Anne Hendershott on the academics who want to redefine pedophilia as “intergenerational intimacy”:
The publication of Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex promised readers a “radical, refreshing, and long overdue reassessment of how we think and act about children’s and teens’ sexuality.” The book was published by University of Minnesota Press in 2003 (with a foreword by Joycelyn Elders, who had been the U.S. Surgeon General in the Clinton administration), after which the author, Judith Levine, posted an interview on the university’s website decrying the fact that “there are people pushing a conservative religious agenda that would deny minors access to sexual expression,” and adding that “we do have to protect children from real dangers … but that doesn’t mean protecting some fantasy of their sexual innocence.”
This redefinition of childhood innocence as “fantasy” is key to the defining down of the deviance of pedophilia that permeated college campuses and beyond. Drawing upon the language of postmodern theory, those working to redefine pedophilia are first redefining childhood by claiming that “childhood” is not a biological given. Rather, it is socially constructed—an historically produced social object. Such deconstruction has resulted from the efforts of a powerful advocacy community supported by university-affiliated scholars and a large number of writers, researchers, and publishers who were willing to question what most of us view as taboo behavior.
December 20th, 2011 | 9:41 am
It seems to me we in the United States are more acutely aware of, and react more strongly to, the sexual abuse of children than ever before in our history. I am quite sure Judith Levine wasn’t promoting pedophilia (based on review—I haven’t read the book), and one controversial article in the APA Psychological Bulletin fourteen years ago does not indicate that the APA no longer considers pedophilia pathological. In fact, the proposed definition of Pedophilic Disorder for the forthcoming DSM V broadens the definition to include young teens in addition to prepubescent children.
December 20th, 2011 | 9:59 am
This new article seems to be re-cycling very stale “news”.
December 20th, 2011 | 10:12 am
Does anyone ever take time to contemplate that “deconstruction” is when you think of it, a fancy synonym for “destruction”?
December 20th, 2011 | 10:14 am
The broader secular culture is moving in the direction of justifying pedophilia because they have won social approval for gay sex with the help of Catholic parishes like my own in Greenwich Village which is run by Dominicans. They refused to put a brief notice about event at Courage the Catholic fellowship for same sex attracted men and women in the Sunday bulletin. One might here a vague reference to “respecting the body” (eat your veggies), but never explicit support for chastity. The mention of masturbation, contraception, fornication, pornography, divorce, cohabitation, fellatio, and sodomy is absolutely forbidden. And this even though there a many college kids in the congregation. This church, like many, if not most Catholic churches, has simply given up on teaching sexual morality when and where it might be learned. It is any wonder that pedophiles know that they have good shot at being accepted?
December 20th, 2011 | 10:27 am
Bob,
So the Catholic Church is leading the secular culture astray? That’s an interesting thesis.
December 20th, 2011 | 11:41 am
Mr. Nickol:
Bob,
So the Catholic Church is leading the secular culture astray? That’s an interesting thesis.
I think Bob was trying to say that that Catholic parishes who fail to witness to the truth about masturbation, contraception, fornication, pornography, divorce, cohabitation, fellatio, and sodomy are not doing their job to persuade secular culture from its current course of self-immolation. Of course, whenever someone on this site takes up the cause, you can be consistently counted on to tell them that they’re wrong.
December 20th, 2011 | 12:07 pm
Mr. Beckett:
It is simply my contention that on the issue of pedophilia, secular culture is not following a “course of self-immolation.” Pedophiles are given harsh sentences, required to register as sex offenders so that anyone can look up their names, and in some areas the locations where they are permitted to live are so limited that people who have already served their sentences can’t find housing.
If anything, the Catholic Church has galvanized secular society against pedophilia by its poor handling of its own sex-abuse crisis. If ever awareness was higher in our society of the abuse of children, or more was being done to prevent it, I would like to know when that was.
Of course, whenever someone on this site takes up the cause, you can be consistently counted on to tell them that they’re wrong.
I am not sure what cause you are speaking about, but I think the Catholic Church is doing nothing at all, intentionally or unintentionally, by commission or omission, that would result in pedophilia becoming acceptable either in the Church or in secular society.
December 20th, 2011 | 1:02 pm
This woman’s article did not convince me that our society, or even academia, is anywhere close to accepting pedophilia as normal or acceptable behavior.
December 20th, 2011 | 1:02 pm
The column at PD sure looks like scare-mongering to me. In my entire life, I have encountered one person who has skated very gingerly up the edge of excusing “inter-generational intimacy.” And he is universally considered a nut-case.
Is this a trial balloon for an election-year meme? (“My opponent supports inter-generational intimacy!”) If so, it’s a stinker. Let’s lose it and get back to the deficit.
December 20th, 2011 | 1:04 pm
It is simply my contention that on the issue of pedophilia, secular culture is not following a “course of self-immolation.” Pedophiles are given harsh sentences, required to register as sex offenders so that anyone can look up their names, and in some areas the locations where they are permitted to live are so limited that people who have already served their sentences can’t find housing.
Indeed, this certainly trumps what the usual sentences were from, say, the 1970′s.
This will be about the 3rd or 4th attempt now to depict secular culture ‘defining pedophilia down’ that has fallen pretty flat. The previous ones included an ad for Kia from Brazil that was purposefully misread, and an actor on a sci-fi series who said he wanted to do a good job playing a pedophilie villian. The only actual recent examples I know of really attempting to define pedophilia down has been the recent report commissioned about the priest sex scandal which ‘discovered’ pedophilia wasn’t a problem because having sex with 12 yr olds isn’t technically pedophilia.
Let’s just imagine the broader culture producing a tv series about 30 yr old men who have sex with 12 yr olds and Joe Carter NOT screaming ‘defining pedophilia down’.
December 20th, 2011 | 1:05 pm
@Bob, if you asked your pastor, I bet he’d tell you the reason he doesn’t preach about masturbation, contraception, fornication, pornography, divorce, cohabitation, fellatio, and sodomy to college kids is he doesn’t want to give them any ideas.
Same reason he doesn’t preach about not putting beans up your nose to the third-graders.
December 20th, 2011 | 1:28 pm
Indeed the bulwark has been established from the ivory tower and the vanguard dresses upon the proposition “there are as many sexualities as people.” To outlaw a sexuality, we will be told, is to outlaw a person’s core identity. Non-smart persons will pick up the argument as “when you outlaw sexualities, only outlaws will engage in sex.”
Hendershott’s essay might have been a bit more comprehensive by addressing the academy’s role in McQueary Syndrome – the inability to challenge a sodomite.
December 20th, 2011 | 2:33 pm
Felapton,
You have got to be kidding. Do you really think NYC college kids don’t know, and talk about, every kind of sexual misbehavior. When asked why he doesn’t talk about it, he says “they can read about it.” You bet they can. All the wrong stuff. I think the reasons may be that they don’t think it does any good, the church might loose some parishioners or money, prominent parishioners are sexually misbehaving, they may not feel they are chaste enough to guide anyone else. The truth is though that I don’t know, because they will not talk about. They’re not stupid and don’t want to get slammed for an unorthodox view or policy. So they avoid the subject of sexual morality completely.
December 20th, 2011 | 2:38 pm
Not long ago on the Dennis Prager Show the author of COLORING THE NEWS and GRAY LADY DOWN, William McGowan commented that the sexual abuse scandal in the Church (and elsewhere he might have added) is about the homosexuality of predator and prey. He was not approving.
I live on what I call the Blue Woodward Corridor north of Detroit, MI (a Blue State) which has a highly organized and influential LGBT community — at the southern end is the gay mayor of Ferndale, at the northern the gay city manager of Birmingham. I often hear that the scandal was “not about homosexuality.” Whenever I reply that “I was there,” the party invariably glares but says nothing.
I won’t go into the experience at my Catholic school in the late sixties except to say that same-sex attraction existed among priests, HS seminarians, and male students in general. Then there were ordinary unenlightened guys like me who suffered a different consequence — silence and an almost Amish-like shunning for not playing ball. As I commented on the Penn State story, I see a time when this behavior will be legal. American children have been abandoned already to the STD epidemic documented by the CDC. I remain horrified by the moral complacency I see everywhere in this country as our institutions continue to sexualize the very young. The transgressive imagination is the only imagination now recognized in America.
December 20th, 2011 | 2:43 pm
This woman’s article did not convince me that our society, or even academia, is anywhere close to accepting pedophilia as normal or acceptable behavior.
Depends on how we define “pedophilia”.
It is the definition that changes. What used to be pedophilia is now supported by schools: they hand out condoms at middle schools and even elementary schools.
Or, did you see the video clip where the schools set up a fun “surprise” for the jock team captains? Tonsil-hockey with one’s own opposite-sex parent is now “harmless fun” in today’s public schools!
So, yeah, pedophilia is more awful than ever – but at the same time, the list of what constitutes “sexually appropriate behavior” keeps expanding, not shrinking.
December 20th, 2011 | 3:00 pm
Bob,
Are you saying Catholic young people don’t know what sexual behavior the Church teaches is right or wrong. Are you really saying they are ignorant, or are you saying the Church doesn’t spend enough time trying to convince them they ought not to do what they already know is wrong?
December 20th, 2011 | 3:02 pm
What used to be pedophilia is now supported by schools: they hand out condoms at middle schools and even elementary schools.
Blake,
That is just nonsense. Even if you believe schools actively encourage young people to have sex with each other, that is not now, nor has it ever been, considered pedophilia.
December 20th, 2011 | 3:10 pm
I won’t go into the experience at my Catholic school in the late sixties except to say that same-sex attraction existed among priests, HS seminarians, and male students in general.
Graham Combs,
I went to an all-boys high school in Cincinnati in the early sixties, and no one was known to be gay, nor was I aware of any of the kind of behavior that sometimes goes on among young teen boys that might be mistaken to be gay. I went to college at Ohio State in the late sixties, and in my dormitory (12 floors, 4-guys to a room) there was only one known gay guy, and he was put in a room by himself, leaving three beds (desks, etc.) vacant.
December 20th, 2011 | 3:30 pm
Blake
It is the definition that changes. What used to be pedophilia is now supported by schools: they hand out condoms at middle schools and even elementary schools.
Name 3 elementary schools tht do this in the US. There are over 67,000 elementary schools so you should have no trouble finding at least 3 examples.
Depends on how we define “pedophilia”….Or, did you see the video clip where the schools set up a fun “surprise” for the jock team captains
Let me help you out. Pedophilia is defined as either sex with or sexual attraction to children by full grown adults. It is not improper joking between parents and teen children, it is not kids talking about sex, it is not even kids who have sex or do any type of sexual activity.
That’s all it is defined as and that’s more than enough. Trying to redefine it to include everything and anything you disapprove of does a real disservice to actual victims of pedophilia.
December 20th, 2011 | 3:36 pm
Hi Bob,
I’m sure NYC college students know quite a bit. But when I was growing up, we were taught that even to discuss these subjects was a sin against modesty, because it can get people thinking about them if they aren’t already.
But I have been attending mass more or less every day this Advent and I have heard an awful lot about revelation, incarnation, mercy, justice and all that sort of thing. Perhaps you are right that it is time for a homily about fellatio. I will suggest it to my pastor. (I may have to explain to him what it is.) Maybe the Feast of the Holy Innocents would be an opportune occasion.
I’ll let you know how it goes.
December 20th, 2011 | 5:17 pm
David
I went to an all-boys high school in Cincinnati in the early sixties, and no one was known to be gay, nor was I aware of any of the kind of behavior that sometimes goes on among young teen boys that might be mistaken to be gay.
You know my late father-in-law grew up in Newark NJ in the late 50′s and was well aware of gays. It was common knowledge that one could encounter gays at certain hours in certain parts of certain parks, on certain busses late at night and he had a few stories about being in bar fights that happened at lesbian bars. When speaking with members of the older generations there seems to be an odd disconnect. Some have always known about gay people and others seem to act as if gay people hardly existed until, maybe, the 1970′s.
December 20th, 2011 | 8:02 pm
Boonton,
I understand what you are saying, and it does not contradict my experience. There were known gay cruising spots on campus at OSU when I was there. However, no one I knew of in my high school and no one I knew in college was openly gay, and there was only the one guy I spoke of who was known to be gay. Graham Combs, unless I am reading him incorrectly, makes it sound like homoeroticism was the norm and he was in the minority. It wasn’t the case in my all-boys high school from 1961-1965, and I would be amazed if there were any openly gay boys there today.
I think, back then, there were also people (adults) whom everyone suspected were gay—including gay male couples—and as long as it remained unspoken, nobody made an issue out of it. If kids were suspected of being gay, they were sent to psychiatrists.
December 21st, 2011 | 9:20 am
Name 3 elementary schools tht do this in the US. There are over 67,000 elementary schools so you should have no trouble finding at least 3 examples.
No, no, no, you don’t get to tell me that I have to go do your research for me. (I mean, you can tell me, but I am not obliged to obey you.)
If I’m wrong, say so. Say, “That isn’t true.” You can choose to produce proof or not. Your call.
Then, if I want to, I can link what I’ve got.
December 21st, 2011 | 9:38 am
Good for you Felapton. Yes speak up to your pastors, all of you. Tell them that they need to encourage chastity, explain exactly what the Church teaches about sexuality. And tell them that they need to do frequently and very publicly so that they actually reach those who are sexually misbehaving, not just go to the small groups that might come to a meeting in the church basement. Sure many Catholic do have some idea of what’s right and what’s wrong sexually, but it’s hard to be chaste and we all need reminders — and we need to feel guilt when we do wrong and go to confession and be forgiven. None of this happens if we are not taught in church because the culture supports whatever feels good. There is really no one else around to exhort us to chastity.
December 21st, 2011 | 10:21 am
I thought for Catholics the homily was “preaching by an ordained minister to explain the Scriptures proclaimed in the liturgy and to exhort the people to accept them as the Word of God.” How many Sundays out of the year would exhorting people to chastity (and particularly preaching about things like fellatio) be relevant to the scriptural readings at Mass.
December 21st, 2011 | 11:13 am
Then, if I want to, I can link what I’ve got.
I imagine Blake is going to use Provincetown, MA, as his example of where condoms were/are given to elementary school students. If there are two more schools to make the total 3, I can’t find them. The Provincetown school system has only two schools in it.
December 21st, 2011 | 12:13 pm
Blake
No, no, no, you don’t get to tell me that I have to go do your research for me. (I mean, you can tell me, but I am not obliged to obey you.)
Do your reasearch? Come come now, you already did the research since you’re the one who made the claim. What’s that? You just made up the facts? Yea not very surprising.
David
I imagine Blake is going to use Provincetown, MA, as his example of where condoms were/are given to elementary school students.
Seems like a quick Google search indicates this isn’t quite true. The school issued a policy where the school nurse would give condoms to any student who came to her and asked. While in theory it applied to any student, not just high schoolers, the policy is “if an especially young child requests a condom, the nurse will ask the student’s motive and act accordingly…” No doubt the image of elementary and preschool kids running around making condoms into balloons tempered such a policy.
As usual, the rule of thumb I have for Blake is confirmed. Whenever Blake talks about protecting children, actually protecting children is actually the last thing on his mind. It is disgusting that he would equate such trivially marginal issues with the actual rape of children by adults.
December 21st, 2011 | 12:56 pm
A much better article on this topic appeared right here in First Things, December 2009: “How Pedophilia Lost Its Cool” by Mary Eberstadt.
December 21st, 2011 | 4:31 pm
As usual, the rule of thumb I have for Blake is confirmed. Whenever Blake talks about protecting children, actually protecting children is actually the last thing on his mind.
Whenever someone goes virulently negative about my supposed motives and/or my supposed personality defects, I just remember what someone told me once (and I believe to be absolutely true): “if [you] had a rebuttal, [you] would be using it.”.
It’s no great secret that public schools are actively promoting inappropriate forms of sexuality among children who are too young to be capable of informed consent.
Demanding that someone else be presumed wrong until and unless they provide specific forms of evidence (to your specifications, not their own) is not a rebuttal. It’s a troll’s game.
So let’s see it: where’s your proof that my statement is inaccurate?
December 21st, 2011 | 4:50 pm
It’s no great secret…
It seems only the actual evidence is being kept secret.
December 21st, 2011 | 10:49 pm
David,
There are plenty of places where chastity can be preached as related to the Gospel of the day. I was at St Joseph’s in Greenwich Village one Sunday when Cardinal Eagen gave a sermon on the story of the woman at the well. He spoke eloquently about Christ’s mercy and forgiveness, but did not mention that He told the woman to go and sin no more. Is it any wonder that the clergy avoid the subject of chastity. Their example comes from on high. I might add that the pastor make much of his admiration and friendship with the then Archbishop of New York. Other occasions are feast days of saints who died rather than be unchaste. St Patrice Lumumba was killed because he would not submit to homosexual sex with the King. A very appropriate story for Greenwich Village. No mention was made of why was killed! Where is the outrage? On the feast day of St Joseph himself his chastity is not mentioned. Ever. This goes for the Dominican’s wonderful Magnificat magazine. One year they had ten or fifteen pages devoted to St Joseph without one single mention of his chastity. I wrote to one of the editors. He never answered me. I could go on and on. You get the idea.
December 22nd, 2011 | 7:39 am
. . . . Cardinal Eagen gave a sermon on the story of the woman at the well. He spoke eloquently about Christ’s mercy and forgiveness, but did not mention that He told the woman to go and sin no more.
Bob,
I do get the idea, but I have to point out that two of your three examples have problems. Jesus did not tell the Samaritan woman at the well to “go and sin no more.” It’s just not in the text. And Patrice Lumumba was the Prime Minister of the Republic of the Congo, was executed after a coup, and was not canonized by the Catholic Church. Did you mean Charles Lwanga of Uganda?
December 22nd, 2011 | 9:28 am
David N,
It is certainly true that in the John 4 passage Jesus does not tell the Samaritan woman “go and sin no more”, but I hope you don’t mean to imply that Jesus is not concerned with the central issue in this woman’s life — her relational/sexual brokenness/sin.
The context tells the story in John 4. Why is the woman there at the well in the middle of the day? More than likely it is because she is an outcast, or shunned because of her behavior/history. This is confirmed by Jesus’ statement “woman, call your husband”. Make no mistake, that is Jesus (in his gracious manner) confronting this woman about the central sin in her life. We know that this hits home because she first equivocates (“I have no husband”) and then tries to change the subject by baiting Jesus into a theological quarrel about the right place for worship: “Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem…..” Jesus, of course, does not take the bait but proceeds to name himself as the answer to the hollowness and sin at the core of her life.
All of which is to say that when preaching this passage a pastor does a disservice to his hearers if he does not address the central reason why Jesus declares himself the source of an inexhaustible “spring of water welling up to eternal life..” namely the parched desert that is the human life/soul captive to sin. So yes, it is not a passage about chastity per se, but unchastity is THE central issue in this woman’s life and Jesus confronts it directly and forthrightly. The woman’s sin is not the most important thing about this pericope (Jesus, always Jesus), but the passage makes little sense without significant reference to it.
The last time I preached this passage I asked the congregation to consider the reality of Jesus confronting this woman’s brokenness with the challenge: “go call your husband” and then used that phrase in a metaphorical sense and challenged my hearers to recognize the “husbands” in their own lives (that is the symptoms in their own lives that are expressive of their spiritual thirst and need for salvation)…
Sorry went to preaching there… but at any rate you are right to question Bob’s accuracy, but his point still has relevance. Many pastor’s these days do seem to have a hard time talking about sin in general and sexual sin in particular…
December 22nd, 2011 | 9:54 am
The woman’s sin is not the most important thing about this pericope (Jesus, always Jesus), but the passage makes little sense without significant reference to it.
david c,
Actually, the last interesting analysis I read about this story was filled with symbolism to the point where I wonder if it was intended to be a story about a personal encounter between Jesus and a Samaritan woman.
December 22nd, 2011 | 10:46 am
David N,
“Interesting” and exegetically justifiable are two different things in my (Reformed Protestant) book. In my experience, many “interesting” or “new” interpretations of well known Biblical passages seem to have the intent of trying to get away from issues like “sin” or “judgment” so as to tickle the contemporary ear or avoid offense. A general rule of thumb in Biblical interpretation (and I think this would hold for Roman Catholics as well as Protestants) is that novelty is often (not always but often enough) a synonym for “misleading”.
December 22nd, 2011 | 11:31 am
david c.,
I did not say “novel.” The following is actually not what I read, but it illustrates my point. It’s from A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature:
The analysis I read took the woman to represent Samaria itself, with the five husbands representing the five pagan peoples, mentioned in 2 Kgs 17:24, who had come to Samaria with
their false gods.
I am not terribly sympathetic to the allegorical interpretations of scripture like the one by Origen above, but nevertheless the Gospel of John is unquestionably full of symbolism, and the question naturally arises as to whether stories filled with symbolism actually happened as related in the Gospel and God miraculously caused them to be both true and symbolic, or whether the stories were written as, or morphed into, pure theology and are more appropriately read as not being historical.
It is always a pleasure to exchange ideas with you, and I hope you have a Merry Christmas.
December 22nd, 2011 | 1:01 pm
David N,
I have a respect for the Patristic tradition and more room in my exegetical interpretive framework than I did as a graduate out fresh out of seminary 25 years ago so I get what you mean, but for me at least, this passage seems to relate an historical occurrence rather than being an allegory for something else. There’s allegory or spiritual interpretation enough as it is with Jesus’ self portrayal as the headwaters of “streams flowing to eternal life….”
And btw, I hope I did not offend. I was not intending to convey that you were merely a seeker of the novel or wishing to have your ears tickled — just that I see that as a pronounced tendency in Biblical interpretation these days.
Merry Christmas to you as well….
December 22nd, 2011 | 2:29 pm
It’s no great secret…
It seems only the actual evidence is being kept secret.
“It remains undisputed”, then, if you prefer.
December 22nd, 2011 | 3:26 pm
Blake,
Your original assertion was that “they hand out condoms at middle schools and even elementary schools.” Boonton asked you to name an elementary school where condoms were handed out. There seems to have been one elementary school where this was contemplated, and it made the national news. You have not provided any evidence whatsoever that there are elementary schools where condoms are handed out. You have seem to have quietly dropped that assertion and reformulated it as, “It’s no great secret that public schools are actively promoting inappropriate forms of sexuality among children who are too young to be capable of informed consent.” If you would like to withdraw your assertion that condoms are handed out in elementary schools, please do so. Otherwise, if you want to have a shred of credibility, you need to provide some kind of evidence that condoms are handed out in elementary schools.
December 22nd, 2011 | 11:20 pm
You are right guys. It was the woman taken in adultery that I was referring to (John 8, 11). We Catholics don’t know our Bible! And yes it was Saint Charles Lwanga. I loved reading your very interesting comments. Thanks. I think I’m under some sort of high class, overly scholarly, Dominican spell. It’s like whatever they talk about is almost impossible to relate to the life I live and the serious, real challenges that I face all the time. It’s like like their heads are up you know where. In the mean time almost all my cradle Catholic family has left the Church. I’ve lead a very sinful, unchaste life. Almost everyone I know thinks that abortion, gay marriage, contraception and divorce are just fine. And these Dominicans don’t to seem to care, or even be aware of it. This is the first time I’ve gotten involved in one of these exchanges and I’ve gotten myself so worked up I’m not sleeping well.
December 23rd, 2011 | 6:03 am
Your original assertion was that “they hand out condoms at middle schools and even elementary schools.” Boonton asked you to name an elementary school where condoms were handed out.
Are you saying I’m wrong?
If that’s what you’re saying, then say it.
Don’t single me out as a liar if you’re not willing to stand by it.
December 23rd, 2011 | 6:54 am
There seems to have been one elementary school where this was contemplated, and it made the national news. You have not provided any evidence whatsoever that there are elementary schools where condoms are handed out.
Nobody has given me any reason why I should.
My statement is self-evident. Nobody in their right mind disputes my thesis.
If you want to dispute it, then do.
December 23rd, 2011 | 11:01 am
Nobody has given me any reason why I should.
Blake,
If you write your messages just because you enjoy typing, no one can criticize you. If you expect to be taken at all seriously, you have to offer evidence when you claim something is a fact and people challenge you on it.
My statement is self-evident. Nobody in their right mind disputes my thesis.
Please.
December 23rd, 2011 | 11:37 am
This is the first time I’ve gotten involved in one of these exchanges and I’ve gotten myself so worked up I’m not sleeping well.
Bob,
Years ago, when the personal computer was catching on but ordinary folk did not have Internet access, I belonged to a local “bulletin board” (accessed by modem and phone). There were discussion forums with other bulletin boards at various locations in the US and Canada. Messages were exchanged between locations only once a day, by phone. The most intense argument I ever experienced was back in those days, and it was over circumcision (of all things). Some of the opponents were so violently opposed to circumcision that their messages were filled with rage at anyone who dared defend it. I can’t remember whether or not real names were used, but we were all in different cities or even countries, and the odds of anyone actually meeting anyone else were infinitesimal. Nevertheless, it was so intense that I had the feeling I wasn’t safe. I proposed a truce, and it was accepted, and everyone basically laughed about how intense the discussion was and went on to other topics. I hope you aren’t feeling too unsettled, but I sympathize with you.
Have you ever thought of finding a parish more in tune with your way of thinking?
It has occurred to me a number of times that the number of homilies given in the United States every Sunday must roughly equal the number of priests, which is 46,000. The expense of recording every homily every Sunday, turning it into a podcast, and posting it to the web would be miniscule. I think it is safe to say the average priest gives an average homily, but with 46,000 to choose from, there must be some really excellent homilies out there. Why should people be stuck listening to only the homilies available in their own parish?
I hope you can relax and have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
December 23rd, 2011 | 2:46 pm
If you write your messages just because you enjoy typing, no one can criticize you. If you expect to be taken at all seriously, you have to offer evidence when you claim something is a fact and people challenge you on it.
I view discussion as a form of gathering and sharing knowledge.
I am usually very interested when someone with a sincere opinion disagrees with me. I have changed many of my opinions on important matters based on things that have been said to me in debates (many online); when presented with intelligent counter-arguments, I often end up considering those points – just as I hope that at least some of the time, others might end up considering some of the points I make.
That is why I am not particularly concerned with your approval or your games. I am more concerned with whether you have anything to offer me. So if I am wrong about anything I have said, feel free to tell me where I am wrong, and why. (And, if you believe so sincerely in links and support, feel free to provide your own.)
If you don’t do this, then I can’t help but assume you won’t because you can’t.
I’m not into the games for the sake of playing games, and I’m not particularly concerned with your approval – only with the quality of your arguments.
December 23rd, 2011 | 2:57 pm
Interesting to read the Amazon reviews of that book.
The arguments most of the readers offer are disturbing.
My impression is that, having been damaged themselves, they don’t believe there is any other way to be – innocence, being protected, being sheltered, these things are fantasies, not something that can really occur to kids, and so therefore “protecting” them from sex is ridiculous when of course premature sexualization is “inevitable”. The suggestion is that it’s not possible to protect a child from premature sexualization; it’s only possible to leave them less prepared when the moment comes – as if preparing them for this sexual initiation will make them capable of experiencing it as pleasurable, rather than as a violation.
December 28th, 2011 | 5:00 am
[...] HT: Joe Carter [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact