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

an open letter to liam

I hope you're not the Liam who gave me hell on Joe's blog. Jeff says your not, so here goes. For three years I have been trying to become a RC but with no luck. I could give you reasons but this is not the place. I have never had a "god" experience but I think RC might be the path. I'm going to be corny, but when the new RCIA statutes camed out and I became aware of them 3 years ago I actually believed that in a way they were meant for me. I have read and reread them and each time I hear someone speaking[ just a metaphor]. these statutes are saying "Jack, we want you. You can come to us with dignity."

Then I go to a blog or a church and they either laugh or give me a good bawling out. The Church put these statues out for me and other like me, but the blogs and churches just laugh."Yeah" , they all say" we're vaguely aware of these rules, but we don't pay any attention to them Too complicated; we do it another way and we ain't gonna change. So take that." So I[ the crawling protestant] says "Thank you Church < I accept your invitation on YOUR terms" But then every else says "Jack, just joking..To hell with Vatican2!! You'll do it the way we want here at St. Golliver's and stop citing Church pronouncements. After all you're the only idiot that look up statutes; no one else knows and we sure ain't gonna tell 'em."

The point is NOT should the statues read that way, but why does the big CHURCH {pope and all] say do this and no one pays any attention.

What difference does it make. Okay Liam, let me find a charismatic protestant church[ snakes or not, your preference] and just for fun you march down the aisle, fall on the floor, shake, cry, speak in a strange tongue and get your goiter healed; then look me in the eye and say that 's not demeaning. Of course, Catholics are in better taste. So they make me leave the church like an errant third grader, undergo scrunities intended for 'pagans', sign books , say I can only become a catholic on one day of the year, attend endless classes to be told some important points,yes, and then tell us the nativity story. BUT Church that's not what you said when you invited me in.

Of course, I'm out of control in a way[ but just in a way]. In the last year no one has meant more to me than Jeff[my confessor], b, Anna, Joe, and now you. I'm older now, but if you look at my picture on my blog, I once was young and now I'm not. But I think I still recogmize fairness. I don't like changing the rules in the middle of the game. Why do I side with the Church and catholics line up against the church and they're in and I'm locked out unless I do what the Church says not to do.

Liam, I said a few days ago this will soon all be over. Can you see anyway out. The issue: The Church asks. I accept. Then they say:Just joking!! Thank you. Jack

Walk, Not Crawl.

I believe it was several weeks ago that I indicated I would not post again. I felt the things I had asked about had been at least partially answered. I met several friends who were helpful in my effort to at least start on the road to Rome. But now I see that all was in vain. So let me state my position as clearly as possible; of course not responding to every nuance unless you ask .

As a non-Catholic I recognized that Vatican2 had established [or re-established] a process know today as RCIA. Many Catholics will be familiar with this 'program'. But it is obvious that three positions have been taken toward this Rite.

One, the Council of Bishops see this rite as a reaching out to non-christians and "christians" alike, but making a distinction between the two groups in the spirit of ecumenism. The Bishops made it quite clear that differences must be recognized between baptized "Christians" and those who have not been baptized. This would seem to be the official position of the church. And a very logical position.

Two, a second group almost, if not completely, rejects the distinction between candidates--baptized "Christians" and cathechumen--non baptized persons and do not believe the guidelines have any signicance.

Three, the third group agrees mainly with what the bishops say but argue that while a distinction might be made on paper it is a minor difference and treating the two group--baptized "Christians" and non- christians is not really significant on the grounds that RCIA is an introduction to catholicism and should be taken by all, or that placing the two groups together is a small price for the baptize "christian" to pay for admission the the Church. {Incidentally I put quotes around "christian" so a person such as Ray Ryland, so typical of the zeaoltry associated with "converts" can continue to uphold "triumphalism" or his rather oblique admiration for that position}

I think these distinctions between between the baptized and the unbaptized are important. The church is careful not be rebaptize, showing clearly a distinction. The RCIA program is clearly designed mainly for the unbaptized and to prepare the candidates as if they were to be rebaptized-- as practiced many places --- casts serious aspersions on those baptized persons desiring to unite with the Roman Catholic Church. And, of course, the scrutinies, the dismissal, etc it seems to most scholars and the Bishops to be designed for the catechumen.

Let me speak briefly to the third group--the oh, what difference does it make group. While the whole intent of RCIA is to be helpful and no one questions the RCIA leaders are gracious--to some, and I am one, the clear message to the candidates it "You have lived in greivous error for years as has probably your family, but now we are going to wipe that out. Despite the fact that you belonged to some other group calling itself "christian" we will start at the very beginning and give you a second chance." Much to the delight of Rev. Ryland. And possibly some other zealots.

It is clear to many that this attack on RCIA AS IT WAS INTENDED is closely tied with those who totally reject the spirit of Vatican2 and desire a return to pure, undisguised triumphalism

I desire to be a Catholic. But as I posted before I desire to 'walk' into the church , not "crawl"

I have tried to be as clear as possible but some recent circumstances have lessened by usual happy attitude a bit. If I have offended, with possibly one exception--the dear Reverend--then let me extend my apologies.

New Picture

Since i have mentioned my family a lot, here are some pictures which you probably find boring, but because i think of you as friends and jack wanted me to post them.