordered. Nor does it mean that one has been rejected by God or the Church. Sometimes the Church is misinterpreted or misrepresented
as teaching that persons with homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered, as if everything about them were disordered or rendered morally defective by this inclination. Rather, the disorder is in that particular inclination, which is not ordered toward the fulfillment of the natural ends of human sexuality. Because of this, acting in accord with such an inclination simply cannot contribute to the true good of the human person. Nevertheless, while the particular inclination to homosexual acts is disordered, the person retains his or her intrinsic human dignity and value.
Furthermore, it is not only sexual inclinations that can be disordered within a human person. Other inclinations can likewise be disordered, such as those that lead to envy, malice, or greed. We are all damaged by the effects of sin, which causes desires to become disordered. Simply possessing such inclinations does not constitute a sin, at least to the extent that they are beyond one’s control. Acting on such inclinations, however, is always wrong.”
The church says do not tell your fellow catholics of your situation. because that may cause "scandal."
Scandal is the sin of doing or saying something which encourages others to sin. If you go around proclaiming that you are proud to be gay, then there's probably some scandal in that. But that's very different from sharing with people that you are gay and struggling with temptations and confusion in regard to that. There's nothing wrong with the fact of telling people that you are gay; it is only if you do it in a way that encourages people to think that being gay is itself a good thing that the Church might object. And the same for associating with other gay people; if you do it to proclaim how good it is to be gay, then that's a problem. If you do it to be around people who know what it's like to struggle with what you struggle with, to support each other on the path towards holiness, then that's not a problem.
I don't really care if priests have homosexual tendencies. I do object if priests, gay or straight, are violating their vows and engaging in sexual activity.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, again pardon me, but I must say I find a hint of arrogance in what you write. You say that something is not so JUST because I say so then proceed to make statements based on nothing but your opinion. I cite, for example, you arrsertions about American attitudes toward abortion and sex which are nothing but your personal opinions as far as I can tell but which you seem to put forware as 'scientifically' documented.
ReplyDeleteOf course third world countries are more conservative on sex. Precisely as they are on the rights of women, the rights of children and a myriad of other issues where the accepted LACK of EDUCATION of these countries is quite clear. Certainly you would not deny that western Europeans and Americans have a far higher level of education, rationality, and knowledge of science than South Americans and Africans, for example. You are quite right Europeans and Americans do not easily accept the casting out of demons as an explanation of bad behavior or even illnesses as your favorite catholics. I still think B16 sees Europe and its lineage as the heart of Catholicism. Will you please name a few of your favorite African theologians? You argument is basically, as I see it,nothing other than saying ignorance trumps knowledge and its counterpart tolerance.
Anna, your answer on prosecution of aborting mothers is totally ingenuous. All you are saying is if you believe women seeking an abortion are under pressure to have one then it is not wrong. Any murderer can be proven to be under "pressure." You know as well as I do that the pro-lifers are lying on this issue. They are afraid people would be revolted if prisions were filled with women who had abortions there would be a national outcry.
Choosing lesser good over greater good is not wrong. I have the "good" of enjoying a concert while I could have saved 50 people. Oh, so what. Is that what you are saying? And sex without children is not a right? Older people have no right to sex?
Personhood is a spiritual thing? So you apparently agree that it is not a physical thing. It cannot be determined solely by physical measures you say. Well, that may be your spirituality but unfortuneately it does not sqare with 80 percent of Americans. So should your ideas control others. Oh, yes you cite some comments by S. American and African religious leaders admitting their people are more conservative. I might add more superstitious as well.
I'm glad you are getting closer on the oak tree, but you still apparently insist an acorn is an oak tree. Life is a continuum. Sperm is alive, the female egg is alive. Aren't you just drawing distinctions for the sake of ease of espression. BTW I did want a comment on the two/thirds of spontaneous abortions in pregnancies. A rather blood thirty God I would say.
The church's teaching on sex are unusual. Only celibates can be its leaders, masturbation is a sin, as are sexual thoughts, sex is only permissible if it is open to procreation. Maybe your African friends say they believe that; simply showing they can be primitive. I will explain later what I meant. That all this anti-sex puff is just a cover for the leaders of the church--all celibate males--to cover themselves by saying sex is inferior to celibacy. Strictly a self-serving power play.
Anna, you duck the "judge" issue.
I have read the bishops on homosexuality and it explains why catholics are so often laughed at.All they say to the gays is: You are weird, disordered, you are a scandal, you cannot fully participate in our church because you are "queer", but some people are shoplifters. Come on Anna. Give me a break. Kind of like say "Yow, you are a serial killer, but no one's perfect." Incidentally, your saying I had not read somthing when I have does not mean I haven't read it.Apropos your comment about "absurd." BTW are you arguing that God made them gay or that society did. All the evidence points to the former, but your all male celibate clergy containing a high percentage of gays is right! What madness.
Anna, obviously you read "The Choice" but did not comment. Did you think that scenario is way out or that it never happerns in S.America or Africa. :) Jack
I struggle so much with this issue. I think, more than any other, this is the one part of Church teaching that just does NOT mesh with my conscience and personal understanding. I read a quote somewhere, though, that said something to the effect of: If you don't accept at least one teaching of the Church on nothing more than magisterial authority, you are either a Saint or a Protestant.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I feel the overarching Church message to homosexuals is as you describe: You are disordered and there is no place for you here. I cannot understand why God would create someone who had no place in His Church, which is why you have to believe that homosexuality is either curable or man-made in order to fit the "disordered" label into the work of a loving Creator who neither makes mistakes nor coincidences. I have found no convincing evidence to support the idea that homosexuality is a learned or chosen orientation. Who on this wonderful Earth would CHOOSE such a path? Nor has it been successfully "cured" or even suppressed. God makes some of us gluttons because He wants us to sacrifice our desires for him. To die to self and deny the body that we may join our spirits with His suffering and elevate our souls from worldly cares. But wanting a cupcake after dinner and feeling a same-sex attraction are as different in scope and intensity as a summer rain is from a typhoon.
What troubles me most about the injunction against gays in the Priesthood is that it draws a line where there should not be one. As you say, the question is whether a man can be celibate and dedicate himself to God, not whether his sexual temptations come in the form of women or men.
The key, however, is that a homosexual man must feel a call to the Priesthood. He cannot enter, as you suggest, to earn the approval of his family or escape what God made him. Those are the wrong reasons and he will find his vows do not hold against the temptations he will face.
Have you read Weigels "Courage to be Catholic"? He speaks at length of this issue (the presence of homosexuals among the Priesthood and the problems that have ensued.) Like I said, it doesn't sit comfortably in my heart, but I do understand why the Church would want to frown upon making the Priesthood a haven for homosexuals seeking to flee society's approbation.
Tienne, thanks for your comment. The area of sex is one area in which, I believe, the Church is way off key. We must remember that the church hierarchy is made up exclusively of celibate males. Historically the Church has taken an anti-sex position. It is very hard to shake historical precedents. This is, in many ways, the purpose of my blog. I will develop this further here. Jack
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how an institution which encourages marital union, promotes respect and mutual giving within the sexual act, welcomes children and emphasizes the importance of marriage as a Sacrament and Vocation can be called 'Anti-sex.' I look forward to reading more of your thoughts on this issue, though.
Tienne, I have blogged on the Church and sex many times and will try to summarize in the next week or so. Just one fact to start with:Any institution which says to be closest to God you must not engage in sex or thoughts about sex and which insists that all its official representatives refrain from sex or sex thoughts is hardly endorsing sexual union as a 'good.' Jack
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeletebut I must say I find a hint of arrogance in what you write.
If I say I find more than a hint of arrogance in what you write, how would you respond? :) Seriously, I don't object when you confidently state what your beliefs are, as I know I do. But when you start labeling the opposite beliefs as “absurd”, especially when the only reason you can give for thinking they are absurd is “the majority of Americans thinks so”, it gets pointless. Why insult people that way? I have tried to be respectful of your position, even though I disagree with it strongly.
Certainly you would not deny that western Europeans and Americans have a far higher level of education, rationality, and knowledge of science than South Americans and Africans, for example.
I'm not really *sure*, but it is my impression, yes, that we in the Western cultures tend to have higher levels of education in scientific matters than Southerners. An appreciation for reason and science is one of the great things about Western culture. But being better in one area of life doesn't mean you know more about another area of life. Western cultures are also the most likely to promote promiscuity and divorce. That tells me that their sexual ethics are not particularly reliable, despite their greater advantages in other fields.
Will you please name a few of your favorite African theologians?
I'm not sure what your point with this question is; are you saying there aren't any good African theologians (or not as many)? The only Catholic theologians that I have read (that I can remember off the top of my head) are Pope Benedict and Peter Kreeft and Karl Rahner. The only African Catholics I know of by name are Cardinal Arinze and the lady who sings in the choir at my parish.
You know as well as I do that the pro-lifers are lying on this issue. They are afraid people would be revolted if prisions were filled with women who had abortions there would be a national outcry.
No, I don't believe pro-lifers are lying on this issue. To begin with, I don't actually know any people who think abortion should be illegal but the mother shouldn't ever be prosecuted. But every single person I know who supports – to any degree – the legality of abortion, does so because they want to avoid back-alley abortions that hurt the mother. When people think about making abortion fully illegal, this is always the image that they have in their minds – the image of a woman desperate enough to stick a dirty hangar up inside her to get rid of the baby, or some such comparable thing. While I happen to support prosecuting such a woman the same as I support prosecuting a woman who is desperate enough to dump her 5-month-old baby in a trashbin, it doesn't surprise me, and I would NOT consider it lying, if someone is moved by compassion at this image (misleading or false though this image may be) to support prosecuting the doctors instead of the woman in such a situation.
Choosing lesser good over greater good is not wrong. I have the "good" of enjoying a concert while I could have saved 50 people. Oh, so what. Is that what you are saying?
To let 50 people die when you could reasonably have saved them by missing a concert is, I think, evil. Human life is sacred, and to choose the lesser good of a concert is to devalue that sacredness. But to choose to save one person instead of 50 people; you are still saving someone. You are still valuing the sacredness of the human life that you saved. You aren't comparing a concert with a human life, you are comparing one human life to more. Maybe this sounds strange, but I think that boiling it down into 'the value of two human lives = the value of one human life + the value of another human life' actually sort of degrades the value of people into some sort of numbers game. So I do not think there is an actual obligation to save a greater number of people. Do you really think that if Alice were in one room in a burning building, and two strangers in another room, and you can save her or the two strangers, that you would have an *obligation* to save them instead of your wife, because there are more of them?
And sex without children is not a right? Older people have no right to sex?
Yep. Older people do not have a moral right to sex. Even a young fertile married couple does not have a moral right to sex. Any married couple should be granted a legal right to sex; I do not think anyone else has the right to force a married couple not to have sex. (And I don't particularly support using the law to stop unmarried people from having sex, sin though it is). But sex is a gift from God. It is an incredible blessing that he allows us to participate in an act that creates more sacred human life, and which unites the couple in a pleasurable way. We do not have a right to this gift. And if we use this gift badly or take it for ourselves when God has not given us permission to, then it is a sin and we harm ourselves and disrespect God.
Personhood is a spiritual thing? So you apparently agree that it is not a physical thing. It cannot be determined solely by physical measures you say. Well, that may be your spirituality but unfortuneately it does not sqare with 80 percent of Americans. So should your ideas control others.
Actually, I'm pretty sure a majority of Americans would agree with me that personhood is a spiritual thing. Supposedly, a majority of Americans are Christian and believe in souls. Heck, my agnostic neighbor believes in souls. She also believes unborn babies have souls, but she still believes abortion should be legal. I would guess that a lot of Americans feel this way: that the unborn probably have souls, and you shouldn't kill them for trivial reasons, but they don't want to judge anyone else's reasons or make abortion illegal, most often for fear of back-alley abortions. Supporting abortion isn't quite the same thing as believing that the unborn are not persons, which is something I haven't seen asked in an abortion survey, that I recall.
It is my spirituality that says that blacks should not be treated as inhuman, and people who murder blacks should be prosecuted same as other murders. If 80% of Americans disagreed, should my ideas control theirs? It's a pointless question. I'm trying to convince one American, you, that abortion is immoral. Convincing people to agree that something should be illegal is how you get enough support to make something illegal; but quite frankly, there are people who I respect who think that abortion should not be fought with legal means but should be fought with other means, like combating the poverty that leads to it. While I think abortion should be illegal too, it would not bother me so much if you thought something like that; what I am more concerned with is the immorality of abortion in the first place, and the rightness of the Church's teachings on that.
I'm glad you are getting closer on the oak tree, but you still apparently insist an acorn is an oak tree. Life is a continuum. Sperm is alive, the female egg is alive. Aren't you just drawing distinctions for the sake of ease of espression.
Eh. I still wouldn't say “an acorn is an oak tree”, any more than I would say “a baby is an adult”, because those words refer to phases. But Frank is the same person now that he was as a baby, and an oak tree is the same organism now as it was when it was an acorn. Sperm is alive, and the female egg is alive. But they are living parts of the parent's body. A fertilized egg is no longer a part of either parent's body; it has become a new organism. And no, this is not about making distinctions for the ease of expression. The difference between an acorn and an oak tree: that is a distinction for the ease of expression. The difference between one organism and another; the difference between a mother and a child or a tree and its offspring, that is not just for the ease of expression. It represents a fundamental difference, a separation of distinct units. Living things always come in units. They do not blend together the way an acorn blends into an oak tree, even though the units produce each other, because each lives or dies as that unit, separate from the life or death of the unit that gave life to it. These units are called, by scientists, organisms.
A rhinoceros sperm can't mix with an oak tree's female gamete to make a new life, despite the fact that both a rhinoceros and an oak tree trace their life back to whatever first cell existed. To make a new life, it takes a sperm and an egg, of the same species. And soon as those two have combined, there is a NEW life, not just a continuation of the old lives.
Do me a favor, Jack. Go ask Frank when he thinks a human being becomes a human being. Then go ask his brother that. Then tell me, cause I'm curious what they will say.
Would it have been ok for Mary to kill what was growing in her womb, before he developed brain waves?
BTW I did want a comment on the two/thirds of spontaneous abortions in pregnancies. A rather blood thirty God I would say.
How many kids die by the age of 10? How many people die by the age of 150? Why would God be more bloodthirsty if 2/3 of people die before the age of 5 weeks gestation instead of at a later age? I am under the admittedly vague impression that for much of human history, less than half of children who were born alive made it into adulthood. Does that make God bloodthirsty?
The church's teaching on sex are unusual. Only celibates can be its leaders, masturbation is a sin, as are sexual thoughts, sex is only permissible if it is open to procreation. Maybe your African friends say they believe that; simply showing they can be primitive. I will explain later what I meant. That all this anti-sex puff is just a cover for the leaders of the church--all celibate males--to cover themselves by saying sex is inferior to celibacy. Strictly a self-serving power play.
It has never been Church teaching that its leadership must be celibate. It has been Church practice for quite some time now, at least in the Latin rite, but priests may be married men in the Eastern rites, and there are some exceptions even in the Latin rite. Any pope who wanted to could do away with the celibacy requirement at the drop of a hat.
NOT ALL sexual thoughts are sins. Only those sexual thoughts which look on a person as a thing to be used for pleasure, instead of as a human being to be related to and appreciated as a whole, are lustful thoughts which must be resisted. The Church condemns masturbation and contraceptive sex; in America, this is more likely to earn the leaders of the Church derision than it is to earn them respect or power. Do you think they are idiots? Do you think they don't realize that they would be a lot more popular – and hence more powerful – if they said masturbation was fine, use all the contraceptives you want? I just don't see how you think this could be a “self-serving power play”.
Remember when I said that sex is not a right, but a gift from God? That is the kind of mentality behind the immorality of masturbation and contraception. Sex, because it is so sacred and special, is a gift to be treasured. Masturbating is like putting graffiti all over that gift. Instead of being something special that bonds two people together in love, the person seeks only to pleasure themselves. While pleasure is not something bad in itself, it is something much less than the holy and physical union that God meant sex to be, and therefore using sex only for pleasure is a debasement of God's gift. Contraception, on the other hand, is like stripping off a big part of the gift and throwing it in the trash, while holding on to the remaining part. If God hasn't included fertility in the package he's given you at the moment, that's one thing. But to deliberately remove whatever fertility he has given you... that disrespects God. God simply hasn't given us the authority to use his gift in that way.
Anna, you duck the "judge" issue.
Yes, Jack, I duck the judge issue. Didn't I say as much? :) Since I'm not a judge, I don't care that much about whether or to what degree they should be upholding RvW, and I generally think that spending time contemplating who should or should not receive communion is not only a waste of time (unless you are actually in a position to make that decision), but also more likely to be harmful to the soul (because it leads to judging people) than it is to lead to anything useful, productive, or good.
I have read the bishops on homosexuality and it explains why catholics are so often laughed at.All they say to the gays is: You are weird, disordered, you are a scandal, you cannot fully participate in our church because you are "queer", but some people are shoplifters. Come on Anna. Give me a break. Kind of like say "Yow, you are a serial killer, but no one's perfect." Incidentally, your saying I had not read somthing when I have does not mean I haven't read it.Apropos your comment about "absurd."
If you read the bishop's document on homosexuality, then why do you keep saying that the Church is telling gays they are disordered? They specifically made the point that they are not disordered people, just that they have disordered desires, and that, in fact, straight people have all sorts of disordered desires, too (including disordered sexual desires). That was why I said it sounded like you had not read the document. And what is this about being a scandal and not fully participating in the Church? Is there something specific you are referring to there?
BTW are you arguing that God made them gay or that society did. All the evidence points to the former, but your all male celibate clergy containing a high percentage of gays is right! What madness.
I'm not really arguing either. I suspect that many gays are that way because of childhood issues, rather than because of being born gay or because of overall societal issues, but I don't really care if they are born gay, either. You say all evidence points that way, but I have never seen evidence supporting that. Oh, and in that document I linked to, the bishops specifically say that they do NOT have an opinion about whether or not gays are born gay. Any arguments they have about the morality of the issue have nothing to do with whether or not homosexuals choose to be attracted to the same sex.
Anna, obviously you read "The Choice" but did not comment. Did you think that scenario is way out or that it never happerns in S.America or Africa. :)
Heh. I did comment. I said that I don't care if priests are homosexual, only whether they are living up to their vows of celibacy. :) It seems like a believable scenario to me, although the disrespectful comments of the parents towards gays is immoral and sad.
On your comparison between the U.S. and Brazil/Angola:
I think this is a little like comparing a prostitute with a drug addict, or a Franciscan with a Benedictan. Each has areas in which they are better, and areas in which they are worse, than the other. Is there an overall better place? Well, I certainly don't want to live anywhere else. But I think it's good for each country to work on improving those things within that country that need improving, while holding on to those things which are good. In America, our health care is pretty good, although I hear some countries have better health care, and maybe we could find ways to imitate them and improve ours a little. We Americans also have a very healthy loathing for rape, which is something we should hold on to. We totally rock on the whole freedom issue. Our family values could really use some improvement, though. We have horrible divorce rates, and way too many kids without fathers around. Many, possibly most, couples find they have to have both parents working in order to support their children, forcing them to leave their kids with other people most of the time, whether they want to or not. As a mother who nurses her children, let me tell you that our culture is not very nursing-friendly, either. And yes, our pro-abortion attitudes, our pro-all-sex attitudes, and our pro-contraceptive attitudes, all these things contribute to our culture's lack of family friendliness.
As my husband puts it: “just because they're more wrong than us doesn't make us right.”
On the Latin vs English thing:
I sort of object to your phrasing: when you say things like “Which [language] communicates best is the criterion of excellence.” you are being just as absolutist as the people who think Latin is objectively better. Really, I think it's a matter of preference either way. Other than that quibble, I agree with you: I am so very glad they switched to English. There might be the occasional person who gets more out of the Latin than the English, but the vast majority, from what I can tell, get a lot more out of the English, for exactly the reason you say: you communicate better when you actually UNDERSTAND what is being said. And while it's probably true that most people could learn Latin if they really wanted to, I see no point in forcing them to do so, and I think leaving out the people who just aren't going to be able to learn it is not good.
Another minor quibble: everything I have heard from linguists is that Latin is an easier language to learn than English, for a non-native speaker. In fact, I usually hear that English is one of the most difficult languages (at least in Western culture) to learn because it is such a hodgepodge of rules and exceptions. Latin is actually more simple in its basic conjugations. And after having taken four years of Latin in school, I would definitely say that my experience is that it's simpler than English. On the other hand, I read a theory once in a science-fiction book that more ambiguity and less rigid grammar rules in a language lead to more creativity on the part of people who speak it. (If this were true, which I can definitely see as a possibility, then English would lead to more creativity than Latin on account of its lesser simplicity/sameness). Either way, I object to anyone being forced on principle to learn a new language in order to participate in and understand Mass.
God bless,
Anna
Gee, Anna, I don't know where to start. So not necessarily in order:
ReplyDeleteEnglish is well on the way to being the international language."This dominance is unique in history." Is this because it is the most difficulr? But never mind; it is the dominant language in for more countries than any other language. Where is Latin? BTW Chineese has more speakers but is not widespread. So I suggest the Church should adopt English as its official language for ease of communication.
Spontaneous abortion. Of course, all people die. But spontaneous abortion is not mainly the fault of the society. Your other example is. The "culture of death?" Anna look at the figures!! How can you say these countries I have cited are less caring for life!!!. I suggest your Ugandan bishop work on other things than his obsession with sex, when life span and infant mortality are staggering in his country. To read what he says makes me want to p...excuse me vomit. The mutilation of girls in these family value African countries; the millions of starving children ; the subservience of women; the ridiculous sex taboos. I'd tar and feather that bishop and ride him out of the country!!!!!!! Oh, excuse me, he is working so hard for family values.
On the homosexuals: Commonweal points out that the Church must think homosexuality is a greater sin than the others because that is the only innate tendency that prohibits you from the priesthood; the church claims that right.
Sex as a gift. One in five random sex acts will leasd to pregnancy. So "natural law" tells us it is the purpose of sex? Come on? I think masturbation is a gift. Why not? I believe the "gift of God" arguument is totally bogus; is used when no other cogent arguments can be found. 'No one has a moral right to sex? What on earth does that mean?
On personhood. If the majority of Americans believe one cell is a person, do they then believe in murder? There is a difference between human life and human personhood. I believe even the church admits this at times.
Anna, my dear, I can't believe that you still think homosexuality is learned not innate. The almost unanimous opinion of scientists and doctors is that it is innate.I can't readidly cite sources, but I can't reality cite sources that the world is round. Both are too widely accepted.
On sexual thoughts. I got completely lost on sexual thoughts looking on.....Would you have sexual thought for pain?
On the self serving of the clergy on sex matters: Of course, their attitude is self serving. I am better than you; so be quite. It might hide my sexual idendity ; I am the chosen few, chosen by God himself to perform my miracles and asser My will.
I have no intention of involving Frank, Derrick or their friends in this discussion. I trust you will not scream "You, sinner, you are going to hell"!!! if you find a young man engages in masturbation. Hell is sure going to be crowded, with plenty of priests I might add.:)
Anna, African nation is "less" caring, not "more". Jack
ReplyDeleteAnna,Two things I overlooked.
ReplyDeleteThe church and gays. I was not speaking of the American bishops but of the Vatican. I believe they said men with deep seeded homosexual orientations or those in the gay culture could not be priests. I believe this document was issued in November.
On Alice and the fire: Well I probably would rescue Alice. But that might NOT be the moral choice. So let me restate it. I am in a fire in a hotel. I know no one there. If I open one door, one person is saved. If I open another 750 people are saved. I only have time to open one. Is your point that there is no moral difference?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnna, thanks for the comments. I just saw it before I 'retire.' I'll respond in detail tomorrow. I'll probably put my response, if I can, under another post since I'm on politics for the time. I'll let you know tomorrow. I don't know if Frank has told you we have another "boy"? His brother. Alice and I consider any male under 40 a boy. Jack
ReplyDeleteAnna, my response is under current post. Jack
ReplyDelete