That’s the question I asked Google! And I got several answers. I asked the question because I was reading this most astonishing piece of Roman Catholic bravura, and I wanted to know who the hell its author was, who was both so pretentiously sure of himself, and slightly ridiculous as well. Of course, the pretentiously self-assured just are slightly ridiculous, but there was an unapologetic hyperbole about Weigel’s posturing that was unnerving, and I wanted to know who the hell he was!
I’ll come back to Weigel’s article in a moment, but the Google search was revealing. The first (or almost the first) article that popped up was one by a Jason Berry at the National Catholic Reporter (from 30 December 2010) entitled “George Weigel: Whitewashing History.” The main thrust of the article concerned Weigel’s biographies (or hagiographies) of John Paul II (Pope Karol Józef Wojtyła), and how they airbrush out Pope Wojtyła’s failures in the child sexual abuse scandal that convulsed the church during his ”reign”. (My mind now simply balks at the language Roman Catholics use for the head of their church — the new name to give them “weight” before history, the language of royalty, the obsequious piety of Holy Father, etc.) Suddenly, when it was obvious that “Fr” Marcial Maciel Degollado’s (head of the Legion of Christ) abuse of seminarians, and other sexual scandals, could no longer be denied, Weigel demanded an investigation by the Vatican, but mentions Maciel’s name not at all in his 992 page biography (at least not in a critical way), though it was Wojtyła himself who provided Maciel with cover and credibility at least seven years after canonical charges of Maciel’s sexual misconduct had first been filed against Macile by men – the first complaint against him had been made to Pope Montini (Paul VI) in 1976! — claiming that Maciel had sexually abused them when they were young seminarians.
As Berry says:
[Weigel] continues to go out of his way, as he has for years, to excuse the late Pope John Paul II from any culpability in the Legion scandal. It was John Paul, more than anyone else, who backed Maciel and the Legion and elevated both in church status.
And a bit later:
To say that Weigel, Glendon and Neuhaus [the Lutheran turned ultra-conservative RC who edited the conservative religious First Things until his death in 2009] — who asserted Maciel’s innocence as “a moral certainty” — were duped is to overstate the obvious. Clearly, they were influenced by John Paul’s own personal support for Maciel.
Berry quotes Weigel on John Paul’s role in the scandal:
”Despite the negative implications of John Paul’s reputation that some of [his] critics quickly drew,” Weigel writes, “what was at work in this scandalous affair was deception in the service of the mysterium iniquitatis” — the mystery of evil.
and then comments pointedly:
And so we are left to believe that one of the great moral leaders of the last century was deceived by the “mystery of evil.”
(One has to ask, in thelight of this: Was he a great moral leader?) But if he was taken in by Maciel, he was more than deceived, for, as Berry says, it was ”long after the 1998 canonical filing” of the victims at the CDF (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ) that Wojtyła continued to praise Maciel. He obviously did not believe the accusations, but was that for reasons having to do with deception, or was the image of the church and the vast power and wealth of the Legion of Christ central to the pope’s continuing support for someone who turned out to be a monster of abuse, not only abusing children, but his own children!
Why is all this important? Because, in an article just published in Standpoint, “Benedict XVI and the Future of the West“, Weigel makes some extraordinary claims, not only for the authority of the Roman church (lightly concealed under the rubric of rationality), but condemns, without qualification, what he repeatedly calls, throughout the article, the “dictatorship of relativism.” Weigel believes, mirabile dictu, that pope Ratzinger, the man in charge of the CDF for so many years during the pontificate of Wojtyła, represents the high point of “the Leonine Catholic renaissance” (as he calls it), and the birth of a new “evangelical Catholicism.” But he also reveals (unconsciously) why such things as the child abuse scandal, and the failure adequately to investigate the charges against Marcial Maciel, will go on happening, and will not stop until this church begins to think of itself in a suitably modest way, as one way of thinking about life, instead of as the answer to everyone’s questioning, Because, as he says:
Everything the Church does, the Church does to propose Jesus Christ as the answer to the question that is every human life.
But, quite simply, this is nonsense, as he himself should know full well, because he simply forgets, when he says it, the mysterium iniquitatis that confounded Wojtyła, and that infects his own writing, as Jason Berry so clearly points out. (Notice by the way, how speaking of the last pope as Wojtyła takes away the mystique, and humanises the man. Weigel, every time he mentions a pope speaks of Blessed Paul VI, Blessed John Paul II, Blessed Benedict, and so on.)
So, what is this new evangelical Catholicism? Basically, the answer is simple, though no doubt somewhat more complicated in the “metaphysical” underpinnings. Of course, it reaches its highpoint of homiletic intensity in perorations such as this:
Evangelical Catholicism … sets sail from the stagnant shallows of institutional maintenance into the deep waters of post-modernity, preaching the Paschal mystery as the central truth of the human condition, building communities of integrity, decency, solidarity, and compassion — Eucharistic communities of supernatural charity capable of nurturing genuine human flourishing.
But this, of course, is only so much pious hand waving. The real meat of evangelical Catholicism lies in what Weigel thinks is rationally demonstrable, in the answer to the ”Is it right?” question, which, “Pontius Pilate and the Guardian notwithstanding, can be known by the arts of reason, properly deployed.” And he means known, in a very strong sense of that word, known for sure, by irrefutable rational demonstration.
It follows, of course, that we have to reinterpret democracy. Democracy, understood as a thin idea, with its emphasis on procedure, rather than being rooted in “its historic moral-cultural foundations in biblical religion and Greek rationality,” as well as Roman law, is simply the dictatorship of relativism, with “a false idea of freedom as personal wilfulness … being imposed by coercive state power.” But now, be it noted, the church itself, after taking two centuries to do it, has found “a Catholic understanding of religious freedom and political modernity that [does] not represent a rupture with, but a development of, classic Catholic understandings of the act of faith and the nature of political society” — without uncritically taking on board the whole Enlightenment project. And the Enlightenment points towards, we are to understand, its final cause in the contemporary flourishing of evangelical Catholicism.
This is an understanding which may, at times, have to assert truth to power, and, while maintaining a strict separation between “sacerdotal and imperial authority”, may have to assert itself politically to ensure that the moral order, which can be known by reason, remember, properly deployed, is maintained without the relativistic toleration for things which are, objectively speaking, morally repugnant. Indeed, he speaks here of pope Ratzinger’s environmentalism, which “will pay equal, if not greater, attention to what [Ratzinger] called “human ecology[,]” the moral-cultural environment of civilisation, which, like rivers and seas, belts of black earth and the jet stream, can be poisoned.”
So what is included in this evangelical Catholicism? Perhaps Weigel’s enumeration of the qualities of the “bold leaders” of this evangelical Catholicism, who will “call the timid to the fullness of conversion” gives a hint of what he has in mind:
It requires disciples and leaders who are unfailingly pro-life, and who are capable of rebutting the spurious charge that to be pro-life is to be anti-woman. It requires disciples and leaders who are prepared to defend religious liberty in full, and who refused to concede that religious liberty can be whittled down to freedom of worship. It requires disciples and leaders who are pro-family and pro-marriage, and who are prepared to defend their advocacy against the charge that they are “homophobic.” It requires disciples and leaders prepared to speak truth to power, especially when coercive state power is deployed to impose the agenda of the dictatorship of relativism.
And so, now we know his party’s platform, and you also know why I asked: Who the hell is George Weigel? For anyone who thinks that this is not a recipe for bringing the church and its priorities into the public sphere, where it can dictate to the rest of us, does not understand the language of incipient religious tyranny. (I don’t know how to pronounce George Weigel’s last name, but he hasn’t allowed himself a lot of “weigel-room”!)
Weigel’s first biography “Witness to Hope” was published on October 6, 1999, and the main sex scandals broke out in 2002. I think it’s fair to cut Weigel a little slack, as the true nature and significance of the problem weren’t fully known then.
It’s undeniable that there were severe problems in how the Vatican handled the sex abuse crisis. It’s entirely reasonable to argue that the Church ought to vamp up it’s procedures of investigating and sacking clerics. Liberals tend to get nervous when the Church engages in such a display of administrative power, though. Since most homosexual priests are liberal anyway (since homosexual conduct (not orientation) is condemned by orthodox, traditional doctrine), a consequence of sacking pedophile priests would be a decrease in the numbers of liberal Jesus-is-a-fluffy-rainbow priests. I’m fine with that!
Beyond that though,the conduct of clerics simply has no bearing on the actual doctrine and the content of the Catholic faith. Pedophilia is condemned as a mortal sin warranting damnation, no questions asked. The conduct of clergy does not impact the truth of Catholicism itself as a theological and philosophical synthesis. A person can condemn pedophilia and criticize the Vatican’s administrative response to it, but this simply does not disprove Catholicism. In fact, the centralized authority of the Church allows it to establish a clear doctrinal hard line on controversial subjects. If religions like Islam has a central authority, that authority could declare Jihad invalid and thus forbid faithful Muslims from participating in it. Islam doesn’t have that authority, and thus we have a chaotic situation where no one knows what Islam actually says. Catholicism is not like that- we know pedophilia is damning, no questions asked, and anyone, clergy or layperson, who violates that doctrine are going to have to answer for it.
Wow. That’s weapons-grade nonsense. You need to be wearing protective gear when handling Weigel. You might accidentally spill some.
Right. Pedophilia is damning…exactly the same as ordaining a woman as priest.
Got it.
Now, start proving that any of the truth claims of Catholicism are actually … well … true.
You can start with the existence of god. Not just any old god; your god, the one they call Yahweh, who created the heavens and the earth in six days, man from mud and woman from a rib (just ask Aquinas – it’s all there in the Summa).
Thing is, I don’t want Aquinas’ “arguments”, I want proof. Iron-clad, null-hypothesis-rejecting proof that a nonnatural creature exists, and that this specific nonnatural creature is the thing that exists and has precisely and exactly the attributes you ascribe to it. Even the folks at Aquinas.com recognize that his “5 ways” arguments do not prove the existence of god (because they can be argued – it’s a neat tautology, and useful, too).
Prove Yahweh and ONLY Yahweh and you’ll have made the first step.
First thing you’ll have to do is describe what Yahweh is. Not its attributes (omni-omni). What is its ontology? What is it made of? How do you know that? Have you even seen Yahweh? Have you measured whatever it’s made of? What authority do you cite and is that authority’s claim agreed upon by a disinterested (or oppositional) third party who has done confirmatory explorations?
Start there. There are only four more steps to go.
Enabling child rape? “Jesus Christ is the answer to the question that is every human life.”
Worsening the AIDS crisis? “Jesus Christ is the answer to the question that is every human life.”
Forcing 9-year-old rape victims to give birth? “Jesus Christ is the answer to the question that is every human life.”
“Right. Pedophilia is damning…exactly the same as ordaining a woman as priest.”
Yes, for different reasons. I’ve never encountered an argument that said all immoral activities are identical. Analytical philosophers would have a field day with this!
“I want proof. Iron-clad, null-hypothesis-rejecting proof that a nonnatural creature exists, and that this specific nonnatural creature is the thing that exists and has precisely and exactly the attributes you ascribe to it”
In other words, you want scientific proof. Scientific proof isn’t the only kind of evidence. Good luck trying to prove to me that science as a system can stand alone from philosophy as its framework.
“What is its ontology? What is it made of? How do you know that?”
Easy- God’s ontology is the act off being, the ipsum esse, an actuality that has no potentiality. This is all incredibly basic. If you aren’t familiar with it, I’d suggest reading Etienne Gilson’s book “The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas” which discusses these questions for quite some time. It’s slow going though- it took me 20 minutes to read four pages! There are also zero polemics in the book.
” Have you even seen Yahweh? Have you measured whatever it’s made of? What authority do you cite and is that authority’s claim agreed upon by a disinterested (or oppositional) third party who has done confirmatory explorations?”
Another clear expression of your materialism. I would suggest reading Descartes, Hume and Kant, as they are the forerunners of this philosophy. They were largely reacting to scholasticism, so it’s a good study of how the modern world departed from the previous tradition of philosophy. They didn’t always do it very well though- Hume awkwardly forgot that Aquinas’ argument doesn’t use a composition in the first place.
Andrew P. Weigel is, or is supposed to be, a journalist. Knowing that Maciel had been accused in 1976 of sexual abuse should have tweaked his journalistic instinct. And if he didn’t know about the 1976 complaint, because it had been covered up, the revelations in the Hartford Courant in 1997 should have grabbed his attention. Instead, it provoked protective denials of wrong-doing, and a continuing refusal to implicate the pope in the coverup, which is simply beyond reason.
And it is simply not true that for Catholicism “pedophilia is damning, no questions asked.” Over and over again Catholic spokesmen — the sexist ‘men’ is appropriate here — over the last few years have repeated that it was simply never very clear where the lines were to be drawn; they did not know exactly what was and was not forbidden in this area.
And as for central authority, while it is true that it would be nice if Islam had a central authority who could declare jihad invalid, what if it declared it valid, as the Vatican has been so uncompromisingly definitive about things about which others would beg to differ?
I notice you haven’t provided any evidence, although the hand waving and smoke coming out of your backside was an amusing distraction.
I’m sorry, Steve, it’s not obvious. To whom is this a response?
Eric, I wanted to reply to the Andrew P comment @ 10:48 but at least in my browser that was not possible. It most definitely was not in response to anything you wrote. Sorry for the confusion.
I’m not steve, but… Given steve’s history of commenting, I’d say it’s likely to be a response to Andrew P.
You, Eric, give sufficient evidence, methinks.
“Knowing that Maciel had been accused in 1976 of sexual abuse should have tweaked his journalistic instinct.”
Okay, but it’s difficult to discern exactly what he knew when and what he could have known. He may have known about the allegations, but was there clear evidence that they were true? It’s very complicated to condemn someone based on an assumption of what someone should have known when while at the same time there are conflicting stories and cover ups going around. Do you have any hard evidence that Weigel directly knew truth about the issue and suppressed it, or are you generalizing about what you think he should have known?
Plus, Weigel has commented on the issue. In this interview he talks about it:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/george-weigel-talks-about-his-new-biography-of-pope-john-paul-ii/
“Over and over again Catholic spokesmen — the sexist ‘men’ is appropriate here — over the last few years have repeated that it was simply never very clear where the lines were to be drawn; they did not know exactly what was and was not forbidden in this area.”
This is confusing doctrinal and administrative procedures. It is true that there was confusion about how to administratively handle abusive priests. In terms of actual doctrine, however, there is no dispute. Consider the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“Connected to incest is any sexual abuse perpetrated by adults on children or adolescents entrusted to their care. The offense is compounded by the scandalous harm done to the physical and moral integrity of the young, who will remain scarred by it all their lives; and the violation of responsibility for their upbringing.” -2389
“And as for central authority, while it is true that it would be nice if Islam had a central authority who could declare jihad invalid, what if it declared it valid, as the Vatican has been so uncompromisingly definitive about things about which others would beg to differ?”
Then I would condemn Islam as evil, as you would. The liberals could no longer claim that Islam is a peaceful religion. The matter would be settled. The Vatican’s uncompromising stance is precisely that which allows it to proclaim clear doctrine, so there is no confusion. This is why everyone hates the Church. It’s hard to hate the Unitarians, because they make no claims and demand no response. The Unitarians make no demands upon our lives, and so we can ignore them. The Catholic Church, in contrast, stands strong in upholding its truth and holding us accountable to that truth- which in turn enrages those who reject it. I suspect this is why you hate the Church so much and feel compelled to blog about it constantly. Why don’t you attack the Unitarians for a change of pace?
Steve, I figured this out through trial and error…mostly error. The “Reply” button does not appear below the second level of indentation. Thus, for you to answer Andrew’s comment appearing at the third level, scroll up until you see the first “Reply” button available, which was Kevin’s second level post.
…oh, and I meant to add, in this case a caption or title is helpful as well.
“its truth” – this is the problem. The RCC has no claims on “the truth” only on “its truth” and “its truth” is very suspect.
How was “its truth” determined? Given the vagaries of human reproduction before the 19th century, just how was human life determined to begin at conception? Given the incredible similarities between men and women, just how were woman deemed inferior in priestly potential? Given the reliance on so-called natural law, just how was homosexuality determined to be unnatural? just how was birth control determined to be unnatural?
If individuals like Andrew P want to live according to the RCC’s “truth” they can, but they have no right to impose it on anyone else.
So far, everyone is letting Andrew get away with this little gem of bigotry: Since most homosexual priests are liberal anyway (since homosexual conduct (not orientation) is condemned by orthodox, traditional doctrine), a consequence of sacking pedophile priests would be a decrease in the numbers of liberal Jesus-is-a-fluffy-rainbow priests.
Please support your claim of a link between homosexuality and pedophilia. Also please support the implied claim of a link between liberalism and pedophilia. Simply believing something is wrong is a notoriously weak impediment to doing it, no matter how orthodox your doctrine may be.
“If individuals like Andrew P want to live according to the RCC’s “truth” they can, but they have no right to impose it on anyone else.”
This is a textbook example of the absurdity of relativism. Suppose I have no right to “impose” the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality in society. Using the same logic, Michael Fugate has no right to impose his support of homosexuality on society. What gives?
Truth isn’t relative to the individual. That would turn science on its head, as well as everything else. We disagree on what is true, and that’s okay, but don’t try to hide behind the smokescreen of saying “just don’t impose it on anyone else.” The truth, whatever it is, imposes itself upon all of us.
And another thing… If popes are supposed to have some direct line to their god and this god knows all, why didn’t this god let these popes know about the whole worldwide buggery business? Did it just slip his mind?
There is definitely not a direct correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. However, orthodox Catholic teaching condemns both homosexuality and pedophilia. Therefore, dissidents to Catholic doctrine are more likely to be practicing homosexuals, pedophiliacs, abortion supporters, etc. by definition.
Therefore, there is a definite link between pedophiliacs and being liberal in the church, but not vice versa. One can be liberal without being a pedophiliac (i.e.- supporting abortion). However, one cannot be a pedophiliac without being liberal, because pedophilia is contrary to Catholic teaching.
Of course, there’s a distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual practice.
In fact, there is evidence to contradict the idea that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/tr7388256l7437xh/
It looks an awful lot like Andrew P. is simply using his prejudices to decide which ideology is more likely to contain more pedophiles. Unless he has some data to back it up, which I doubt. Personally I would expect the more authoritarian–and thus more likely orthodox– type priests to do more abusing of children, but I acknowledge that I don’t know of any data on the question.
Andrew P writes:
There is definitely not a direct correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. However, orthodox Catholic teaching condemns both homosexuality and pedophilia. Therefore, dissidents to Catholic doctrine are more likely to be practicing homosexuals, pedophiliacs, abortion supporters, etc. by definition.
Nice back-pedalling there — you pretty clearly implied there was the first time round. Now you’ve just got this mish-mash statement that lumps together a bunch of stuff you don’t like.
However, one cannot be a pedophiliac without being liberal, because pedophilia is contrary to Catholic teaching.
Rubbish. People do things — especially when a powerful drive like sex is involved — that they theoretically believe to be wrong all the time. They repent, or rationalize their behaviour, later. You’re just trying to blame all the RCC’s problems on the Evil Liberals.
If you object to that, then please document an empirical correlation between pedophile priests and their stated theological views.
Thank you for pointing that out, Eamon. How carelessly we read, sometimes — I know I do. I skipped over this because I was responding to the “substantive” claims that Andrew P. was trying to make. This is reprehensible. Yes, Andrew, please justify this casual and reprehensible piece of bigotted nonsense.
At the same time, please remember that canons don’t interpret themselves. They get interpreted, just as JP II and Benedict (Wojtyla and Ratzinger) have interpreted Vatican II out of existence. If they did not know what child abuse was, then what they were doing was not, according to the canons, child abuse. Convenient, eh?
This is the silliest idea of relativism yet invented. Michael is not saying that truth is relative, or that moral value is relative. He is saying that we disagree, and you must make a case. Without that case you have no right to impose your values on others, but others should be given the freedom to live according to their lights so long as they do not impose their way of living on you. The idea of value you have is that, if I don’t affirm your values, and claim the right to live by mine, I am imposing my values on you. This is nonsense, and precisely the mistake that Catholics continually make, and this makes them dangerous to others.
Sorry, stepped away from the computer, before my comment was made, and so it misses Andrew’s response to his comment about homosexuality and pedophilia, which is another piece of nonsense, as Eamon points out below. Of course, you don’t need to be a liberal in order to be a pedophiliac. Conservatives can be just as “sinful” as liberals!
And even if you do present a case we may still disagree, and you still don’t get to impose your values on others.
No, Steve, thanks, I wasn’t really confused, but I thought it would help to make it clear.
Andrew, that is precisely why I condemn the Catholic Church as evil, because it gives substance to moral claims that are, in my view, manifestly false. You think jihad is reprehensible. I think it is reprehensible to condemn a woman to death rather than provide an abortion. (I also think women have wider reproductive rights than this.) I think the condemnation of assisted dying is inhuman. I believe the Catholic Church’s stand on homosexuality and homosexual relationships is simply mad. I think the Catholic Church’s coverup of sexual abuse shows that it is morally bankrupt. The Catholic Church’s stand is often very clear, but seldom pure. For the same reason that you would condemn Islam if they did have a central authority and affirmed jihad, I condemn Catholicism, because it does have a central authority and continues to impose its values on the rest of us. It also has image, power and wealth. It is represented by an embassy (nunciature) in almost every country. And people actually think that the pope is some kind of an expert. He can only be an expert on what the Catholic Church teaches and believes, and its high time he recognised that his writ extends only to those who choose to make themselves subservient to him!
Oh please… It has come to attention of society, on-and-off, for hundreds of years. It’s just we didn’t really have the same kind of press then as we do now.
The Book of Gomorrah written in 1051AD detailing the sex abuse of children by Catholic Priests. Pope Leo IX only punished the worst of the serial sex abusers, letting the rest off all while classifying the CRIME as a ‘spiritual failing.’
Then there is the Pius V’s PAPAL ORDER titled the ‘Horrendum’ written in 1568 discussing child sex abuse and calling for criminal charges against peodophile priests in order to protect the name of the Church. HOWEVER, Benedict the XIV (1741) decided to put the cover back on the sex abuse and so it has been for nearly THREE HUNDRED YEARS.
Sex abuse, thousands upon thousands upon thousands of cases all hidden by the Church while they PROTECT, BY POLICY, PEODOPHILE PRIESTS.
And they have the fucking gall to blame it on modern society.
And shut your ignorat pie-hole. Pedophile supports make me want to vomit.
Thanks Eric. The whole “defense of marriage” is a prime example. That my straight marriage is harmed by someone else’s gay marriage is ludicrous.
Or in other words, Andrew’s “truth” is just not obvious.
But… But… Being a Roman Catholic Priest is being a conservative:
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
That’s what they do, along with buggering children…
If one wants to see the ultimate absurdity of moral relativism, you only need look at the RCC rationalization of their policy of “treating” pedophile priests and releasing them to offend again and again, which boiled down to “every one else was doing this at the time and we didn’t know any better”.
As Stephen Fry put it in the Intellegence² debate with Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry agruing against the motion that the RCC is a force for good in the world, John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdecombe arguing for:
“And what is the point of the Catholic church if it says ‘oh, well we couldn’t know better because nobody else did,’ then what are you for?”
By the way, this is one of the all time great debates in the genre and I highly recommend it.
Hitchens and Fry got unexpected help from Onaiyekan who asserted that his non-christian ancestors were moral and they did not get that morality from the xtian bible.
Onaiyekan comes across as being dumb as a stump but he dresses up pretty well in priest clothes and Widdecomb is like a feral Terry Jones playing one of the “pepperpot” woman in a Monty Python skit.
“I think it is reprehensible to condemn a woman to death rather than provide an abortion.”
Surely you are aware of the principle of double effect?
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0609uan.asp
“I condemn Catholicism, because it does have a central authority and continues to impose its values on the rest of us.”
Exactly- you disagree with the Church, and the Church is one of the only institutions in the world that is capable of pushing for a unified and binding system of morality, religion, and philosophy. I’m sorry that you disagree with the Church. At the very least, I hope you accept that the Church has carefully explicated its claims, even if you reject them.
“He can only be an expert on what the Catholic Church teaches and believes, and its high time he recognised that his writ extends only to those who choose to make themselves subservient to him!”
“Freedom only exists within the rules. It is only when you break the rules that you become bound by the consequences.”
- G. K. Chesterton
“In fact, there is evidence to contradict the idea that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia.”
Rereading my post, I realize that I substituted “homosexual” when I meant to write “pedophiliac.” I’ve reposted the corrected paragraph:
Since most pedophile priests are liberal anyway, a consequence of sacking pedophile priests would be a decrease in the numbers of liberal Jesus-is-a-fluffy-rainbow priests.
That was a mistake on my part, but I am not now backing off from what I originally intended to say- it was a completely unintended crossover of terms. Looking at what I meant to say, I think you’ll agree that my substantial point is correct. If the Church were to go on a major offensive and sack all the pedophile priests, this would remove a lot of liberal priests from the Church. This would result in a more conservative body of priests, which liberals like yourselves would probably be opposed to.
Obviously this isn’t linking liberalism to pedophilia, but by definition supporters of pedophilia are contradicting Catholic doctrine and are therefore liberal dissenters in that respect.
“Personally I would expect the more authoritarian–and thus more likely orthodox– type priests to do more abusing of children, but I acknowledge that I don’t know of any data on the question.”
There’s no tradition of pedophilia ever being acceptable in medieval society or the tradition of the Church, so seemingly conservative priests who support pedophilia are only conservative outwardly. Truly conservative priests are opposed to pedophilia, because the Church is doctrinally opposed to pedophilia and has always been so.
“Without that case you have no right to impose your values on others, but others should be given the freedom to live according to their lights so long as they do not impose their way of living on you.”
I would make a case, and I can do so, but I know you will disagree with it. I can refer you to excellent resources if you want to review the Catholic position on this matter.
The problem with your argument is that people do not live individually. People live in a community. As a consequence, our actions affect the community as a whole. By supporting the moral acceptance of homosexuality in society, gay rights activists are indeed working to prevent me from living in a society where homosexuality is not accepted. That affects me, and therefore they are not just minding their own business. Your argument would only work if people were completely autonomous, but they aren’t- and thus any social changes liberal activists try to engineer are going to affect me as well as others. Of course, I’m simply trying to do the converse, but I don’t deny it.
“Nice back-pedalling there — you pretty clearly implied there was the first time round. Now you’ve just got this mish-mash statement that lumps together a bunch of stuff you don’t like.”
See my comment about how I accidentally substituted words in my original post- I am not trying to save face by this- I actually did accidentally transpose words.
“Rubbish. People do things — especially when a powerful drive like sex is involved — that they theoretically believe to be wrong all the time. They repent, or rationalize their behaviour, later. You’re just trying to blame all the RCC’s problems on the Evil Liberals.”
If they hold correct moral views but fail to follow them, they are simply sinning. No one disputes that that is bad.
This is going off on a tangent. My original point was this- any priest who supports pedophilia is by definition a liberal dissenter from Catholicism. Any priest who opposes pedophilia but fails to follow that conviction is morally weak and not trustworthy to uphold orthodoxy. As a consequence, any attempt by the Vatican to sack pedophile priests has the double consequence of removing liberal dissenters and morally weak priests. The obvious conclusion from this is that the remaining priests are going to be more orthodox and more faithful to that orthodoxy, and thus stronger proponents of Catholic doctrine; which of course you all hate. That’s all. Even someone who disagrees with Catholicism can agree with this simple case of cause and effect.
Andrew P wrote:
How do you know? You have been asked to provide evidence of this multiple times now.
Andrew is using a bait-and-switch here. In one place he says liberal priests are more likely to abuse children, in other places he says a priest who abuses children is by definition a liberal dissenter. In the same comment he says:
So a pedophile is by definition a liberal dissenter. And as we know (this is sarcasm, in case you miss it), most jesus-is-a-fluffy-rainbow priests dissent from the idea that pedophilic acts are wrong (“Jesus loves all the litttle children” doncha know).
You see, no TRUE Scotsman, I mean priest who molests children is actually orthodox. Andrew would have us believe that no matter how hard-line orthodox a priest is in the pulpit, if he molests children then on the inside he believes Jesus is a fluffy rainbow.
At this point the only just response to this nonsense is mockery. Unless and until Andrew provides evidence that liberal priests, as defined by their stated views/preaching, are more likely to molest children than orthodox priests.
Looking at what I meant to say, I think you’ll agree that my substantial point is correct.
No, your substantial point is still stupid.
Obviously this isn’t linking liberalism to pedophilia, but by definition supporters of pedophilia are contradicting Catholic doctrine and are therefore liberal dissenters in that respect.
No you’re not linking liberalism to pedophilia, you’re just defining disobedience to clear moral imperatives (from whatever source) as liberalism. Which is stupid (but typical of the shallow, moronic bigotry that passes for “thinking” in conservative religious circles).
Look: when I go on a junk food binge (happens occasionally), or slack off on my exercise programme, or skip flossing my teeth, or indulge any other little bad habit I have, it’s not because I suddenly went “liberal” in my beliefs regarding the long-term health effects of these things. It’s because, at that moment, the craving for fats and sweets, or feeling of laziness, or whatever, temporarily overwhelms my rational inhibitions. Now, take an urge like sex — many times stronger than the drives I just mentioned — and the availability of an outlet for it, and a position of power, and a perception (somewhat justified) of no accountability, and it doesn’t matter how clearly and strongly one’s accepted external moral authority condemns the act, some fraction of people will succumb to temptation. (Which is also, IIRC, pretty much a standard trope in Christian teaching — believing something is wrong is only the beginning of the battle).
IOW: you might have to live next door to one (or worse, a couple!) of those icky gays! Or work with one, or rub shoulders on the bus, or otherwise interact with them and KNOW that they’re gay and presumably do….things…with each other that make you uncomfortable. The horror! The imposition! What you want is a “community” of people who are just like you (and of some of them aren’t, well, they’d better keep that a deep secret, because otherwise it might discomfit Andrew Of Delicate Sensibilities).
A classic case of “It oppresses me to not be allowed to oppress others”. Twit.
Funny how, if you keep digging into the mind of these Catholic apologists, you eventually uncover a pure vein of naked bigotry.
Andrew P. I am aware of the principle of double effect. It’s really a clever way out of a tight corner, but the general view is that it’s not a valid move in the moral game. You can’t so easily separate intentions when you are doing something, and the secondary effect is almost always intended as well, although it’s always possible to sneak in, “but that’s not the reason I did it.”
As for other bits of nonsense, like this one:
So what? I don’t agree with it. I don’t want to be bound by your rules, no matter how unified. I don’t want to be guided by the church. I think the church’s religious beliefs are hokum and the supposed natural law morality without reasonable foundation. I don’t care how powerful the church is. It has no business trying to impose — for that’s what it’s trying to do — a unified binding morality on others that is without substance, no matter how clearly explicated.
As for G.K. Chesteton, you could hardly choose a worse example to quote. A colossal genius, no doubt, as Shaw said, but, like all of us, a primate, and given to pithy remarks like this, with the appearance, but not the reality, of substance, and which are almost the only things now remembered about him. He is said, for example, to have said, “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing, they believe in anything,” which is a bit like your idea of relativism, and equally without substance.
As for this bit of nonsense:
That affects you only in the sense that you are offended, but no one has a right not to be offended. Keep your nose out of other people’s business and it won’t get out of joint!
What else, I wonder, could it be? They have to say, in the end, “I don’t want to live in a world with people like you.”
Is your claim, then, Andrew, that any priest who sins is a liberal dissenter? You can’t be both orthodox in belief and a sinner? So you are defining orthodoxy in terms of behaviour, not belief. This is simply incredible, since you are putting such emphasis on correct, orthodox belief. Which is it to be?
AP, What effect does this have on you exactly? You have provided no reason why homosexuality should not be accepted other than an appeal to authority – an authority frankly without much real authority. What effect does this have on you exactly?
Unless, of course, there are fewer pedophiles among the Jesus-is-a-fluffy-cloud set and more in the Orthodox set, in which case Catholic orthodoxy will be weakened. So far you have made no case that liberal priests are more or less likely to be pedophiles and abusers: the most you have done is define child molesters out of orthodoxy and you have without nuance lumped in dissent from the idea that pedophilia is morally wrong with dissent from the idea that homosexuality and abortion are morally wrong. Reasoning in a vacuum from definitions about empirical matters is empty. Say it with me: e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.
Any priest who supports pedophila is a criminal.
Any organization that protects those priests from prosecution is a criminal organization and must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and we are talking about the RCC toy canon law court system.
Given that the origanization in question is international in scope and the crimes involved moving perpetrators across national borders, criminal proceedings should take place in the local jurisdictions where the crimes occurred (pretty much all of them although they may have missed Vanuatu but not from lack of effort) and the International Court of Justice, starting at the top with Herr Ratzinger and working it’s way down through the legions of “liberal” clergy.
It’s just a case of simple cause and effect.
I recommend “The Case of the Pope: Vatican Accountability for Human Rights Abuse”, by Geoffrey Robertson QC, Penguin Special, 228 pages, for details on how this can be implemented with the scope of international jurisprudence.
AP, what I am interested in is for the RCC leadership to take responsibility for their past actions and to stop blaming liberals and liberal society for their failings. They need to ensure that no pedophile has access to any child. A priest buggers a child and he gets sent to a new parish (to continue his buggery) or some cushy retreat for rehabilitation and reeducation while poor women who become pregnant out-of-wedlock are sent to prison laundries and their children to prison labor camps. Moral authority, my ass.
Wow. It’s like watching a car crash in super slow mo with emphasis on the gory bits, and then just when you think it’s done, Andrew P comes back to rationalise some more and drops another howler.
I should possibly add something more substantial, but you all seem to have done a great job.
One can be orthodox and be a sinner, that’s exactly what I said:
“Any priest who opposes pedophilia but fails to follow that conviction is morally weak and not trustworthy to uphold orthodoxy.”
You guys are having a field day with this. Originally, I meant this one part of my post as a little quip about the irony of liberals calling for an authoritative sack of pedophile priests, because such an action (which I support) would have the effect of leaving both orthodox AND faithfully moral priests in the ministry. As a consequence, those faithful and orthodox priests would be all the more prominent and vocal in opposing things like gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, and the like. Of course, you guys would hate this. After all, leaving dissidents and hypocritical priests in their posts tends to hurt the reputation of the Church, which you guys would welcome. Purifying the Church by kicking out sinners only makes us stronger!
However, this isn’t really that important. When I asked you whether you had any hard and fast evidence that Weigel actually knew about the situation and deliberately withheld information, as far as I can tell you didn’t answer. So, in regards to the original topic, my point appears to stand.
In regards to the other matters, it’s not really that complicated- the Catholic Church is doctrinally opposed to pedophilia. I quoted the Catechism on this. Yes, many priests sinned against this, and they will probably burn in hell. Dante himself put Popes in hell, writing during the dreaded “dark ages.” I fully support an investigation and sack of dissident and morally hypocritical priests. I’m fully within Church regulations to call for this
There is nothing wrong with criticizing the moral state of the members of the Church. Numerous saints have become canonized for doing this, and saints have been calling for internal reform from the beginning. All of this is irrelevant, though, because Catholicism is a divine act, regardless of the failings of human ministers of that act. Anti-Catholics harp on pedophilia ad nauseaem because it’s easy to criticize and morally reprehensible. The thing, though, is that all faithful Catholics agree with opposing this- so what exactly is the liberal trying to prove? I challenge you to find an infallible teaching that says pedophilia is moral. If you can’t do that, then harping about sinful people (obvious) is just a distraction from the real question.
Wow, I’m impressed that you know exactly what I’m thinking. Good to see that you can root out the bigots by reading their minds.
I’ve known gay people. In fact, when I was at a swing dance lesson where the follows circle around the leads (so you dance with all the people), a gay guy wanted to be the follow. When he circulated up to me, he asked if I was okay with that. I told him that while I didn’t support gay marriage, I would dance with him because I respect him as a human person. He then thanked me.
Is that the activity of a bigot? Is it possible to hold moral convictions without being a bigot? You’re being quite bigoted by claiming to know how I act and what I think from the intellectual content of a post on a blog.
I don’t support homosexual practice. However, I fully respect homosexual persons. “Hate the sin but love the sinner” is a central component of Catholicism. Of course, you should know the difference between orientation and activity.
Gay activists love calling out homophobia. Perhaps I should be a little more diligent in calling out anti-Catholicism.
I’m a rebel, what can I say?
I’m sorry, Andrew, you can’t both say that orthodox priests can sin and that if a priest sins that shows that he is a liberal priest and not orthodox. That was the point I was making, You have to choose. Either you are defining orthodoxy by behaviour (the second choice here), or you are admitting that not all who sin are not orthodox.
However, on the question of relativism you are simply wrong, and given the only system of government that has provided freedom for individuals, you should not even seek to oppose your values on anyone else. You may certainly commend them, but that is not all the church does, unfortunately, and it uses its considerable wealth, power and traditional status to impose its values on others. A Labour MP in Australia, and a Catholic, recently stood up for the right of homosexual people to marry, saying that his faith was a private affair, not to be imposed on others. And he was right. It is morally wrong for the church to attempt to foist its values on those who do not and cannot share them.
To the extent that you provide moral (amply demonstrated in this forum) and financial (very likely based on the contents of your posts) support to the catholic church you are complicit in the rape of children by the catholic church and the subsquent cover up.
Paint that any way you want and tack on any number of smiley faces, but in my atheistic, liberal, moral relativist books that is reprehensible behaviour.
I can now understand why the Catholic conservatives on the US supreme court can declare that corporations are individuals, but at the same time declare that they have no individual responsibility.
you are not a rebel Andrew P. You are a damn catholic and a sick brain.
Read the website of Patrick J. Wall so you can see what sick organisation your gangsters are. Here it is : http://patrickjwall.wordpress.com/ and then you can have a look at this site too if you dare : http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/. Defending the greatest gangsters on earth with philosophical bullshit and twisting words like rotten theologians
is not worth reading.
Andrew P: “I’ve known gay people. In fact, when I was at a swing dance lesson where the follows circle around the leads (so you dance with all the people), a gay guy wanted to be the follow. When he circulated up to me, he asked if I was okay with that. I told him that while I didn’t support gay marriage, I would dance with him because I respect him as a human person. He then thanked me.”
I’m tempted to call BS on this story. But either way, it’s actually a little bit hilarious. As for the rest of that particular post, well, what can you say? It’s nothing we haven’t seen before and the direct results of such supposed fairminded hand wringing are well known. I’m surprised you didn’t give your new found friend and dancing partner the number of someone who could “cure” him of his “affliction.”
If you respect him as a human person, then why would you not respect his desire to marry?
If you don’t respect his desire to marry, then in what sense do you mean that you respect him as a human person?
As for G.K. Chesteton, you could hardly choose a worse example to quote. A colossal genius, no doubt, as Shaw said, but, like all of us, a primate, and given to pithy remarks like this, with the appearance, but not the reality, of substance, and which are almost the only things now remembered about him. He is said, for example, to have said, “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing, they believe in anything,” which is a bit like your idea of relativism, and equally without substance.”
This is nothing more than your opinion of him, which is low.
“By supporting the moral acceptance of homosexuality in society, gay rights activists are indeed working to prevent me from living in a society where homosexuality is not accepted. That affects me, and therefore they are not just minding their own business.
That affects you only in the sense that you are offended, but no one has a right not to be offended. Keep your nose out of other people’s business and it won’t get out of joint!”
It actually has nothing to do with offense- I’m not easily offended. If I were, I would have departed this thread long ago. Rather, it’s a matter of philosophy- should a society elevate something that breaks with the matter and form of a person? I know you disagree, and you don’t need to tell me that you do, but don’t claim that it’s a matter of personal offense. It’s a matter of philosophy, and my personal feelings are not relevant to it.
“I’m sorry, Andrew, you can’t both say that orthodox priests can sin and that if a priest sins that shows that he is a liberal priest and not orthodox. That was the point I was making, You have to choose. Either you are defining orthodoxy by behaviour (the second choice here), or you are admitting that not all who sin are not orthodox.”
Are you even reading what I wrote? Personal sin and intellectual orthodoxy are two different things, and I have never claimed otherwise. Pedophilies are either liberal dissenters (if they disagree with the official ban on pedophila) or morally weak (if they agree with the ban). Either one is bad, and sacking them for either offense would purify the Church.
“A Labour MP in Australia, and a Catholic, recently stood up for the right of homosexual people to marry, saying that his faith was a private affair, not to be imposed on others. And he was right. It is morally wrong for the church to attempt to foist its values on those who do not and cannot share them.”
The basic philosophic problem is this- you are once again viewing people as autonomous units. Actions have consequences, and those consequences aren’t limited to the person doing the action. As such, they affect society as a whole. Gay activists obviously want to change the culture to accept homosexuality. Catholics want otherwise. To pretend that you actually aren’t trying to change the culture for either party is absurd.
“To the extent that you provide moral (amply demonstrated in this forum) and financial (very likely based on the contents of your posts) support to the catholic church you are complicit in the rape of children by the catholic church and the subsquent cover up.”
Are you aware that the federal government of the US did horrible experiments on inmates with LSD using federal taxpayer dollars through MKULTRA? I guess my grandparents are complicit in this because they paid income tax and celebrated the fourth of July.
Don’t confuse the human and divine sides of the Church.
“I’m surprised you didn’t give your new found friend and dancing partner the number of someone who could “cure” him of his “affliction.”
Tact, respect, and compassion are not incompatible with moral conviction. I did clearly tell him that I oppose gay marriage.
“If you respect him as a human person, then why would you not respect his desire to marry?
If you don’t respect his desire to marry, then in what sense do you mean that you respect him as a human person?”
People are more then their desires, whether that be sex, food, drink, or whatever. I can respect him as a human person because he has a human soul that is individual and just as valuable as my own.
Human dignity isn’t predicated on behavior or performance. Human dignity is predicated on nature, which transcends behavior. That’s why Catholics constantly call for equal dignity for all persons, including the disabled ones Peter Singer might want to extinguish. A person does not lose his dignity by being homosexual or even by sinning in homosexual activity. I did not accept the actions of that man (assuming he was a practicing homosexual), but I was able to accept the man as a person because his human nature is not dependent on his action. That’s part of the genius of Catholicism.
You are using words in ways that are unfamiliar to me. “Respecting a person,” as far as I know, means taking a fellow individual’s interests into account, which is exactly what you seem unwilling to do because of unspecified costs to society. You claim to respect individuals even as you wish to restrict the consideration of their interests.
But, for that matter, you have already taken clear issue with “viewing people as autonomous units,” so I’m not sure how accurately I understand your position at all. Did you mean to suggest that your idea of a good society is one in which individuals are not autonomous?
Again, you appear to be using keywords in particular ways with which I am unfamiliar. You wish to deny the autonomy of certain individuals in the name of human dignity; but “human dignity” (to the best of my ability to understand the term) means only, and exactly, respect for the autonomy of individuals.
So you can see where folks might get the idea that you and your church don’t really believe in “equal dignity for all persons.” What is human dignity, then? And what constitutes a person, and respect?
Oh IIRC we’ve been over “human dignity” here before (not with Andrew AFAIK, but it’s been discussed). In CatholicSpeak “dignity” has — well, Andrew proudly admits it — nothing to do with anything that makes life worth living. It’s an airy-fairy thing that’s part of this free-floating tangle of words that have Special Very Important Meanings but when you try to nail it down they sort of fly away up to Heaven or somesuchplace.
I’m sure you know how fallacious your argument is and you are just continuing to be intellectually dishonest.
Your membership in the rcc is voluntary and you are fully aware of the church criminal pedophile activity.
Your grandparent’s membership in the US was not voluntary and given that MKULTRA was a secret program they were in no position to make an informed choice.
And I have no confusion what so ever with respect to the completely human origins and behaviour of your death cult, you are a typical example of that organization in action.
“Respecting a person,” as far as I know, means taking a fellow individual’s interests into account, which is exactly what you seem unwilling to do because of unspecified costs to society. You claim to respect individuals even as you wish to restrict the consideration of their interests.”
“Interests” is the key word here. Catholicism views man as a unity of form and matter that has a specific existence. Basically, man is not just anything, but a particular thing. As a particular thing, he has a specific nature. Since humankind has a particular nature, we can validly study this nature. If you’d like more of the metaphysics behind this I can describe it, but basically Catholicism views humanity as having a distinct human nature.
Because human beings have a nature, certain things are compatible with that nature and others are not. Things are helpful and harmful to a person depending on those things interact with his or her nature.
This is a point of departure between Catholicism and the modern viewpoint in general. We have a tendency to think that our “interests” are whatever we want for ourselves. In the Catholic tradition, however, our interests are those things that actually objectively benefit us, according to our nature, regardless of whether we “want” them or not.
Human dignity, then is the worth of a specific human being, who is made human, and therefore respectable; by human nature. Respecting human dignity means respecting the objective worth of a person and acting in their best interest. Of course, the difference with the modern world is that this interest is not personal desire, but rather objective compatibility to human nature.
This is why Catholicism places such a high value on all life, regardless of consciousness, health, or activity. Each person has a human nature, and that is not compromised by things such as mental disability, youth, or other things.
In regards to the matter of homosexuality, the basic problem from the Catholic viewpoint is that people exist anatomically as male and female. Catholicism rejects the Platonic notion that souls are merely trapped in an irrelevant body. Catholicism follows Aristotelianism in that we are in fact our bodies. I’m glossing over some detail but basically Catholicism views the body as the central part of who we are- and thus the resurrection of the body at the end of time. Human nature is predicated along this reality- that we exist with bodies designed for male-female union and procreation. Therefore, you can’t be a man in a woman’s body, because a central part of being a woman is having a woman’s body. The body is not irrelevant to personhood. Catholicism views unusual departures from this, like hermaphroditism, as being physical disorders. This seems reasonable to me- a person is usually only a hermaphrodite if something goes wrong in copying the DNA.
In the Catholic view, homosexuality is a disorder of the proper functioning of the body. Anxiety disorders, physical disorders, mental disorders, and any other disorder is likewise a lack of a proper functioning of the body. None of these cases reduce human worth or make the person evil. It’s only the rejection of these things as disorders that cause a problem. I, for one, have had an anxiety disorder, and I fully acknowledge that as a disorder of the proper functioning of my body.
“But, for that matter, you have already taken clear issue with “viewing people as autonomous units,” so I’m not sure how accurately I understand your position at all. Did you mean to suggest that your idea of a good society is one in which individuals are not autonomous?”
In the Catholic view, people function as both individual units as well as members of a society. However, “respecting a person” is specifically addressing the person as an individual unit. Human dignity is not predicated on society, but rather human nature, which is not subjective. As such, respecting a person means acting for their own best interest, with that interest being objectively tied into their individual nature. We can also speak of respecting the order of society, and Catholics are bound to respect society, but that is a different thing than individual human dignity.
“ou wish to deny the autonomy of certain individuals in the name of human dignity; but “human dignity” (to the best of my ability to understand the term) means only, and exactly, respect for the autonomy of individuals.”
People exist as individual units necessarily tied into a social society. Insofar as an individual is autonomous (to whatever degree), he is so relative to society, but never autonomous from him or herself. One can be autonomous from others, but never from your own personhood. Since we cannot be separate from our human nature, which is comprised of form and matter, true human dignity means respecting the true good of the person as determined by their own individual nature.
“It’s an airy-fairy thing that’s part of this free-floating tangle of words that have Special Very Important Meanings but when you try to nail it down they sort of fly away up to Heaven or somesuchplace.”
The cool thing is that Catholicism can effortless transition between complicated metaphysics and simple devotion. The Church recognizes that there are multiple ways to approach truth, and that not everyone is called to understand highly abstract metaphysics. Therefore, if you want to chase down an understanding of super complicated metaphysics, it is good to do so, but you aren’t required to do so for salvation. It’s there if you want to put forth the effort to understand it.
“Your grandparent’s membership in the US was not voluntary and given that MKULTRA was a secret program they were in no position to make an informed choice.”
Actually it was- there was nothing preventing them from moving to lawless Somalia- there is no valid government there, and therefore no visa issues.
You’re totally confused about what Catholics are morally obliged to uphold- the magisterial teachings of the Church- as opposed to the administrative decisions of the Church. These latter decisions may be criticized, may be condemned, and countless saints have done so.
Indeed there is precedent for this sort of action, many Americans moved to Canada during the Vietnam war era to avoid taking part in what they considered to be an immoral military action, and this tradition continues to the present day, only the war has changed.
Perhaps if your grandparents had been aware of MKULTRA they might of done something similar, one hopes they were not as ethically crippled by the dogma of your cult as you appear to be.
You on the other hand continue to engage in ethically bankrupt behaviour with full knowledge of the “administrative decisions” of your cult.
I must say you have a flair for euphemism that would make the most hardened war criminal blush by comparing the rape of children and the subsequent cover up as an “administrative decision”.
Eric was not too far off in a previous post comparing the inhumanity of catholic apologists to Himmler. You really are a product of your death cult.
“In the Catholic view, homosexuality is a disorder of the proper functioning of the body.” What complete and utter crap. Welcome to the 13th century.
Andrew P,
Well, yes, having an interest means wanting something, more or less. But note that there is nothing in the idea of having interests that precludes wanting things for others, too. For example, you have an interest in seeing that homosexuals don’t gain the right to marry. This is not necessarily selfish of you.
But, more to the point, if you define an individual’s interests as things that exist independently of that individual (things that might not be wanted at all!), then everything is clear: you have either gravely misunderstood the term, or deliberately applied it to its moral opposite. Why speak of interests at all, if what you mean is obligations individuals are required to fulfill, or orders they are required to obey?
You seem, in your exposition, to be claiming that there simply are no individual interests to speak of, but only “objective interests” (I take this to mean “God’s interests,” since otherwise the idea is incoherent—interests inhere in one point of view or another, by definition). Indeed, you seem to be claiming that there are no individuals to speak of, but only beings with a common nature which dictates a common correct behavior. If this is accurate, then you’re not discussing morality at all, but only obedience and disobedience. But, in that case, why not simply say so?
Yes, Andrew, strangely enough, I did read what you wrote, and here it is:
But you also say (and this is where the contradiction comes in):
Now one of these has got to be wrong. So, you choose.
Regarding my remarks about Chesterton. No, it’s not just my low opinion. The remark you quote about playing within the rules or facing the consequences is either a platitude or false. If you meant this to refer to the enforcement of morals, aside from minimal constraints on liberty, which is the only kind permitted in a democratic system, of course, if one breaks the law one has to face the consequences of doing so. But if you think there should be more than minimal constraints on liberty, as for example, by the enforcement of Catholic norms, there is simply no reason why these should be the rules, aside from the fact that Catholics think they should be, so there should be no consequences, and it should be possible to have the rules changed. Chesterton was given to Catholic bluster, and this is one instance where he was blustering for all he was worth.
It’s true that actions have consequences, but in a well-regulated democratic system, while we are not completely autonomous, of course, intrusion into someone else’s life-space should be the exception and not the rule. But as for this:
Well, to that extent, yes, but why do Catholics have the right to limit the freedom and rights of homosexuals just so that they can live in a culture that doesn’t discriminate them? This is absurd. Live your life, and let others live theirs, unless, of course, they are doing genuine harm to you. Your bigotry comes out in this as plain as day. You pretend that you respect gay people as human beings, and then you want to put curbs on their lives, so they can’t live as you do, with the same rights and privileges. This is no different than trying to curb someone else’s freedom because of their ethnicity. You don’t need to be an Archie Bunker stereotype, but that’s the way you are coming off.
Why do you caricature Singer’s very carefully articulated moral position? There are no “disabled” people that Singer wants to extinguish, and this is simply puffery.
As for the genius of Catholicism. “Yes, I accept you as a human being with dignity. No, you can’t act according to your nature, because that is a denial of that dignity.” This doesn’t sound like genius to me. It sounds a lot like you want to impose your values on someone else. The genius of democracy and secular institutions is that we can let you be your own bigotted self, and let others do what your bigotry would forbid them. Some Catholics have even had the sense to realise this, André Guindon, for example, a Canadian Catholic ethicist, who recognised that the fecundity of a relationship does not depend on procreation — as anyone with a smidgeon of sense would realise, since heterosexual couples may have a fecund relationship when the woman cannot bear or is beyond bearing children.
Yes, Andrew, we all know this:
The question is whether this is a valid move in the moral game. There is no reason to think that you can discern a core human nature that will define our values without importing those values to start with. Of course, if you begin with certain values, the end result will be that human nature will exemplify those values. It’s very easy, and all the metaphysics in the world will not serve to delimit values in the way that natural law theory claims, with all its metaphysical apparatus.
I know you are convinced that the Catholic viewpoint is correct, but others do not see their human nature in this way. On what basis are you going to define human nature to get the result you want? Well, by starting with what you want, and then playing metaphysical games to underwrite it. You have quoted already the Catholic catechism. There are the values all neatly arranged in little rows. Do you think, when the theologian addresses these, that he is going to come to a different conclusion? Not if he values his or her status in the church, as Hans Küng and Uta Ranke-Heinemann found out. Roma locuta est — causa finita est, though, works only for those who think that the pope has some inside track to the mind of God. Since there is very likely no god, nothing that the pope says is likely to be found convincing by the rest of us.
It would be just as easy to assert that my straight marriage is harmed when my gay friends and family are not allowed to marry the person of their choice.
Wow, I’m impressed that you know exactly what I’m thinking. Good to see that you can root out the bigots by reading their minds.
Then I have no idea what the hell you were getting at, and I’m not convinced you do either. Your positions seem to morph to a remarkable degree from one comment to the next — usually when someone has pointed out an obvious fallacy. It’s almost as if you hadn’t clearly thought through your position and how to articulate it.
You’re free to disapprove of other people’s behaviour, about sex or anything else. There are lots of things people do that I disapprove of, though I try to base my disapproval on a rational assessment of real-world harm done, rather than fiat assertions about “natural law”. But other people’s romantic and domestic choices don’t harm me, they’re none of my business. Saying MYOB is *not* an imposition.
Michael, this is the most important point. They will claim all day that the centuries-long child-abuse scandal does not harm the moral authority of the Church because the Church Doctrines condemn pedophilia, and the doctrines condemn the coverup. Then we’re told that those who “didn’t live up to the teachings” (what a dainty euphemism!) don’t represent The Church, aren’t fit to uphold orthodoxy, or whatever. The problem is that the church according to its own doctrines does not just derive its authority because it thinks it has found natural — it also comes from revelation, apostolic succession, and other supernatural claims. At some point the doctrines regarding treatment of children will conflict with doctrines regarding authority, hierarchy, pastoral responsibility, and the individuals in power in the church will have to resolve it. They have failed, and we’re left with the apologists’ ruse that sometimes “The Church” means only its doctrines and not the people running it and their behavior, when convenient.
The really scary part for me is the calm assurance behind Andrew P’s desire to impose his [and the Catholic Church's] version of reality and morality on the rest of humanity – for our own good – of course. The Church once had that degree of power over the lives of Europe, and it was one of the greatest oppressors in history. Why would anyone want to reinstall the RCC into such a position of authority. The idea that not being oppressed by the RCC somehow oppresses the RCC is one of the most absurd assertions I have ever seen.
Dead on target, Michael! That’s what’s scares me too, and you express it so well: “The idea that not being oppressed by the RCC somehow oppresses the RCC is one of the most absurd assertions I have ever seen.” It is one of the most absurd assertions imaginable, yet it is made all the time. Weigel calls it “Christianophobia,” without even recognising that it is the kind of claim that he makes that we find so repulsive and threatening. Why should we have any “philia” towards an institution that wants to enslave us?
“Why do you caricature Singer’s very carefully articulated moral position? ”
I think it’s extremely weak and unable to protect human life. For example, this is from his webpage:
“Moreover, although a normal newborn baby has no sense of the future, and therefore is not a person, that does not mean that it is all right to kill such a baby. It only means that the wrong done to the infant is not as great as the wrong that would be done to a person who was killed. But in our society there are many couples who would be very happy to love and care for that child. Hence even if the parents do not want their own child, it would be wrong to kill it.”
This is a kind of fuzzy logic- killing infants is bad, but only because the balance tips against it due to X, Y, and Z, where X Y and Z are variables that can change. What happens if there are no couples who are “happy to love and care for the child?” Catholicism takes a much harder line than this in protecting life at all stages of existence.
“It sounds a lot like you want to impose your values on someone else. The genius of democracy and secular institutions is that we can let you be your own bigotted self, and let others do what your bigotry would forbid them.”
The nature of democracy is rule by the consent of the people. What’s so radical about me trying to influence that choice? You’re doing the exact same thing. Whatever right allows you to create a blog where you argue for liberal positions and attack the Church also gives me the right to argue for conservative positions and support the Church. We are both doing the same thing with different ends.
“since heterosexual couples may have a fecund relationship when the woman cannot bear or is beyond bearing children.”
Obviously Catholicism recognizes that there are two dynamics at play in marriage, the unitive aspect and the procreative aspect. The Church argues that homosexual relationships cannot be unitive because human nature is tied to male and female bodies as the normative plan of development.
“There is no reason to think that you can discern a core human nature that will define our values without importing those values to start with.”
Actually, we can. You’re starting at the wrong end of the process. We don’t discern human nature by looking at ethics. We discern human nature by looking at the metaphysics we observe in humanity. For example, the general Platonic view is that we are only an intellect enslaved in a body, while the Aristotelian-Thomistic perspective is that we are an embodied intellect, where the body is not irrelevant. Of course, the rationale behind identifying the intellect as a critical element of human nature is the fact that we observe a sort of reasoning in man that we do not observe in any other creatures. Thus, debates about human nature start with things like hylomorphism, dualism, immortality of the intellect, and things like that.
The specific ethical conclusions of this process come much later, after the basic metaphysics has been established. You’re right that it’s very difficult to construct an ethical theory from scratch without importing your own bias. No intelligent philosopher does this though- because the ethics of action are secondary to the metaphysics of existence.
Are you willing to say that I cannot in principle rationally consider things like hylomorphism without importing my own values? If you do that, you are severely undermining any human epistemology, and that has a tendency to boomerang.
‘You have quoted already the Catholic catechism. ”
Only to show that your claim that the Church had not condemned pedophilia was patently false. It was not used for my actual constructed argument. I’d like to draw attention to the fact that I have never quoted scripture or church documents in making my positive case.
“Since there is very likely no god, nothing that the pope says is likely to be found convincing by the rest of us.”
Good thing we have those ancient Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle forming the basis for our philosophy. Are you willing to accuse them of failing to practice rationality? Taking the pulpit and proclaiming that everyone imports their own values except yourself is a risky proposition.
Andrew P. We’ll leave Singer aside for the moment. If I have time I will return to the question. Let’s start at the end. You say, with a kind of casual authority, as though there were no question about it:
‘Recognizes’ is an epistemic word. It makes a claim to know, but claims to know something are not always made good. André Guindon, the Catholic ethicist I mentioned earlier, suggests that adjective ‘procreative’ is not the heart of a sexual relationship, and that ‘fecund’ would be more appropriate. Many relationships are procreative, but do not bear good fruit, are not fruitful of human good (and Jesus said, remember, that we would know them by their fruits). Confining the purpose of marriage to procreation is unnaturally to focus it on a biological function, when there are more important human goods to be sought. I agree with him, and think the overemphasis on procreation has completely emptied the Roman Catholic idea of marriage of moral significance. Just adding the term ‘unitive’ to ‘procreative’ doesn’t save it either, unless you are willing to unpack this in terms of the fruitfulness of relationship — Guindon’s fecundity.
Regarding democracy. You seem to be suggesting that democracy is based on the principle of the majority rules. That, unfortunately, is often the mistaken idea that people have of democracy. Yet if I were to suggest to you that, say, if the majority in Iraq thought that Sharia law should be applied with all its rigour, and that the state should be transformed into an Islamic state, instead of a democracy, surely you could see the idea. This would not be democracy. The purpose of democracy is to elect a government that will best guarantee people’s rights. That so many people misunderstand this is why the Bill of Rights in the US is so important, as well as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada, or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Democracy is not a principle of majority rules, whatever the governing party with a majority thinks it right to do, but what it is permitted to do within the limits imposed by constitutional restraint. Catholic morality would be (and is, in many countries) an infringement of the autonomy of the individual. (And don’t come back and tell me that we are individuals only in a society. I know that, but there must be restraints on what the society may impose upon the individual.)
To get back to Singer. You ask:
Yes, indeed, what if? And what is your answer? For if there is really no one who would be happy to love and care for the child, what chance has that child of a future? There are, in fact, many children in this world today, for whom there is really no one to love and care for them. They are brought into existence by the blind process of procreation, many because your church teaches that contraception is a mortal sin, and who live for a few years, and by the roulette wheel of cruel chance, either survive to live in destitution, or die as infants or children, before they have even had a life. The cruelty of your church, and the casual way in which you subscribe to its morality, astounds me!
No, we’re willing to say that as smart as they were, they ultimately turned out to be wrong, and moral theories based on their metaphysics are misguided. There is no over-arching teleology to the universe, Aristotle’s “form” and “matter” do not describe physical reality in any way useful to modern physics, humans do not have an inherent “nature” that specifies what they “really are” independent of their physical bodies and behaviour, and sex does not have a “natural end”. Plato & Co. started something important, but they didn’t finish it, and ultimately their approach turned out to be a dead end.
So when you talk about “nature”, you are talking about some magical concept having no connection to the reality we have to live in. It’s like you’re describing the rules of a fantasy RPG that you and your friends are playing but the rest of us find either boring or repellant.
“But, more to the point, if you define an individual’s interests as things that exist independently of that individual (things that might not be wanted at all!), then everything is clear: you have either gravely misunderstood the term, or deliberately applied it to its moral opposite. Why speak of interests at all, if what you mean is obligations individuals are required to fulfill, or orders they are required to obey?”
There’s an important distinction between duty and virtue. By “virtue” I mean the classical idea of “arete” or excellence. Arete can apply to anything- for example, the arete of a knife would be excellent sharpness.
Duty implies an adherence to a baseline. For example, fulfilling your civic duty keeps you free from transgressing the law, but it doesn’t positively make you anything more than you already are. Arete, in contrast, is not hewing to the baseline, but progressing above and beyond it. For example, there is nothing illegal or invalid about a dull knife, but it can only increase in perfection by becoming more sharp and actualizing its arete.
In the Catholic view, some things take us below the baseline. These are called disorders and sins. We have a moral duty to refrain from sin and try to overcome any disorder we encounter. However, this doesn’t make us a great person. True greatness lies in going above and beyond into the area of positive excellence, and we call the things that take us there virtues.
A homosexual orientation is a disorder, and homosexual activity is a sin. This is because it is contrary to human nature. It is contrary to our own objective interest, so we ought to refrain from homosexual activity. This is a matter of duty, as you correctly point out.
However, it does not stop there. Once you are at the moral baseline, you are then free to proceed up and beyond it towards arete. It is fully in our own personal interest to achieve arete, because true personal excellence is what we really desire. Who desires less than perfection, even if they disagree about what it is? The duty imposed below the baseline only exists to make us free to proceed above the baseline and achieve perfection, which is what we really want anyway.
A lot of times atheists characterize Catholic morality as a power play by God- imposing duties and obligations on us without reason. This is not correct, however, because moral obligations only exist to correct errors that take us below the baseline, making us free to proceed above it.
“Indeed, you seem to be claiming that there are no individuals to speak of, but only beings with a common nature which dictates a common correct behavior. If this is accurate, then you’re not discussing morality at all, but only obedience and disobedience.”
There is a common human nature that is shared by individuals. Metaphysically, however, Aquinas is absolutely clear that such a nature/essence proceeds from the individual existences that possess it (as contrary to Platonism). Since we have a common nature, there is a common set of obligations and virtues- but these obligations and virtue apply to us individually. The commonality of the obligation proceeds from the individuals who each possess it. This allows us to at once talk of universal moral obligations and virtues in the abstract while simultaneously leaving them in the possession of the individual. As Chesterton says:
“Christ did not love humanity; He never said He loved humanity; He loved men. “
Andrew P. Oh, dear me! You said:
That is not what I said. I said that the canons have to be interpreted. They don’t carry their plain meaning on their face, just like any bit of language, and the problem that I pointed out is that many church representatives said, explicitly, “We didn’t know where the line was, and so it was easy to cross over it. But now we know, so that problem is resolved.” In other words, despite the words of the catechism, child abuse still happened, and the excuse given is that “we didn’t know what counted as child abuse or pedophilia.”
As for saying that everyone imports their own values except myself. That is not true. I am quite aware that our values may differ because our moral choices are different. There may be no way to resolve this difference. All I am saying is that you don’t get to have your values protected while mine aren’t, so long as, in the expression of my values, no one is harmed. And one thing that doesn’t get to count as harm is the idea that your world is not protected from my values. This would make anything that anyone else regarded as offensive as being something harmful, and that’s half way already to totalitarianism. It’s as simple as that.
“No, we’re willing to say that as smart as they were, they ultimately turned out to be wrong, and moral theories based on their metaphysics are misguided. There is no over-arching teleology to the universe, Aristotle’s “form” and “matter” do not describe physical reality in any way useful to modern physics, humans do not have an inherent “nature” that specifies what they “really are” independent of their physical bodies and behaviour, and sex does not have a “natural end”. Plato & Co. started something important, but they didn’t finish it, and ultimately their approach turned out to be a dead end.”
I’m grateful that you have just informed me of this.
On a a side note, how do I make formatted paragraphs?
I will shortly be boarding a train on which I will have no internet connection for three days. Afterwards I will be at college, and my availability to spend time on this will be inconsistent at best.
Some HTML tags are allowed in comments. Quick tutorial (and I hope I format this correctly):
<i>This text will appear italicized</i>: like this
<blockquote>This text will be block-quoted</blockquote>:
For extra points: figure out how I wrote the example HTML tags without having them interpreted by the browser
.
OK, that was a failure. The tags have to be enclosed in angle brackets, a.k.a. “greater-than” and “less-than” signs.
Thanks! I’m familiar with [QUOTE]these[/QUOTE] type of HTML tags (not sure what they are). Programming is not my forte!
Andrew P,
Again, just to be clear: if you define an individual’s interests as things that exist anywhere but in that individual’s mind, then you have either gravely misunderstood the word, or deliberately stood the word on its head.
You seem unable, or unwilling, to grasp the idea of individuals with interests. But this idea is fundamental to secular morality (not to mention democracy). It is the point of departure. If you cannot understand it, there is simply no reason to move on to subjects which might actually contain subtleties or complexities.
That said, I’ve never met an adult human being before who couldn’t understand it. I recommend Jean Piaget’s The Moral Judgment of the Child.
This goes to the previous posts on “function” and where I think that concept fails. All we need do is look at the creative action of evolution and brains to see that no single use for anything – not even a primary use – can be determined. The very act of claiming the function of x is y suppresses human creativity and limits our understanding of the natural world. The one thing that is inherent in the universe is change.
To claim that homosexuality is a disorder and because of that claim their rights must be suspended is incoherent. That humans and other primates cannot synthesize ascorbic acid, but almost all other mammals can, would seem to make us all “disordered.” Certainly the “natural state” of mammals would includes the capacity to produce ascorbic acid. Shouldn’t all humans forgo procreation to avoid transmitting our “disordered state” to our offspring?
Do you mean quotes? Put the word blockquote in between bigger than smaller than brackets before, and bracket stroke blockquote bracket after your quotation.
“Again, just to be clear: if you define an individual’s interests as things that exist anywhere but in that individual’s mind, then you have either gravely misunderstood the word, or deliberately stood the word on its head.”
Since the idea of moral and political “interests” began in the ancient and medieval philosophical tradition, it seems to me that the modern world has co-opted the word rather than vice versa. This is a minor matter of semantics, however.
“You seem unable, or unwilling, to grasp the idea of individuals with interests. But this idea is fundamental to secular morality (not to mention democracy). It is the point of departure. If you cannot understand it, there is simply no reason to move on to subjects which might actually contain subtleties or complexities.”
I fully understand the idea and its consequences for secular morality, However, I reject the modern understanding of “interests” and thus I reject secular morality. By starting with the question of “what exists, and how so?” before addressing “what ought we to do with it?” the traditional philosophic tradition maintains the natural sequence to philosophy. By switching this around- looking at reality through morality- the modern viewpoint has no grounding to base a detailed metaphysics. That’s part of the reason the modern world has no detailed metaphysical explanation of things to rival the systems of Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas. These grand metaphysical systems are rejected by the modern world, but not replaced, and sometimes that hole causes problems.
In regards to democracy, I find it interesting that democracy can only flourish where the individual citizens have certain expectations and patterns of behavior.
“That said, I’ve never met an adult human being before who couldn’t understand it.”
What makes you think I can’t understand it? Defining “interests ” as personal preference through autonomy is very basic. My rejection of it does not mean that I do not understand the theory of it.
” I said that the canons have to be interpreted. They don’t carry their plain meaning on their face, just like any bit of language”
There’s a huge difference between canons and doctrine. Canons concern the administrative rule of the church, just like civil law. Doctrine is theological and philosophical principles as defined by the Church. Doctrinally, the Church condemns pedophilia, no questions asked. It may be that the canons were ambiguous, I don’t really know either way. Regardless, it is of course only the doctrine that carries the weight of infallibility. In criticizing the canons you are doing nothing more than many saints have done.
“There may be no way to resolve this difference. All I am saying is that you don’t get to have your values protected while mine aren’t, so long as, in the expression of my values, no one is harmed. And one thing that doesn’t get to count as harm is the idea that your world is not protected from my values. This would make anything that anyone else regarded as offensive as being something harmful, and that’s half way already to totalitarianism. It’s as simple as that.”
1. You make the value judgement that “as long as no one is harmed” is valid.
2. You make value judgments about what “get[s] to count as harm.”
3. You make consequential judgments and then tie them into a theory of totalitarianism.
Look, there’s no shame in making a philosophical argument. Just don’t try to disguise it as some sort of automatically exempt axiom. We’re both philosophizing, and that’s okay. We’re really not that different, though we do have different philosophical conclusions.
“To claim that homosexuality is a disorder and because of that claim their rights must be suspended is incoherent. That humans and other primates cannot synthesize ascorbic acid, but almost all other mammals can, would seem to make us all “disordered.”
Function works on a certain type of thing, but between things.
“Certainly the “natural state” of mammals would includes the capacity to produce ascorbic acid.”
If we observe that not all mammals have the capacity to produce Vitamin C, then producing vitamin C may not be a function of mammals.
I have yet to hear of a biological role of homosexuality in human society.
So you don’t understand evolution either – why am I not surprised.
I should add that primates have a pseudogene that indicates that their ancestors could synthesize ascorbic acid. For some reason that gene no longer produces the enzyme needed.
Why does it need a role or a function? Would that make a difference?
Sorry, Andrew P. That was my mistake. I was speaking about the catechism, not the canons, which slipped off my fingers but didn’t go through my conscious brain.
Also, there is a generally accepted norm for what is to count as a harm, and in a democracy, where free specch is a right, and where I have a right to live my own life so that I do not harm others, it is understood that offense is not as such a harm, though libel and slander are. In living my life there may be reasonable constraints on my freedom to go wherever I want, so there are rules against trespass. But how you feel about things doesn’t get to be counted as a harm. So, the fact that you deplore gay people or resent their right to marry (where it is a right — and it should be everywhere), doesn’t count as a harm. If it did, as I said, our freedoms would be unreasonably restricted. In other words, I argued for this; I did not just assume it. When I suggested that restricting people’s freedom in these ways would be to trend towards totalitarianism, I meant it, because, if you restrict people’s freedom to express themselves in speech or in their lives, because of your values, where do you stop? What does not count as a harm to you may to someone else, and so on. The whole point of freedom is to give us the greatest latitude for thought, speech and action compatible with the least harm to all. The kinds of values you are proposing that we impose, would restrict such freedoms unreasonably, in my view, and if that example is followed, what do we do with the next person who comes along who doesn’t want, say, to live in a society where women show their faces and their hair in public? Say, they are deeply offended by such debauchery?
You may already have got on your train. Anyway, thanks for taking part.
I don’t know what this means, but again (and already) it seems needlessly complex. By starting with the question of “what exists, and how so?” one immediately arrives at the stark fact that individuals other than oneself, with interests other than one’s own, exist. It is an inescapable part of living, and there’s no reason to run off into the philosophical hinterlands unless one is avoiding it.
No, no, no, no. The point is not to arrive at a definition for a word, or a theory of human nature, or something. The point is to acknowledge that something exists. This is why I’m not sure you understand the idea: I can’t tell with any certainty whether or not you believe individuals with interests really exist at all. And if you do not, then you must not understand what I’m talking about, because their existence is as incontrovertible as the nose I presume is on the front of your face.
But you’re right that we’re all just philosophizing; and if you do recognize the existence of autonomous individuals, and you really believe that morality is about suppressing their interests in the interests of something else, then power to you. For my part, I look forward to the day when no one believes that anymore.
They’re quotes are back now. Sorry about that. I’ll have to come back and do some work on it, and see if this is the theme I want to keep. But we do need blockquotes.
I have been described as a young “evangelical Catholic.” Not knowing what that meant, I looked it up on Google, and here I am on your blog. So you think we’re dangerous, huh?
Brian, no, of course I don’t think you’re dangerous. Are you? But I do think the kind of evangelical Catholicism that Weigel describes is.
AP: Setting aside the obvious gaps in your understanding of evolution, function, etc…. Even if we consider homosexuality to be a dysfunction (note well that I’m conceding this point simply for argument’s sake, as you’ve offered no compelling evidence to show that homosexuality is a disorder or dysfunction), this offers no grounds to deprive gay and lesbian people of their rights. Rights are quite simply not assigned on the basis of biological facts, and disorders or biological dysfunctions are not grounds for the denial of rights. Your assertion to the contrary is, as Michael Fugate points out above, complete and utter nonsense.
Consider a different example: we have evidence that fervent religious belief is disordered (not overwhelming evidence, mind, but more evidence for this than for homosexuality as a disorder). Do we, on this basis, get to strip you of your rights? No, we don’t. Why don’t we? Because that’s not what human rights track. Your argument’s a non-starter.
Brian, blind, unthinking adherence to dogma is always dangerous.
Thousands of children raped by rcc priests certainly consider your organization to be dangerous. When those same priests are sheltered from prosecution by your church and transferred to new locations to rape again and again,that could be considered dangerous as well.
Your organization is promulgating genocide in sub Saharan Africa with their demented policy against using condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. All those Africans who died needlessly due to this disgusting policy would consider your organization to be dangerous.
Women denied the right to control their own bodies probably consider your organization dangerous.
Homosexuals denied basic democratic rights as a result of your organizations homophobia probably consider that to be dangerous.
Whether or not you are personally dangerous would depend on how much moral and financial support you provide to the criminal organization known as the catholic church.
So tell me Brian, are you dangerous ?
Brian, I notice that you use the passive voice (“I have been described as a”) rather than the active (“I am a”) in your reference to being an “evangelical Catholic.”
Perhaps you are not willing to allow other people to apply labels to you and wish to make up your own mind.
If so, kudos to you, and you could not have picked a better web site to get a different viewpoint on the power that religion has to cause misery.
I’m normally not one to proffer advice, but since you are here, you might consider perusing more of Eric’s thoughtful articles and accompanying commentary, you really could not do better if you were to pick just one web site that presents an atheistic viewpoint (in my opinion). You will not be wasting your time. Despite the name, Choice in Dying, Eric covers a wide and eclectic mix of topics.