Homosexuality and the Moral Failure of Higher Education
August 5, 2010
R.R. Reno
Recently, Kenneth Howell, an adjunct professor who worked for Newman Center at the University of Illinois in Champaign/Urbana, was told by his department chair that he could no longer teach there. His offense: explaining and clarifying the Catholic moral teaching on homosexuality while teaching a class on Catholicism. A couple of students complained to the department chair with the usual charge: his moral reasoning is hate speech that creates a hostile environment for gays and lesbians.
Meanwhile, Jennifer Keeton, a student at Augusta State University in Georgia, was forced to undergo "sensitivity training." Her offense: believing Christian teaching on homosexuality. She was told that if she did not change her moral beliefs and affirm homosexuality, she could not graduate with a degree in counseling.
Note the difference. Ken Howell did not insist that students believe or affirm the reasoned Catholic arguments against the moral legitimacy of homosexual acts. Rather, he required students who had chosen to taken an elective course on Catholicism to know and engage those arguments.
But the faculty of the Counselor Education Program at Augusta State apparently requires their students to agree with them. Students must affirm—or at least learn how to appear to affirm—homosexual sex. And the faculty at Augusta State seems to think nothing of intimidating students to ensure that they comply.
The juxtaposition captures one of the most glaring moral failures of higher education in America today, a failure that should be evident to most of us, no matter what we think about the moral status of homosexual acts. When it comes to sexual liberation, a culture of intimidation has taken the place of reason, debate, and civility. The otherwise favored ideal of academic freedom suddenly disappears, to be replaced with other absolutes that seem to demand intellectual submission.
If, like Howell and Keeton, you make any suggestion that homosexual acts are immoral, you are censured and your career is threatened. If you're a pro-gay professor or department, you can censure and intimidate as much as you like.
This seems an impossibly simplistic generalization, but I can’t see how to avoid it. My experience is of course limited, but from what I’ve seen Augusta State is not unique. Professors like those in Augusta State’s counseling department think nothing of withholding credentials and destroying careers, and administrators support them in creating this culture of intimidation.
Advancing the cause of sexual liberation is not negotiable in most of American academia. Graduate students have told me that being labeled as “anti-gay” means getting blackballed when entering the job market. And not just at secular schools. A whisper campaign (“he’s anti-gay”) against a recent candidate for a job in the Notre Dame philosophy department apparently succeeded.
People can be very cruel when they imagine their beliefs to be self-evident, which happens when all dissent is silenced and censured. In a group-think atmosphere, those who disagree are seen as unthinking "fundamentalists" or hateful "bigots." Even the most highly qualified and nuanced moral statements about homosexuality will be denounced as “homophobic” if they fall short of a full and unqualified affirmation of homosexuality.
Sexual liberation seems to have become the great moral cause. It is true that American schools expect ideological homogeneity on all manner of topics, and being pro-life or a person of faith—or even a Republican—can get you in trouble. But homosexuality alone seems to call forth the full repressive power of educational institutions.
On the surface, the culture of intimidation would seem a case of moral passion fused with institutional power. The reasoning goes like this: Gays and lesbians have been an oppressed minority, as blacks have been, and as we resisted racism by banning it where we could, so we should use our positions to ban prejudice against gays and lesbians and to promote equality and inclusion.
However, I’m not convinced. Traditional moral judgments aren’t like the old racists theories. They concern behaviors—the usual focus of moral judgments—not the ontological status of persons as genetically inferior.
I do not dismiss the moral passion felt by many proponents of sexual liberation, misguided as it may be. But I look elsewhere to explain the culture of intimidation, which seems so out of proportion to the cause and so contradictory to their belief in academic freedom.
Perhaps the force of conscience plays a role. St. Paul wrote that the law is written on the gentile’s heart (Rom 2:15). We are in a certain sense hardwired to recognize certain moral truths, however dimly, and the immorality of homosexual activity is one. Our internal censor, our interior sense of shame and guilt, often limits, restrains, and disciplines us as we try to follow our desires, perhaps especially those for sexual liberation.
Thus the need to use a kind of intellectual Agent Orange to destroy even the slightest judgments of immorality, because they reinforce what the voice of conscience keeps telling us, and what we would like to avoid hearing. Those who say that homosexual acts are immoral are oppressors, because their words—however dispassionate, however well-reasoned, however subtly expressed, however concerned for others—agitate consciences and block the free flow of desire.
Indeed, even those who are diffident are under suspicion, because that voice of conscience needs complete support to be suppressed. In the cause of sexual liberation nothing is acceptable short of full affirmation, or at least a scrupulous silence that expresses no reservations.
Sexual liberation is a Gucci freedom. Upper middle class Americans possess the resources to get a great deal of what they want, and part of what they want is sexual liberation. It’s not surprising, therefore, that the modern institution most closely associated with elite culture—higher education—should devote a great deal of energy to removing those who believe in moral limitations.
R.R. Reno is a senior editor at First Things and Professor of Theology at Creighton University. He is the general editor of the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible, to which he contributed the commentary on Genesis.
Comments:
8.5.2010 | 2:17am
John Lamont says:
'I do not dismiss the moral passion felt by many proponents of sexual liberation, misguided as it may be.' Who are you trying to fool with this statement - yourself about the moral status of proponents of homosexuality, or the proponents about your opinion of them? There are two positions on homosexual acts that are currently held. One - call it A) - is that it is a morally innocuous type of activity that can indeed be a valuable expression of love. This is the position of the proponents of sexual liberation. The other - call it B) - is that it is an abomination, a sin crying to heaven for vengeance, as Catholic catechisms describe it, whose wrongness is evident to all and whose practice will bring disaster on the individuals who practise it and the societies that encourage it or look benignly on it. If position A) is true, the moral reprobation directed at holders of position B), and the discrimination practised against them, is justified. For B) will then be a shameful and destructive blackening of the character and behaviour of decent individuals. If position B) is true, the upholders of position A) are doing something they know to be wrong, or should know if they had not culpably obscured the working of their consciences. There can then, given position B), be no 'moral passion' felt by upholders of position A); what they feel is a passion for evil and a hatred of the good. Appeals to academic freedom and reasoned discussion cannot justify the upholding of position B) to believers in position A), and they cannot justify the upholding of position A) to believers in position B). Such appeals presuppose that the position in question has some basic level of rational and moral defensibility. But that is just what A) implies that B) does not have, and vice versa. The idea that proponents and opponents of sexual 'liberation' can just get along is thus quite false. The upholders of sexual liberation realise this and enforce it; there is no point and no reason in telling them otherwise. If they are to be combatted, it can only be on the substance of their claims about sexual activity; appeals to reason, academic freedom, and freedom of speech will get nowhere.
8.5.2010 | 6:18am
Dave Mullenix says:
Where can we see what professor Kenneth Howell wrote to his students? You say that he was just explaining and clarifying the Catholic position. If so, he's innocent, but I'd like to see what he wrote before just taking somebody's word on it.
8.5.2010 | 8:31am
JohnnyBoy says:
Love the sinner but hate the sin. But when the sin is so aggressively and brutally advocated by its adherents to those with and those lacking discernment (including our innocents) it's so hard to love the sinners that I wonder if being loved is what they want. One could feel sorry for Satan for being banished forever, but not when he is working hard to drag down everybody with him. It seems to me that homosexuality is a cult akin to a religion and sodomy is the sacrament. And I think the State's advocating the cult of sodomy runs afoul of the equal protection argument that is applied against worshippers of God.
8.5.2010 | 8:52am
Ars Artium says:
Some changes are better than others. I notice the by-line, "R. R. Reno Thursday". If this is to be a permanent feature, Thursday has been nicely transformed to something more than the day before Friday.
8.5.2010 | 8:55am
Michael says:
I disagree with John Lamont.
A society does not train its citizens in virtue, by depriving them of the opportunity to exercise choice; nor is the cause of truth advanced by silencing error, but, rather by exposing it to refutation.
I may regard my neighbour’s worship idolatrous, his rites sacrilegious and his teachings blasphemous; but, unless they are a threat to public order, I can content myself with the pious reflection, “deorum iniuria, diis cura,” and have no wish to make him the subject of legal restriction or social opprobrium. I shall, nevertheless, consider myself free to hold and express my opinion of his errors, as he is free to denounce what he sees as mine.
Why should the same not hold true of his sexual preferences?
A society does not train its citizens in virtue, by depriving them of the opportunity to exercise choice; nor is the cause of truth advanced by silencing error, but, rather by exposing it to refutation.
I may regard my neighbour’s worship idolatrous, his rites sacrilegious and his teachings blasphemous; but, unless they are a threat to public order, I can content myself with the pious reflection, “deorum iniuria, diis cura,” and have no wish to make him the subject of legal restriction or social opprobrium. I shall, nevertheless, consider myself free to hold and express my opinion of his errors, as he is free to denounce what he sees as mine.
Why should the same not hold true of his sexual preferences?
8.5.2010 | 8:59am
Joel Clarke Gibbons says:
This is one of the central social conflicts of these times. A small, privileged minority -- Professor Laumann of the U of Chicago places the number at around 1.5% of the population -- wants to hijack the law and the majority chafe under this oppression.
The entrenched power of the minority is great enough, as evidenced the cases cited by Mr. Reno, that the confrontation is almost sure to be very hot. I admire Mr. Lamont's candor in this regard. But when a known homosexual judge in Federal District Court can dismiss the votes of millions of Californians on the definition of Their marriages, there is no longer any way to duck it.
Let's start by agreeing to this: Love is not something you either have or don't have. The love between man and wife on the day of their wedding is comparatively unimportant. What matters is the love they will create, the love that will grow between them in the years and decades that follow. So for gays to say they "love" each other and want to marry, that claim is misguided. Do they want the support of the law and the community to grow in love, to become "in love?" The evidence of the lives of homosexuals rejects that claim.
They think that love is something. They think it is like roast beef. Delicious and probably nutritious while it lasts. A fleeting phantom in the night. But we have to make the broader argument. We have to make the case telling what marriage is; what every marriage is. It is the promise of fidelity sanctioned by the community. That foolish judge in California should understand that his sanction is irrelevant. What the community sanctions is sanctioned and what it rejects is rejected.
If he thinks it is up to him to define the marriage of my wife and I, he is mad fool who has taken leave of his senses.
The entrenched power of the minority is great enough, as evidenced the cases cited by Mr. Reno, that the confrontation is almost sure to be very hot. I admire Mr. Lamont's candor in this regard. But when a known homosexual judge in Federal District Court can dismiss the votes of millions of Californians on the definition of Their marriages, there is no longer any way to duck it.
Let's start by agreeing to this: Love is not something you either have or don't have. The love between man and wife on the day of their wedding is comparatively unimportant. What matters is the love they will create, the love that will grow between them in the years and decades that follow. So for gays to say they "love" each other and want to marry, that claim is misguided. Do they want the support of the law and the community to grow in love, to become "in love?" The evidence of the lives of homosexuals rejects that claim.
They think that love is something. They think it is like roast beef. Delicious and probably nutritious while it lasts. A fleeting phantom in the night. But we have to make the broader argument. We have to make the case telling what marriage is; what every marriage is. It is the promise of fidelity sanctioned by the community. That foolish judge in California should understand that his sanction is irrelevant. What the community sanctions is sanctioned and what it rejects is rejected.
If he thinks it is up to him to define the marriage of my wife and I, he is mad fool who has taken leave of his senses.
8.5.2010 | 9:02am
John Bequette says:
"If position A) is true, the moral reprobation directed at holders of position B), and the discrimination practised against them, is justified. For B) will then be a shameful and destructive blackening of the character and behaviour of decent individuals." Listen, John. Living in a free society involves listening to opinions that we may, from time to time, find offensive. Even if such an opinion cuts us me to the quick, the condition for the preservation of my freedom is the extension of that same freedom to my opponent, even if he/she is a typically bitter, venomous advocate of homosexual marriage. In short, living in a free society requires me to have thick skin.
So much for a free society.
So much for a free society.
8.5.2010 | 9:12am
L.Long says:
So you claim....
We are in a certain sense hardwired to recognize certain moral truths, however dimly, and the immorality of homosexual activity is one.
Which means that if you feel something is wrong when it is wrong for everyone.
That seems rather arrogant and self centered on your part.
But following your logic above ....
We are all self wired to love and appreciate our beautiful bodies, so it is self evident that nudity is the only true way to be ...so everyone should agree.
As you will say that is silly. Sure. For ME to say that, but not YOU??
On a positive note...
IF the events in the class are as you describe and it was about catholic dogma then I agree that it is a shame Howell was released. Free discussion is a must in college. I think it should be done in HS too, but fat chance of that.
Jennifer Keeton is trying for a degree in counseling so she has to meet their requirements. Don't like it? Quit and go somewhere else, there are places that give degrees and hate fags too. I wanted a BS in Electronics but felt that I shouldn't be force to know math, and they refused and kicked me out. bunch of closed minded boars!! But I went somewhere else, found a place in Bermuda that gave me a BS with no problems.
We are in a certain sense hardwired to recognize certain moral truths, however dimly, and the immorality of homosexual activity is one.
Which means that if you feel something is wrong when it is wrong for everyone.
That seems rather arrogant and self centered on your part.
But following your logic above ....
We are all self wired to love and appreciate our beautiful bodies, so it is self evident that nudity is the only true way to be ...so everyone should agree.
As you will say that is silly. Sure. For ME to say that, but not YOU??
On a positive note...
IF the events in the class are as you describe and it was about catholic dogma then I agree that it is a shame Howell was released. Free discussion is a must in college. I think it should be done in HS too, but fat chance of that.
Jennifer Keeton is trying for a degree in counseling so she has to meet their requirements. Don't like it? Quit and go somewhere else, there are places that give degrees and hate fags too. I wanted a BS in Electronics but felt that I shouldn't be force to know math, and they refused and kicked me out. bunch of closed minded boars!! But I went somewhere else, found a place in Bermuda that gave me a BS with no problems.
8.5.2010 | 9:12am
Susan Kehoe says:
John Lamont,
If I understand you correctly, you believe that the Catholic Church condones discrimination against homosexuals. This is false. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states (#2358):
"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."
If I understand you correctly, you believe that the Catholic Church condones discrimination against homosexuals. This is false. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states (#2358):
"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."
8.5.2010 | 9:20am
Brian H says:
John Lamont displays the usual tactics of the left, wittingly or unwittingly, by misrepresenting the Catholic position on homosexuality. It is not "an abomination", and the Church specifically has stated that. Rather, homosexual *practices* are a sin.
Further, the the gay agenda is not a "morally innocuous type of activity", because it seeks to proselytize. Were it merely innocuous, gays would be content with civil partnerships and attendant rights to inheritance, health care etc.
Instead, in their demand for "marriage", the gay lobby and their fellow travelers are trying to convince the 95% of us who are heterosexual that they are no different to us. Anyone, it appears, who recognizes a difference is a bigot.
An unfortunate aspect of liberals and lefties is that they truly feel they are enlightened, and morally superior. In consequence, any opponents of their agenda are dullards, bigots, and generally "bad" people. As a result, the gloves are off and anything goes in the war against Republicans, Conservatives, Catholics - and, frankly, anyone who does not subscribe to their group think.
Further, the the gay agenda is not a "morally innocuous type of activity", because it seeks to proselytize. Were it merely innocuous, gays would be content with civil partnerships and attendant rights to inheritance, health care etc.
Instead, in their demand for "marriage", the gay lobby and their fellow travelers are trying to convince the 95% of us who are heterosexual that they are no different to us. Anyone, it appears, who recognizes a difference is a bigot.
An unfortunate aspect of liberals and lefties is that they truly feel they are enlightened, and morally superior. In consequence, any opponents of their agenda are dullards, bigots, and generally "bad" people. As a result, the gloves are off and anything goes in the war against Republicans, Conservatives, Catholics - and, frankly, anyone who does not subscribe to their group think.
8.5.2010 | 9:22am
Nancy D. says:
Love is not possessive. (Filioque)
The essence of sexual liberation is the desire for the sexual objectification of the Human Person. One should not be surprised that intimidation is used by those who seek to possess rather than Love their fellow Human Beings. To define oneself or someone else as an object of sexual desire (heterosexual, homosexual, etc.) is demeaning and does not reflect the inherent Dignity of the Human Person which is endowed to us by God, Who created us Male and Female, in His Image.
The essence of sexual liberation is the desire for the sexual objectification of the Human Person. One should not be surprised that intimidation is used by those who seek to possess rather than Love their fellow Human Beings. To define oneself or someone else as an object of sexual desire (heterosexual, homosexual, etc.) is demeaning and does not reflect the inherent Dignity of the Human Person which is endowed to us by God, Who created us Male and Female, in His Image.
8.5.2010 | 9:24am
Benjamin LaBadie says:
@John Lamont
I disagree with your statement: " If position B) is true, the upholders of position A) are doing something they know to be wrong, or should know if they had not culpably obscured the working of their consciences. There can then, given position B), be no 'moral passion' felt by upholders of position A); what they feel is a passion for evil and a hatred of the good."
I think that Professor Reno is correct in acknowledging the moral passion of those you grouped into position A, even if he is on the side of position B. The reason is that people often commit wrong actions despite finding some good in their decisions; in other words, no one commits a wrong just for the sake of doing something wrong (a la Socrates). Usually people commit some wrong act thinking that there is some good that comes from it although their idea of good may be misleading. For example, if a man steals a loaf of bread, he does not do so simply just to steal it for evil's sake. Instead, he steals the loaf of bread because he may need to feed himself or his family; in other words, he commits a wrong action because he thinks that there is some good in doing so. Another example is the Pro-Choice movement. No one who is Pro-Choice is Pro-Abortion which is to say that those on the Pro-Choice side do not believe that the termination of a fetus is in itself a good thing nor do they believe that such a termination should be done just for evil's sake. Instead, those on the Pro-Choice side believe that it is a greater good for a woman to decide for herself even at the expense of a developing life within her. In other words, Pro-Choice defenders hold their positions out of a desire for good, even if that desire is misguided. The same goes for all the academic institutions who fire those holding Christian beliefs about marriage. Such institutions do so because they think that there is some good in what they are doing: they don't fire someone just evil's sake.
In sum, I think that your critique of Professor Reno is inaccurate because you assume that if his position (Position B) is right, then all on position B must hold that those on position A have a passion for evil and hatred of good. Such a view is incorrect since no one has a passion for evil and a hatred of good because everyone pursues the good even though they may commit evil actions due to ignorance and misguidance.
On a smaller note, would you mind showing me where in the Catechism it states that homosexuality cries out to heaven for God's vengeance? I can see the Church saying that homosexuality is a sin, but asking for God's wrath upon homosexuals seems too extreme for the Church.
I disagree with your statement: " If position B) is true, the upholders of position A) are doing something they know to be wrong, or should know if they had not culpably obscured the working of their consciences. There can then, given position B), be no 'moral passion' felt by upholders of position A); what they feel is a passion for evil and a hatred of the good."
I think that Professor Reno is correct in acknowledging the moral passion of those you grouped into position A, even if he is on the side of position B. The reason is that people often commit wrong actions despite finding some good in their decisions; in other words, no one commits a wrong just for the sake of doing something wrong (a la Socrates). Usually people commit some wrong act thinking that there is some good that comes from it although their idea of good may be misleading. For example, if a man steals a loaf of bread, he does not do so simply just to steal it for evil's sake. Instead, he steals the loaf of bread because he may need to feed himself or his family; in other words, he commits a wrong action because he thinks that there is some good in doing so. Another example is the Pro-Choice movement. No one who is Pro-Choice is Pro-Abortion which is to say that those on the Pro-Choice side do not believe that the termination of a fetus is in itself a good thing nor do they believe that such a termination should be done just for evil's sake. Instead, those on the Pro-Choice side believe that it is a greater good for a woman to decide for herself even at the expense of a developing life within her. In other words, Pro-Choice defenders hold their positions out of a desire for good, even if that desire is misguided. The same goes for all the academic institutions who fire those holding Christian beliefs about marriage. Such institutions do so because they think that there is some good in what they are doing: they don't fire someone just evil's sake.
In sum, I think that your critique of Professor Reno is inaccurate because you assume that if his position (Position B) is right, then all on position B must hold that those on position A have a passion for evil and hatred of good. Such a view is incorrect since no one has a passion for evil and a hatred of good because everyone pursues the good even though they may commit evil actions due to ignorance and misguidance.
On a smaller note, would you mind showing me where in the Catechism it states that homosexuality cries out to heaven for God's vengeance? I can see the Church saying that homosexuality is a sin, but asking for God's wrath upon homosexuals seems too extreme for the Church.
8.5.2010 | 9:37am
Emina Melonic says:
Dave Mullenix--you can see professor Howell's email to his students here:
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/religion/2010-07-09/e-mail-prompted-complaint-over-ui-religion-class-instructor.html
As you will see for yourself, hardly a "hate speech," rather an invitation to a dialogue.
Emina
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/religion/2010-07-09/e-mail-prompted-complaint-over-ui-religion-class-instructor.html
As you will see for yourself, hardly a "hate speech," rather an invitation to a dialogue.
Emina
8.5.2010 | 9:48am
Pastor Philip Spomer says:
“It is true that American schools expect ideological homogeneity on all manner of topics, and being pro-life or a person of faith—or even a Republican—can get you in trouble. But homosexuality alone seems to call forth the full repressive power of educational institutions.”
Unless the anti-homosexuality is motivated by Islam.
Unless the anti-homosexuality is motivated by Islam.
8.5.2010 | 9:49am
Matt says:
>>Her offense: believing Christian teaching on homosexuality. She was told that if she did not change her moral beliefs and affirm homosexuality, she could not graduate with a degree in counseling.
8.5.2010 | 9:53am
Brian Jones says:
"So you claim....
We are in a certain sense hardwired to recognize certain moral truths, however dimly, and the immorality of homosexual activity is one.
Which means that if you feel something is wrong when it is wrong for everyone.
That seems rather arrogant and self centered on your part.
But following your logic above ....
We are all self wired to love and appreciate our beautiful bodies, so it is self evident that nudity is the only true way to be ...so everyone should agree.
As you will say that is silly. Sure. For ME to say that, but not YOU??"
L. Long has missed the key word in Reno's text: "recognize." Recognition, or the gift of knowing, is not a feeling. Natural law is a reality apart from Divine Revelation, but is certainly knowable by all. Goodness has to be understood in relation to the nature of a thing, and the specific end of that nature. A good removed or displace from its end undercuts its fulfilling and perfective purpose. For example, the Church teaches that sexual intercourse is a great, transforming good, and can truly lead one to holiness. Following Lon'gs logic would mean that because sex is good, everyone should have sex. This is a logical fallacy. Sex is good when it is ordered to its true end. The goodness of the body has to be understood on anthropological foundation. I don't know how it would be logical to conclude that we should all be nude as a result of the beauty and splendor of the body. Knowing and feeling are two different acts, one being grouded in an objective reality apart from subjective feelings, the latter grounded in the self apart from a standard of moral truth.
We are in a certain sense hardwired to recognize certain moral truths, however dimly, and the immorality of homosexual activity is one.
Which means that if you feel something is wrong when it is wrong for everyone.
That seems rather arrogant and self centered on your part.
But following your logic above ....
We are all self wired to love and appreciate our beautiful bodies, so it is self evident that nudity is the only true way to be ...so everyone should agree.
As you will say that is silly. Sure. For ME to say that, but not YOU??"
L. Long has missed the key word in Reno's text: "recognize." Recognition, or the gift of knowing, is not a feeling. Natural law is a reality apart from Divine Revelation, but is certainly knowable by all. Goodness has to be understood in relation to the nature of a thing, and the specific end of that nature. A good removed or displace from its end undercuts its fulfilling and perfective purpose. For example, the Church teaches that sexual intercourse is a great, transforming good, and can truly lead one to holiness. Following Lon'gs logic would mean that because sex is good, everyone should have sex. This is a logical fallacy. Sex is good when it is ordered to its true end. The goodness of the body has to be understood on anthropological foundation. I don't know how it would be logical to conclude that we should all be nude as a result of the beauty and splendor of the body. Knowing and feeling are two different acts, one being grouded in an objective reality apart from subjective feelings, the latter grounded in the self apart from a standard of moral truth.
8.5.2010 | 9:59am
Steve Petrica says:
Mr. Lamont pulls a rhetorical fast one in the alternative positions he lays out. "A" is couched as a simple, straightforward proposition (homosexual acts are "a morally innocuous type of activity..."), the natural complement to which would be "homosexual acts are NOT a morally innocuous type of activity...". Instead, however, he presents "B" as a series of emotively-laden baroque embroideries ("an abomination ... crying to heaven for vengeance ... whose practice will bring disaster ..."). And he tops it off by ascribing "B" to uncited "Catholic catechisms," when in fact the Catechism of the Catholic Church says nothing of the sort.
This is a straw man argument, the outcome of which is determined by the way he couches the terms. And thus it is a fine example of what Professor Reno is describing when he speaks of "a culture of intimidation has taken the place of reason, debate, and civility." Mr. Lamont does not advance discussion and understanding; he advances the will to power.
This is a straw man argument, the outcome of which is determined by the way he couches the terms. And thus it is a fine example of what Professor Reno is describing when he speaks of "a culture of intimidation has taken the place of reason, debate, and civility." Mr. Lamont does not advance discussion and understanding; he advances the will to power.
8.5.2010 | 10:11am
John Caulfield says:
It is almost certainly true that the positions Mr. Lamont calls A and B are currently held. To suggest, as his construction does, that these are the only positions held, or that his B fairly characterizes the beliefs or attitudes of those who don't agree with A is nonsense.
Although it may be that some Catholic catechisms at some time have described homosexual acts using the language like that cited, it is probably more useful to consider the language of the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is firm in its moral judgement while evidencing a strong pastoral concern:
Paragraphs 2357 & 2358:
"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."
The word abomination doesn't appear in the Catechism. It speaks of murder as a sin that "cries out to heaven for vengeance" - not any other.
Many people would be willing to categorize Mr. Lamont's "B" as "hate speech" - rightly or wrongly, and let's ignore for the moment the entire debate about the legitimacy of such categories and the suppression of such speech. That an academic community applies that label to positions like those cited from the Catechism supports Reno's suspicion that a more complex psychological pressure is at work.
Although it may be that some Catholic catechisms at some time have described homosexual acts using the language like that cited, it is probably more useful to consider the language of the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is firm in its moral judgement while evidencing a strong pastoral concern:
Paragraphs 2357 & 2358:
"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."
The word abomination doesn't appear in the Catechism. It speaks of murder as a sin that "cries out to heaven for vengeance" - not any other.
Many people would be willing to categorize Mr. Lamont's "B" as "hate speech" - rightly or wrongly, and let's ignore for the moment the entire debate about the legitimacy of such categories and the suppression of such speech. That an academic community applies that label to positions like those cited from the Catechism supports Reno's suspicion that a more complex psychological pressure is at work.
8.5.2010 | 10:21am
Steve E says:
Ladies and gentlemen, the price of sin is the same across the board. Homosexuality is a sin plainly written in the Holy Bible. If you choose to follow within that life of sin you will reap the consequences of that sin. Maybe not here but in eternity. The homosexual community is seeking an equality in man's law which we all know is only temporal at best. Do a heart check and focus in on the planks that we all carry in our own eyes before we begin to try and get that speck out of our brothers eye. Until the Church unites as one body in Christ we will continue to see the destruction of society by the people who cry loud enough that more sin is legalized and the destruction of things as we know it will be realized and then my brothers and sisters it will be too late for those who choose the life of sin. They will be sitting outside the gates. Just a thought.
8.5.2010 | 10:35am
Mike Melendez says:
Why do those who claim to be the future seek to throw out the best parts of the Enlightenment and return to the past? Forcing everyone to adopt the religion of the king only worked well in small groups through peer pressure. Nation states become police states when they attempt to enforce uniformity of ideology. I'd like to think we've learned this and moved past it. But here it is again: it's okay, even required, to discriminate if you have been discriminated against. The cause of freedom is fading and slowly falling to those who think only their freedom matters. I hope we wake up and restore our beginning least we collapse into the horrors of the French Revolution.
8.5.2010 | 10:37am
Mr. M. Savage says:
To John Lamont:
However forlorn it may seem, justice demands that one appeals to reason when defending natural law and Devine law.
Firstly, many of ‘good-will’ can be won over and secondly, ‘reasoned’ arguments are recorded for posterity and can serve future generations, just as the many extant arguments against heresies exist for us today.
I agree though that many will not listen to reason for they are deceiving themselves: ‘Man must live as he believes lest he ends up believing as he lives’
And St Paul says: ”Do not be deceived: Neither fornicators... nor adulterers... Nor the effeminate... nor covetous... shall possess the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 9-10).
However forlorn it may seem, justice demands that one appeals to reason when defending natural law and Devine law.
Firstly, many of ‘good-will’ can be won over and secondly, ‘reasoned’ arguments are recorded for posterity and can serve future generations, just as the many extant arguments against heresies exist for us today.
I agree though that many will not listen to reason for they are deceiving themselves: ‘Man must live as he believes lest he ends up believing as he lives’
And St Paul says: ”Do not be deceived: Neither fornicators... nor adulterers... Nor the effeminate... nor covetous... shall possess the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 9-10).
8.5.2010 | 10:43am
Michael says:
And the Lord said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground.” (Gn 4:10)
Sodomy
Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me.” (Gn 18:20-21)
Oppressing Widows & Orphans
“You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you do afflict them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry.” (Ex 21-23)
Defrauding Labourers of their Due
“You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brethren or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns; you shall give him his hire on the day he earns it, before the sun goes down (for he is poor, and sets his heart upon it); lest he cry against you to the Lord, and it be a sin in you.” (Dt 24:14-15)
Note that the same Catechism (in the Douay Translation) defines Sodomy as "The sin of Sodom, or carnal sin against nature, which is a voluntary shedding of the seed of nature, out of the due use of marriage," not confining it to homosexual acts
Sodomy
Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me.” (Gn 18:20-21)
Oppressing Widows & Orphans
“You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you do afflict them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry.” (Ex 21-23)
Defrauding Labourers of their Due
“You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brethren or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns; you shall give him his hire on the day he earns it, before the sun goes down (for he is poor, and sets his heart upon it); lest he cry against you to the Lord, and it be a sin in you.” (Dt 24:14-15)
Note that the same Catechism (in the Douay Translation) defines Sodomy as "The sin of Sodom, or carnal sin against nature, which is a voluntary shedding of the seed of nature, out of the due use of marriage," not confining it to homosexual acts
8.5.2010 | 11:00am
JCM says:
People are born predisposed to be heterosexual or homosexual. Early life experiences tend to solidify these inclinations into inmutable sexual orientation. Choice comes into the equation regarding what one does with one's sexuality. If the choices one makes are informed with fidelity, compassion and love, then the person can be said to be living an honorable life, celibate or not. The Church suffers from two great sins: historical anti-Semiticism and an sexual phobia, stemming perhaps from Augustine. Vatican II went along way in addressing the first. The Church is losing its battle to hide the second. The Church hierachy is essentially homosexual. The hipocrisy is there for all to see. All the catechisms in the world only make the obvious risible.
8.5.2010 | 11:02am
George T says:
1) Kenneth Howell's firing was a violation of his academic freedom. And now he's been reinstated:
http://cbs2chicago.com/wireapnewsil/Excerpts.from.recent.2.1843131.html
2) Jennifer Keaton was taking a degree in COUNSELING. No matter what you believe, there are people who are homosexual. An important aspect of counseling is being objective. If you have a homosexual patient, and you are counseling him/her, you will have to curb whatever your views are on homosexuality so that you can remain objective, just as if you would have to curb personal views of hating people who wear silly bandz or own dogs. You can still think homosexuality is a sin, but you shouldn't let that interfere with your job as a counselor. ASU is training people to become PROFESSIONAL counselors, so having her take classes on "sensitivity" was probably a good idea since she evidently couldn't be objective.
In a world where there's so many things wrong, focusing on the sin of homosexuality is pointless. We should be spending more time focusing in on sins such as greed and sloth (look at Corporate America) and trying to end poverty rather than trying to stop homosexuality. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought somewhere in the Bible Jesus mentioned something about compassion...
http://cbs2chicago.com/wireapnewsil/Excerpts.from.recent.2.1843131.html
2) Jennifer Keaton was taking a degree in COUNSELING. No matter what you believe, there are people who are homosexual. An important aspect of counseling is being objective. If you have a homosexual patient, and you are counseling him/her, you will have to curb whatever your views are on homosexuality so that you can remain objective, just as if you would have to curb personal views of hating people who wear silly bandz or own dogs. You can still think homosexuality is a sin, but you shouldn't let that interfere with your job as a counselor. ASU is training people to become PROFESSIONAL counselors, so having her take classes on "sensitivity" was probably a good idea since she evidently couldn't be objective.
In a world where there's so many things wrong, focusing on the sin of homosexuality is pointless. We should be spending more time focusing in on sins such as greed and sloth (look at Corporate America) and trying to end poverty rather than trying to stop homosexuality. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought somewhere in the Bible Jesus mentioned something about compassion...
8.5.2010 | 11:23am
Mark says:
I certainly agree with the points made about academic freedom although I would add that many on the right who claim to be in favor of academic freedom seem to stop that support when it comes to Peter Singer.
That point aside, I think Reno is being excessively abstract and academic when contrasting racism to anti-gay sentiment: "[Moral judgments] concern behaviors—the usual focus of moral judgments—not the ontological status of persons as genetically inferior."
That's true, but try telling it to Matthew Shepard's family, someone who endured beatings and abuse in school for being suspected of being gay, someone who has terminated from his job for being "outed" or someone who has to endure yells of "faggot" or "dyke" in certain parts of town.
I don't mean to impute these behaviors to everyone who holds these "traditional moral judgments" but rather to point out that from the perspective of someone on the other end of this, the racism/homophobia distinction is thin gruel. Moreover, it would be excessively obtuse to deny any connection between these "traditional moral judgments" and the behavior I outlined. To deny the connection is like denying that Che Guevara was motivated by Communist ideas when he was busy executing dissidents.
I do think human nature has its limits and, accordingly, I do not believe in the idea that a society can simultaneously condemn certain kinds of conduct while being kind and charitable to those who routinely engage in it. Yes, that idea is part of Christianity but it is exactly one of those unattainable ideas that Christians have to always ask forgiveness for when they miss the mark.
In the real world, we really have to make a simple decision about which phenomenon is worse: hatred and bigotry directed toward homosexuals or homosexual sex. I think the former is worse. Others are free to disagree. However, do not be surprised when you do not find sympathy from those who have been on the receiving end of this bigotry.
That point aside, I think Reno is being excessively abstract and academic when contrasting racism to anti-gay sentiment: "[Moral judgments] concern behaviors—the usual focus of moral judgments—not the ontological status of persons as genetically inferior."
That's true, but try telling it to Matthew Shepard's family, someone who endured beatings and abuse in school for being suspected of being gay, someone who has terminated from his job for being "outed" or someone who has to endure yells of "faggot" or "dyke" in certain parts of town.
I don't mean to impute these behaviors to everyone who holds these "traditional moral judgments" but rather to point out that from the perspective of someone on the other end of this, the racism/homophobia distinction is thin gruel. Moreover, it would be excessively obtuse to deny any connection between these "traditional moral judgments" and the behavior I outlined. To deny the connection is like denying that Che Guevara was motivated by Communist ideas when he was busy executing dissidents.
I do think human nature has its limits and, accordingly, I do not believe in the idea that a society can simultaneously condemn certain kinds of conduct while being kind and charitable to those who routinely engage in it. Yes, that idea is part of Christianity but it is exactly one of those unattainable ideas that Christians have to always ask forgiveness for when they miss the mark.
In the real world, we really have to make a simple decision about which phenomenon is worse: hatred and bigotry directed toward homosexuals or homosexual sex. I think the former is worse. Others are free to disagree. However, do not be surprised when you do not find sympathy from those who have been on the receiving end of this bigotry.
8.5.2010 | 11:24am
Houghton Grandmal says:
If George T. believes that the required "sensitivity sessions" are going to be objective and morally neutral, I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona for him. What the pro-gay counseling program administrators are saying is that one cannot be a traditional Christian and be objective but that one can be a gay ideologue and set it aside to counsel. Ten to one the Christian woman would do a far better job of setting aside than those who condemned her to sensitivity slavery. Liberal fascism, it's called. And it's real. I've seen it operate again and again and again and again and again and again in universities. All the violations of academic freedom I have seen in 30 years in academia have come from the Left. Every single one of them. No exceptions.
Howell was reinstated (he's a sessional lecturer, so all that "reinstatement" means is that he's hired for the next semester but no guarantee ever--no sessional lecturer has any promise for future semesters) but you missed the fine print: the university exploited this crisis to end the decades-long relationship between the Newman Center and the university. Henceforth the university, not the Newman Center pays Howell's salary. When they want to put an end to Newman Center courses, they now can do so readily. It was a pyrrhic victory.
Howell was reinstated (he's a sessional lecturer, so all that "reinstatement" means is that he's hired for the next semester but no guarantee ever--no sessional lecturer has any promise for future semesters) but you missed the fine print: the university exploited this crisis to end the decades-long relationship between the Newman Center and the university. Henceforth the university, not the Newman Center pays Howell's salary. When they want to put an end to Newman Center courses, they now can do so readily. It was a pyrrhic victory.
8.5.2010 | 11:42am
JPF says:
George T.: It seems, by your logic, that someone who would be expected to counsel homosexuals needs to be free of any and all opinions about homosexuality, in order to give good, unbiased counsel. You say that what's important is being OBJECTIVE--by which I guess you mean being free of any formed opinions. That would mean that a favorable view of homosexuality is just as wrong dangerous as a dim view of homosexuality. But of course that's silly. No one can be altogether free of opinions about such matters. You can counsel drug addicts and help them while recognizing the harm done by addiction much better than you could if you favored drug addiction or were a drug addict yourself. You can help someone deal with depression without having a high opinion of depression or bi-polar disorder. And there's nothing about a critical view of homosexuality that makes it difficult to help homosexuals.
8.5.2010 | 12:56pm
David says:
As Saint Padre Pio said, "Pray, hope, and don't worry. Worry is useless. God is merciful and will hear your prayer."
Follow the truth of the Holy Church. Do not let anyone sway you from your convictions. No matter what the threat; stand fast. Love and obey the Church. Also, stay close to the Vigin Mother. As a mother hen will protect her chicks by covering them with her own body, Mary will her children in her mantle.
Follow the truth of the Holy Church. Do not let anyone sway you from your convictions. No matter what the threat; stand fast. Love and obey the Church. Also, stay close to the Vigin Mother. As a mother hen will protect her chicks by covering them with her own body, Mary will her children in her mantle.
8.5.2010 | 1:13pm
DavidB says:
Once more the forces of Political Correctness are running rampant -- but it's the right wing who are the Politically Correct. Looking at the very helpful link provided by Emina Melonic, virtually everything that Mr. Reno said about what Prof. Howell said is wrong! I draw your attention to this quote from the above link:
"As a final note, a perceptive reader will have noticed that none of what I have said here or in class depends upon religion. Catholics don't arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality"
So it seems that Prof. Howell was not simply teaching the teachings of the Catholic Church, he was presenting a view point as being objectively correct based up a "thorough understanding of natural reality". But whose natural reality? Prof. Howell's, of course. He understands natural reality one way, I understand it another way (according to natural law, is sexual intercourse OK between a married man and woman if either is sterile? What if Prof. Howell is wrong when he writes elsewhere in the same article, "To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the "woman" while the other acts as the "man." -- if he is wrong, then precisely what makes their actions immoral?)
"As a final note, a perceptive reader will have noticed that none of what I have said here or in class depends upon religion. Catholics don't arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality"
So it seems that Prof. Howell was not simply teaching the teachings of the Catholic Church, he was presenting a view point as being objectively correct based up a "thorough understanding of natural reality". But whose natural reality? Prof. Howell's, of course. He understands natural reality one way, I understand it another way (according to natural law, is sexual intercourse OK between a married man and woman if either is sterile? What if Prof. Howell is wrong when he writes elsewhere in the same article, "To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the "woman" while the other acts as the "man." -- if he is wrong, then precisely what makes their actions immoral?)
8.5.2010 | 1:15pm
Pat says:
So why do so many conservatives keep sending their children to these awful schools? (and why do so many of them believe that these schools can give their children a good education?)
Why not send them to a place that will actually give them a good education like Baylor University, Thomas Aquinas College or Belmont Abbey College?
If conservatives stopped acting like Harvard was the greatest place on earth, peoplel would soon realize that many of these schools simply give a sub-par education.
Why not send them to a place that will actually give them a good education like Baylor University, Thomas Aquinas College or Belmont Abbey College?
If conservatives stopped acting like Harvard was the greatest place on earth, peoplel would soon realize that many of these schools simply give a sub-par education.
8.5.2010 | 1:33pm
Houghton Grandmal says:
Dr. Howell is guilty of a great sin: he left out the word "merely." He was writing an email. Does DavidB really believe that Howell was trying to say that Catholics don't arrive at their beliefe based on their faith? That would be absurd. But it makes perfect sense to say (and Catholic teaching says) that Catholic beliefs about a lot of things are arrived at both by Catholic teaching AND natural law. Homsexual issues are one of those "both" instances. Now the doctrine of the Trinity is arrived at purely on religious grounds, though it is not contrary to reason.
Yeah, he should have put in "merely." Then DavidB would have to address substantive issues.
But if one reads the entire email, it's pretty darn clear that Howell was making a natural law argument, which he distinguished from a utilitarian argument. Natural law argument-making is indeed a very important part of Catholic moral theology.
But not of Homosexual Dogma.
Yeah, he should have put in "merely." Then DavidB would have to address substantive issues.
But if one reads the entire email, it's pretty darn clear that Howell was making a natural law argument, which he distinguished from a utilitarian argument. Natural law argument-making is indeed a very important part of Catholic moral theology.
But not of Homosexual Dogma.
8.5.2010 | 1:42pm
fred lapides says:
The real academic failure is in the person posting this so-called "juxtoposition."
In fact, the grad student was getting a degree to practise therapy. The accrediting group for that discipline has, among its standards, the idea that homosexuality is not good nor bad, is seldom a willful choice, and that therapists ought council the client for whatever issues might be causing emotional pain to the person. The student decided that she could not accept those standards and now is suing.
This is like a person getting a degree in medicine and in the operating room deciding that applying leeches will do for a brain tumor...
You do not approve of the standards of the field you are interested in? Leave that field. Those standards in this instance apply to any similar program in any American university.
In fact, the grad student was getting a degree to practise therapy. The accrediting group for that discipline has, among its standards, the idea that homosexuality is not good nor bad, is seldom a willful choice, and that therapists ought council the client for whatever issues might be causing emotional pain to the person. The student decided that she could not accept those standards and now is suing.
This is like a person getting a degree in medicine and in the operating room deciding that applying leeches will do for a brain tumor...
You do not approve of the standards of the field you are interested in? Leave that field. Those standards in this instance apply to any similar program in any American university.
8.5.2010 | 1:54pm
Tristian says:
Though he goes off the rails in the second half of his piece, Reno has identified a real problem in academia. Consider the juxtaposition of the following. First, religious speech, beliefs, and practices enjoy fundamental constitutional protections. Second, it is increasingly typical for colleges and universities to include sexual orientation as a protected category when it comes to anti-discrimination policies. Third, in response colleges and universities have become increasingly committed to guaranteeing explicitly a workplace that is secure and comfortable to all--driven initially by real fears of lawsuits about sexual harassment, this means in practice that actions which even *unintentionally* offend or make students or employees feel “uncomfortable” are treated as potentially actionable. Put these together and you create and environment in which all it takes is for one student or employee to charge that they are made to feel uncomfortable by someone’s constitutionally protected opinion that homosexual acts are immoral and you have legal, political, and public relations mess on your hands. This is, I would argue, basically what lies behind the debacle at UIUC.
Things are exacerbated by a history that makes it inevitable that gays and lesbians will be upset by open condemnations of homosexuality in their workplaces and classrooms. Gays and lesbians have historically not always been treated very nicely, and they remain the subject of overt discrimination (e.g. in the military). Contrary to Reno’s self serving analysis this is not about 'sexual liberation.' Nor are gays and lesbians being overly sensitive or defensive or self-deceptive in not wanting respond patiently to what conservative Christians have to say about homosexuality. Those ideas, as a matter of simple historical fact, have been used to defend unjust practices that have harmed gays and lesbians. When we create a political and legal order in which this is no longer a worry, I think those who disagree will be quite happy to ignore, argue with, or otherwise engage more traditional ideas about sexual morality as they see fit.
Things are exacerbated by a history that makes it inevitable that gays and lesbians will be upset by open condemnations of homosexuality in their workplaces and classrooms. Gays and lesbians have historically not always been treated very nicely, and they remain the subject of overt discrimination (e.g. in the military). Contrary to Reno’s self serving analysis this is not about 'sexual liberation.' Nor are gays and lesbians being overly sensitive or defensive or self-deceptive in not wanting respond patiently to what conservative Christians have to say about homosexuality. Those ideas, as a matter of simple historical fact, have been used to defend unjust practices that have harmed gays and lesbians. When we create a political and legal order in which this is no longer a worry, I think those who disagree will be quite happy to ignore, argue with, or otherwise engage more traditional ideas about sexual morality as they see fit.
8.5.2010 | 1:57pm
Peter Kenny says:
I recently read an essay by Eric Voegelin, an Austrian-born philosopher (he left there in 1938), entitled "Science, Politics & Gnosticism". I won't go into his theory that a revived Gnosticism is responsible for such modern thinkers as Hegel, Marx and Nietzsche-- just what he says about one feature of their systems-- "the prohibition of questions":
"... there has emerged a phenomenon unknown to antiquity that permeates our modern society so completely that its ubiquity scarcely leaves us any room to see it at all: the prohibition of questioning. This is not a matter of resistance to analysis—that existed in antiquity as well. It does not involve those who cling to opinions by reason of tradition or emotion, or those who engage in debate in a naive confidence in the rightness of their opinions and who take the offensive only when analysis unnerves them. Rather, we are confronted here with persons who know that, and why, their opinions cannot stand up under critical analysis and who therefore make the prohibition of the examination of their premises part of their dogma. This position of a conscious, deliberate, and painstakingly elaborated obstruction of ratio constitutes the new phenomenon."
Voegelin calls such deluded and deluding system-builders "intellectual swindlers". But they seem on a roll now as they redefine & remold our society and our institutions.
"... there has emerged a phenomenon unknown to antiquity that permeates our modern society so completely that its ubiquity scarcely leaves us any room to see it at all: the prohibition of questioning. This is not a matter of resistance to analysis—that existed in antiquity as well. It does not involve those who cling to opinions by reason of tradition or emotion, or those who engage in debate in a naive confidence in the rightness of their opinions and who take the offensive only when analysis unnerves them. Rather, we are confronted here with persons who know that, and why, their opinions cannot stand up under critical analysis and who therefore make the prohibition of the examination of their premises part of their dogma. This position of a conscious, deliberate, and painstakingly elaborated obstruction of ratio constitutes the new phenomenon."
Voegelin calls such deluded and deluding system-builders "intellectual swindlers". But they seem on a roll now as they redefine & remold our society and our institutions.
8.5.2010 | 2:07pm
Mike Melendez says:
@Mark
You appear to be reasoning through these issues. I, for one, appreciate that. I offer you food for thought.
1. You appear to agree with Mr Reno's point on morality when you consider how some gays have been treated. The actions matter and, in this case, are judged immoral. I wonder if you see that.
2. You observe "Others are free to disagree." perhaps in an offhanded manner when that is exactly the point at issue here. That freedom is being removed. If you truly believe your comment you might adopt Evelyn Beatrice Hall's summary of Voltaire's approach, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
You appear to be reasoning through these issues. I, for one, appreciate that. I offer you food for thought.
1. You appear to agree with Mr Reno's point on morality when you consider how some gays have been treated. The actions matter and, in this case, are judged immoral. I wonder if you see that.
2. You observe "Others are free to disagree." perhaps in an offhanded manner when that is exactly the point at issue here. That freedom is being removed. If you truly believe your comment you might adopt Evelyn Beatrice Hall's summary of Voltaire's approach, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
8.5.2010 | 2:26pm
Bob G says:
That was a beautifully nuanced and delicate summary by Prof. Reno. Bravo!
But Mr. Lamont may be correct as well: the struggle won’t be resolved by reason, however defined, but by wider social forces.
If society prospers under the homosexualist regime, that side will win, for a while. But if our society pays an increasing material price for such innovation, the older moral order may substantially come back. As we know the traditional family structure has almost collapsed. Only people with traditional views about marriage are keeping it going. We know that Prof. Fred Zimmerman showed a long time ago that societies that depart from that structure go down. If we start down (materially), and the descent gains momentum, we might still be able to claw back. Or one hopes so.
But Mr. Lamont may be correct as well: the struggle won’t be resolved by reason, however defined, but by wider social forces.
If society prospers under the homosexualist regime, that side will win, for a while. But if our society pays an increasing material price for such innovation, the older moral order may substantially come back. As we know the traditional family structure has almost collapsed. Only people with traditional views about marriage are keeping it going. We know that Prof. Fred Zimmerman showed a long time ago that societies that depart from that structure go down. If we start down (materially), and the descent gains momentum, we might still be able to claw back. Or one hopes so.
8.5.2010 | 2:34pm
Gil Costello says:
"When it comes to sexual liberation, a culture of intimidation has taken the place of reason, debate, and civility." This is the heart of the matter. The sexual liberationists began with sexual license as the greatest expression of freedom leading to happiness, and when the results of this "greater freedom" started rolling in, they quickly turned to intimidation to keep their agenda of lies rolling. As Hannah Arendt made clear in her essay on totalitarianism, when a group has to advance ideological lies, it can only be done through intimidation, not reason.
They know, for example, that adults are more equipped to reason than children, and that's why sexual liberationists are relentless in going after children in sex education classes at the earliest age and continuing with the repetition of indoctrination all way up into and throughout their stay at the universities. The indoctrination has to be relentless/ongoing and fear-based because it is founded on lies. Here are three popular gay ideological lies:
1) Homosexuality is genetic. The multi-millions of dollars invested in finding the “gay gene" didn't pan out, except in twisted non-scientific arguments that turn their “indications” of a gay gene into nothing but fool’s gold. Yet educators continue to teach children that homosexuality is genetic in origin. And this lie allows gays to equate their struggle with African Americans who were discriminated against based on positive genetic features. The gay gene lie becomes another racist assault on African Americans, equating their very real struggle against racist, genetic lies with a person’s plight to establish a genetic lie to advance not only the acceptance his sexual addictions, but to indoctrinate children into experimenting with that behavior to “discover if they, too, are sexually repressed gay persons”.
2) There aren't any sexual behaviors endemic to a gay lifestyle that in any way differ from heterosexual sexual behaviors. This lie is actually a half truth. Behaviors common in the gay lifestyle like anal sex (including deadly anal intercourse and permanently damaging fisting) are practiced by some heterosexuals, more than ever with the advancing sexual revolution, including an explanation to teens how they can practice it, but heteros know, for example, that anal intercourse is sex that does damage to and humiliates the woman, which excludes any sense of intimacy, because intimacy is never harmful and always abides in respect of the other. Yet gay instructors and "guests" in sex education classes teach children how to have anal sex as a form of intimacy. And those instructors withhold from children the knowledge of how common sado-masochistic sex is in the gay lifestyle, including the psycho-sexual reasons for sado-masochistic sex. In fact, when the famous gay author and columnist Dan Savage wrote a book related to adopting a child, he detailed all the weird sex he and his lover practiced in his home, including sado-masochistic acts. He did this because he was certain it would be found out and he wanted to avoid scandal. My question is why didn’t child protective services prevent him from adopting when he acknowledged his addiction to these sex behaviors? I mean, if two heteros were adopting and said they were intravenous drug users, would they be allowed to adopt? Anal sex is just as life-threatening as intravenous drug use, even moreso, because in intravenous drug use the needles can be cleaned, but there is no way to keep the intestinal track clean. And like intravenous drug using parents, gay couples will be modeling their behaviors and justifying them and even falsely and destructively promoting them as healthy to their children.
3) There is no common penchant for gay men to have sex with children in the gay community, and certainly no philosophy that encourages it. In fact, the gay leadership for decades invited NAMBLA to march in their gay pride parades, distributing philosophical justifications for men engaging children in sex, exactly because they viewed those men as brothers in a committed lifestyle of sexual identity, and stopped its promotion only after the UN in 1995 threatened to not recognize their plight if they continued promoting sex between children and adults. Keep in mind that if you affirm sexual identity (another lie) as reality, then any person addicted to a sexual behavior can only become whole as a person based on fulfilling his sexual desires (why gay priests were the vast majority of abusers of children). I saw a Dr. Phil show where a husband came out as a transgender person, and it was agonizing to watch how even Dr. Phil was participating in destroying the minds of the man's children, not so subtly encouraging them to embrace their dad's sexual identity, something that he was falsely convinced was genetic, that he in fact was a woman trapped in a man’s body.
They know, for example, that adults are more equipped to reason than children, and that's why sexual liberationists are relentless in going after children in sex education classes at the earliest age and continuing with the repetition of indoctrination all way up into and throughout their stay at the universities. The indoctrination has to be relentless/ongoing and fear-based because it is founded on lies. Here are three popular gay ideological lies:
1) Homosexuality is genetic. The multi-millions of dollars invested in finding the “gay gene" didn't pan out, except in twisted non-scientific arguments that turn their “indications” of a gay gene into nothing but fool’s gold. Yet educators continue to teach children that homosexuality is genetic in origin. And this lie allows gays to equate their struggle with African Americans who were discriminated against based on positive genetic features. The gay gene lie becomes another racist assault on African Americans, equating their very real struggle against racist, genetic lies with a person’s plight to establish a genetic lie to advance not only the acceptance his sexual addictions, but to indoctrinate children into experimenting with that behavior to “discover if they, too, are sexually repressed gay persons”.
2) There aren't any sexual behaviors endemic to a gay lifestyle that in any way differ from heterosexual sexual behaviors. This lie is actually a half truth. Behaviors common in the gay lifestyle like anal sex (including deadly anal intercourse and permanently damaging fisting) are practiced by some heterosexuals, more than ever with the advancing sexual revolution, including an explanation to teens how they can practice it, but heteros know, for example, that anal intercourse is sex that does damage to and humiliates the woman, which excludes any sense of intimacy, because intimacy is never harmful and always abides in respect of the other. Yet gay instructors and "guests" in sex education classes teach children how to have anal sex as a form of intimacy. And those instructors withhold from children the knowledge of how common sado-masochistic sex is in the gay lifestyle, including the psycho-sexual reasons for sado-masochistic sex. In fact, when the famous gay author and columnist Dan Savage wrote a book related to adopting a child, he detailed all the weird sex he and his lover practiced in his home, including sado-masochistic acts. He did this because he was certain it would be found out and he wanted to avoid scandal. My question is why didn’t child protective services prevent him from adopting when he acknowledged his addiction to these sex behaviors? I mean, if two heteros were adopting and said they were intravenous drug users, would they be allowed to adopt? Anal sex is just as life-threatening as intravenous drug use, even moreso, because in intravenous drug use the needles can be cleaned, but there is no way to keep the intestinal track clean. And like intravenous drug using parents, gay couples will be modeling their behaviors and justifying them and even falsely and destructively promoting them as healthy to their children.
3) There is no common penchant for gay men to have sex with children in the gay community, and certainly no philosophy that encourages it. In fact, the gay leadership for decades invited NAMBLA to march in their gay pride parades, distributing philosophical justifications for men engaging children in sex, exactly because they viewed those men as brothers in a committed lifestyle of sexual identity, and stopped its promotion only after the UN in 1995 threatened to not recognize their plight if they continued promoting sex between children and adults. Keep in mind that if you affirm sexual identity (another lie) as reality, then any person addicted to a sexual behavior can only become whole as a person based on fulfilling his sexual desires (why gay priests were the vast majority of abusers of children). I saw a Dr. Phil show where a husband came out as a transgender person, and it was agonizing to watch how even Dr. Phil was participating in destroying the minds of the man's children, not so subtly encouraging them to embrace their dad's sexual identity, something that he was falsely convinced was genetic, that he in fact was a woman trapped in a man’s body.
8.5.2010 | 3:04pm
DavidB says:
Re the comment from Houghton Grandmal, I agree that, in the first 3/4 of his email, Dr. Howell was explaining that according to [Catholic] Natural Law, homosexuality is wrong. And If Dr. Howell had just left it there, there be no problem, for as the complainant actually wrote to the university administration (according to http://www.news-gazette.com/news/university-illinois/2010-07-09/instructor-catholicism-ui-claims-loss-job-violates-academic-free):
"Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing," the student wrote in the e-mail. "Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one's worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation."
That seems to me a pretty reasonable request, doesn't it? State the Catholic position, say that you share it as a Catholic, and leave it there. But Dr. Howell actually went out of his way to make a larger point, one that did not depend on any particular religious viewpoint, that homosexuality is wrong because of "natural reality" (Howell's words, not mine). Howell also said (in the penultimate paragraph) that this view of homosexuality is based on "....is what is REAL. It is based on human sexual anatomy and physiology." That does not remotely sound like it is based on Catholic theology. It's based on Howell's version of "human sexual anatomy and physiology."
"Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing," the student wrote in the e-mail. "Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one's worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation."
That seems to me a pretty reasonable request, doesn't it? State the Catholic position, say that you share it as a Catholic, and leave it there. But Dr. Howell actually went out of his way to make a larger point, one that did not depend on any particular religious viewpoint, that homosexuality is wrong because of "natural reality" (Howell's words, not mine). Howell also said (in the penultimate paragraph) that this view of homosexuality is based on "....is what is REAL. It is based on human sexual anatomy and physiology." That does not remotely sound like it is based on Catholic theology. It's based on Howell's version of "human sexual anatomy and physiology."
8.5.2010 | 3:31pm
Patrick says:
DavidB,
Catholic Natural Law states that homosexuality is wrong because it is contrary to the intrinsic nature of sexuality and personhood. This rejection of it is based on the function of sexuality in nature, which is fairly obvious and fundamental in any version of biology, not just Dr. Howell's. Do you not know where babies come from, or ...?
Catholic Natural Law states that homosexuality is wrong because it is contrary to the intrinsic nature of sexuality and personhood. This rejection of it is based on the function of sexuality in nature, which is fairly obvious and fundamental in any version of biology, not just Dr. Howell's. Do you not know where babies come from, or ...?
8.5.2010 | 3:40pm
Bob G says:
Good post by David G. He has a good point.
Another observation: Why do so many believe morality is a “private” matter we can all decide for ourselves? The basic reason may be that few think morality has any real bearing on our material fortunes: we think the economy operates by “independent laws” that hardly touch on moral matters.
But that might be the most fundamental illusion of our times. I believe it is tied to the great crash of 2008: we saw increasing debt as a technical but never as a moral problem. Yet the moral order essential even to a Capitalist economy was steadily slipping away.
It has never entered the minds of these secularists and sexual innovators that their innovations have any connection to their material fortunes. We need to start making that argument: gay marriage and all that may put you and the rest of us on the road to the poorhouse. Hammer away at that. With no constituency may that argument strike more forcefully than the academy, which more than any other relishes its material comforts. We need to move the discussion off of the academic intellectual level—which sadly is increasingly irrelevant to public life—and onto the plane of actual material results. If we can connect moral issues to the material problems we increasingly face, the battle will be much easier to win.
Another observation: Why do so many believe morality is a “private” matter we can all decide for ourselves? The basic reason may be that few think morality has any real bearing on our material fortunes: we think the economy operates by “independent laws” that hardly touch on moral matters.
But that might be the most fundamental illusion of our times. I believe it is tied to the great crash of 2008: we saw increasing debt as a technical but never as a moral problem. Yet the moral order essential even to a Capitalist economy was steadily slipping away.
It has never entered the minds of these secularists and sexual innovators that their innovations have any connection to their material fortunes. We need to start making that argument: gay marriage and all that may put you and the rest of us on the road to the poorhouse. Hammer away at that. With no constituency may that argument strike more forcefully than the academy, which more than any other relishes its material comforts. We need to move the discussion off of the academic intellectual level—which sadly is increasingly irrelevant to public life—and onto the plane of actual material results. If we can connect moral issues to the material problems we increasingly face, the battle will be much easier to win.
8.5.2010 | 3:57pm
Steve says:
Excellent article Prof. Reno. Thank you to Michael for the Biblical background for the "Four sins that cry out to Heaven for Vengeance". Thank you Gil for your point that agendas based on lies will ultimately be forced to rely on intimidation and force to remain viable. I must disagree with Mark (above) that it is paradoxical to treat those whose sin is visible and even arrogantly promoted with kindness and charity. The difficulty lies in being SEEN as charitable when one charitably exercises the spiritual works of mercy with those so steeped in the sin that they not only arrogantly demand your toleration, but expect acceptance. Nowadays, that expectation of acceptance is not only largely backed up by law, but the behavior has lost much of its stigma secondary to the stifling of speech about which Prof. Reno wrote.
A vice is not a virtue no matter the intentions. A kind and loving Christian does not allow his brother to greivously sin without comment and become accessory to the sin. I have heard many a parent say they love their sinning child "just as he is" which is admirable, except when it relates to behaviors. This is not love whether the sin is homosexual behavior, drunken behavior, adulterous behavior, violent (murderous?) behavior, etc. The gay agenda wants to say homosexual behavior (not the proclivity or concupescence) is not a sin. This is especially onerous when tied with promoting sin to children as seen with the abortion lobby and their attempts to create a more pro-abortion youth (See NARAL president Nancy Keenan's recent blitz).
A vice is not a virtue no matter the intentions. A kind and loving Christian does not allow his brother to greivously sin without comment and become accessory to the sin. I have heard many a parent say they love their sinning child "just as he is" which is admirable, except when it relates to behaviors. This is not love whether the sin is homosexual behavior, drunken behavior, adulterous behavior, violent (murderous?) behavior, etc. The gay agenda wants to say homosexual behavior (not the proclivity or concupescence) is not a sin. This is especially onerous when tied with promoting sin to children as seen with the abortion lobby and their attempts to create a more pro-abortion youth (See NARAL president Nancy Keenan's recent blitz).
8.5.2010 | 4:45pm
brettongarcia says:
One of the reasons that Natural Law has a bad name among scholars, for many years, is that many parties - many say, the Catholic Church - used the concept too glibly and illegitimately; to simply assert that all its standard doctrines and biases, were also the "laws of nature."
But the fact is, Science is always pushing our understanding of "nature," into new areas; so that "natural law" likewise, should not be fixed, or dogmatic.
Consider this for example. It is claimed above that "Natural Law" suggests that sexual organs, sex, is for reproduction; therefore, gay sex is wrong. Since it is not reproductive.
But consider the implications of this construction of "nature": 1) sex therefore should not be allowed, in women over the age of 36; or menopause.
Or even better: 2) note that priests have sexual organs ... but do not use them for reproduction. Therefore, natural laws says that all priests are unnatural, and perverse; they act contrary to what nature intends.
The reason "Natural Law" got a bad name in scholarly circles, is that many people misused it, to try to assert their own biases were also the laws of nature. But if we look more closely into it, we find that the objective, scientific study of nature, comes up with a very, very different view of nature. Indeed, a REAL natural law seems to come up here, with many conclusions that very firmly oppose, key Catholic doctrines.
Natural Law, in some formulations, seems to actually oppose key Catholic doctrines. Like, for example, the chastity of priests.
But the fact is, Science is always pushing our understanding of "nature," into new areas; so that "natural law" likewise, should not be fixed, or dogmatic.
Consider this for example. It is claimed above that "Natural Law" suggests that sexual organs, sex, is for reproduction; therefore, gay sex is wrong. Since it is not reproductive.
But consider the implications of this construction of "nature": 1) sex therefore should not be allowed, in women over the age of 36; or menopause.
Or even better: 2) note that priests have sexual organs ... but do not use them for reproduction. Therefore, natural laws says that all priests are unnatural, and perverse; they act contrary to what nature intends.
The reason "Natural Law" got a bad name in scholarly circles, is that many people misused it, to try to assert their own biases were also the laws of nature. But if we look more closely into it, we find that the objective, scientific study of nature, comes up with a very, very different view of nature. Indeed, a REAL natural law seems to come up here, with many conclusions that very firmly oppose, key Catholic doctrines.
Natural Law, in some formulations, seems to actually oppose key Catholic doctrines. Like, for example, the chastity of priests.
8.5.2010 | 5:25pm
Joseph S. says:
Can someone who believes Christian teaching on homosexuality still be an effective and objective counselor for a gay client?
Can someone who believes Catholic teaching on divorce still be an effective and objective counselor for a divorced client?
Can a vegetarian who believes that "meat is murder" still be an effective and objective counselor for a meat-eating client?
Can someone who believes the war in Iraq is unjust still be an effective and objective counselor for a soldier on active duty?
Can someone who believes Catholic teaching on divorce still be an effective and objective counselor for a divorced client?
Can a vegetarian who believes that "meat is murder" still be an effective and objective counselor for a meat-eating client?
Can someone who believes the war in Iraq is unjust still be an effective and objective counselor for a soldier on active duty?
8.5.2010 | 5:57pm
JPF says:
Joseph S.: Yes, yes, yes, yes (in that order).
brettongarcia: Your caricature of a mainstream (say, Thomistic) understanding natural has been made before, many times, and with greater cogency, by others. You need to do some reading before you start criticizing what you don't know.
brettongarcia: Your caricature of a mainstream (say, Thomistic) understanding natural has been made before, many times, and with greater cogency, by others. You need to do some reading before you start criticizing what you don't know.
8.5.2010 | 6:10pm
Gil Costello says:
Joseph S. - to your 4 questions the answer is yes to questions 1, 2 and 4, and no to question 3 if the counselor is Christian.
When a Christian counselor is counseling a homosexually oriented person who has taken on a sexual identity, the counselor knows first and foremost that the client is living an identity artificially chosen for a particular purpose, much as a person chooses the identity engineer to make money for physical sustenance and possibly the joy in accomplishing a task to the approval and possible applause of his manager and co-workers, and that the client is living a lie in believing his sexual identity is the gestalt of who he is as a person, a common affliction in the gay community, something over time he will hopefully deconstruct on his own initiative with the counselor’s guidance, the counselor leading the client through the client’s own matrix, helping him to familiarize himself with how it was constructed, and hopefully lead to a liberating exit from a reductive and harmful false identity.
A Christian counselor can also help a divorced client through his/her maze of getting lost in any number of mazes in his/her marriage. As is taught in Catholicism, there are persons who believe they were married but the mutual commitment never existed because of many possible reasons. Often one person is committed to marriage and the other isn't, although he/she believes he/she is. The counseling will involve encouraging the client to journey through his/her own experiences, hopefully to an exit from a maze he/she is lost in. This might involve an understanding that he/she was never married to begin with, or that he/she in a radical misunderstanding lost sight of his/her loved one, or his/her partner lost sight of him/her.
A Christian counselor who believes that meat is murder is contradicting what Jesus clearly taught, not to concern oneself with what is going in one's mouth, but with what is coming out. That counselor in fact would not be a Christian counselor.
A Christian counselor who believes the war in Iraq is unjust would still have a working knowledge of just war theory (if not it would be incumbent upon him to learn it for the client's sake); and if he resides in agape, his humility would have him acknowledge that it would be easy for a Christian who has a knowledge of just war theory to perceive the war in Iraq is just. But the counselor's job would not be to convince the client otherwise if in fact the war is not just by the counselor’s Christian view on just war theory. The counselor's job would be to help his client journey through the maze he is caught up in not by confrontation on the “legality”, the right and wrong, of the client’s beliefs, but on the organic nature of his belief systems, helping the client to see clearly how his belief systems originating in a complex personal history helped him construct the maze he is caught up in. Why this is so: true liberation for any person, religious or atheist, involves a letting go of one's entrapments and living in love. Every person is made in the very image and likeness of God, and because God is love, the only exit to freedom, a true “cure”, is love, the source of the client’s real identity.
The cure for any client is love, specifically agape. This is what the Christian counselor knows, and what he must lead the client to understand, but not through confrontation and not through religious legalisms. It is very likely that the Christian counselor will not lead most of his client's to Christ. But what he will hopefully do is help his client see as much as he is able to look at concerning the construction of a maze he is trapped in, and a possible a light, however slight, beaming from a distant exit door on the other side of the maze.
When a Christian counselor is counseling a homosexually oriented person who has taken on a sexual identity, the counselor knows first and foremost that the client is living an identity artificially chosen for a particular purpose, much as a person chooses the identity engineer to make money for physical sustenance and possibly the joy in accomplishing a task to the approval and possible applause of his manager and co-workers, and that the client is living a lie in believing his sexual identity is the gestalt of who he is as a person, a common affliction in the gay community, something over time he will hopefully deconstruct on his own initiative with the counselor’s guidance, the counselor leading the client through the client’s own matrix, helping him to familiarize himself with how it was constructed, and hopefully lead to a liberating exit from a reductive and harmful false identity.
A Christian counselor can also help a divorced client through his/her maze of getting lost in any number of mazes in his/her marriage. As is taught in Catholicism, there are persons who believe they were married but the mutual commitment never existed because of many possible reasons. Often one person is committed to marriage and the other isn't, although he/she believes he/she is. The counseling will involve encouraging the client to journey through his/her own experiences, hopefully to an exit from a maze he/she is lost in. This might involve an understanding that he/she was never married to begin with, or that he/she in a radical misunderstanding lost sight of his/her loved one, or his/her partner lost sight of him/her.
A Christian counselor who believes that meat is murder is contradicting what Jesus clearly taught, not to concern oneself with what is going in one's mouth, but with what is coming out. That counselor in fact would not be a Christian counselor.
A Christian counselor who believes the war in Iraq is unjust would still have a working knowledge of just war theory (if not it would be incumbent upon him to learn it for the client's sake); and if he resides in agape, his humility would have him acknowledge that it would be easy for a Christian who has a knowledge of just war theory to perceive the war in Iraq is just. But the counselor's job would not be to convince the client otherwise if in fact the war is not just by the counselor’s Christian view on just war theory. The counselor's job would be to help his client journey through the maze he is caught up in not by confrontation on the “legality”, the right and wrong, of the client’s beliefs, but on the organic nature of his belief systems, helping the client to see clearly how his belief systems originating in a complex personal history helped him construct the maze he is caught up in. Why this is so: true liberation for any person, religious or atheist, involves a letting go of one's entrapments and living in love. Every person is made in the very image and likeness of God, and because God is love, the only exit to freedom, a true “cure”, is love, the source of the client’s real identity.
The cure for any client is love, specifically agape. This is what the Christian counselor knows, and what he must lead the client to understand, but not through confrontation and not through religious legalisms. It is very likely that the Christian counselor will not lead most of his client's to Christ. But what he will hopefully do is help his client see as much as he is able to look at concerning the construction of a maze he is trapped in, and a possible a light, however slight, beaming from a distant exit door on the other side of the maze.
8.5.2010 | 6:15pm
greggo says:
"We are in a certain sense hardwired...."_ As a 63 yr old male I was "hardwired: to recognized the inferiory of several ethnic, cultural, religious, disfigured groups of people. And yes gender superioriy: women and homosexuals of lesser worth than white heterosexual males. And church heirarchy is superior to the laity. The Roman church continues to change, contray to their claims. Compare Vatican I to Vatican II to pope Benedict. Unfortunatrly we can no longer rely on the church for moral leadership. Therefore we must fall back on secular authority to rule on right and wrong, including sexual behaviors
8.5.2010 | 6:18pm
Houghton Grandmal says:
Brettongarcia,
You aren't serious are you? Mandatory celibacy for priests has never ever ever ever ever ever been based on a natural law claim. Exactly. As I noted in my previous comment, some Catholic teachings, like the Trinity, are not claimed as natural law. Celibacy for priests is one of them.
Besides, celibacy or priests is not even a doctrine. It's a discipline. Which means it could be changed or modified. Which means it could not under any stretch of the imagination be based in natural law. It is a voluntary giving up of a good thing (marriage) for the sake of being free to minister sacrificially. It's based in St. Paul. And Jesus. That means, based in revelation. Which is the other main source of Catholic teaching--God's word.
If you cannot distinguish between those Catholic teachings which Catholics believe are also true by natural law and those Catholic teachings which are true based on revelation, you have no business telling us how Catholics have abused natural law principles.
You aren't serious are you? Mandatory celibacy for priests has never ever ever ever ever ever been based on a natural law claim. Exactly. As I noted in my previous comment, some Catholic teachings, like the Trinity, are not claimed as natural law. Celibacy for priests is one of them.
Besides, celibacy or priests is not even a doctrine. It's a discipline. Which means it could be changed or modified. Which means it could not under any stretch of the imagination be based in natural law. It is a voluntary giving up of a good thing (marriage) for the sake of being free to minister sacrificially. It's based in St. Paul. And Jesus. That means, based in revelation. Which is the other main source of Catholic teaching--God's word.
If you cannot distinguish between those Catholic teachings which Catholics believe are also true by natural law and those Catholic teachings which are true based on revelation, you have no business telling us how Catholics have abused natural law principles.
8.5.2010 | 6:19pm
R. WOLF says:
Prussian philosopher, I. KANT brings us his "categorical Imperative", a kind of moral template by which, he believed, anyone might weigh and evaluate an action prior to accenting to and committing saaid action: "Do not do that which if everybody did [it] would destroy society".
As one practical exercise, one might apply this template to such issues as abortion and homosexuality.
My students go wild in class on this issue. They love to argue with their minds in full speed ahead. It appears, to me, that they rarely have an opportunity to "think" in college these days [Acc. to Aristotle, true thinking is problem solving].
As one practical exercise, one might apply this template to such issues as abortion and homosexuality.
My students go wild in class on this issue. They love to argue with their minds in full speed ahead. It appears, to me, that they rarely have an opportunity to "think" in college these days [Acc. to Aristotle, true thinking is problem solving].
8.5.2010 | 6:21pm
Houghton Grandmal says:
Oh, and by the way, Brettongarcia, it's priestly celibacy. Chastity applies to every single person but differs in what it actually entails. For the unmarried, to be chaste means to be sexually abstinent. For the married, to be chaste means to be faithful to your spouse in thought and deed. For the celibate religious or priest, it means to be abstinent.
Celibacy means choosing not to marry for the sake of some other calling than marriage, as distinct from being single but seeking to marry.
Celibacy means choosing not to marry for the sake of some other calling than marriage, as distinct from being single but seeking to marry.
8.5.2010 | 6:31pm
Marie says:
"A whisper campaign (“he’s anti-gay”) against a recent candidate for a job in the Notre Dame philosophy department apparently succeeded."
Apparently?
Or actually?
As a member of the Notre Dame community, I hate to see this sort of comment. There are lots of reasons that particular candidates for faculty positions are not selected, and it's highly unlikely that an otherwise perfect candidate was not offered a position solely because he accepts Church teachings on homosexuality.
If this "recent candidate" is prepared to step forward and provide facts supporting the assertion above, that's great. Otherwise, it amounts to nothing more than unsubstantiated gossip.
Apparently?
Or actually?
As a member of the Notre Dame community, I hate to see this sort of comment. There are lots of reasons that particular candidates for faculty positions are not selected, and it's highly unlikely that an otherwise perfect candidate was not offered a position solely because he accepts Church teachings on homosexuality.
If this "recent candidate" is prepared to step forward and provide facts supporting the assertion above, that's great. Otherwise, it amounts to nothing more than unsubstantiated gossip.
8.5.2010 | 6:46pm
matt says:
There is one moral judgment that the members of Western society in the 21st century are willing to make unequivocally: discrimination based on race, sex, or sexual orientation is immoral. Just about any other moral judgment is held to be somewhat suspect. And just about any other moral judgment would never be wielded in the sort of menacing way that accusations of discrimination are. I think the author nailed when he said that the moral judgment that discrimination is immoral seems is held to be self-evident and thus justifies the menacing tactics against anyone thought to be discriminatory. Of course, a Christian holding that homosexual acts, done by heterosexuals or homosexuals, is not a case of discrimination based on anything like race, sex, or sexual orientation.
8.5.2010 | 6:51pm
brettongarcia says:
JPF:
Rather than merely citing alleged authority, name-dropping ,and merely asserting your own greater wisdom, but without any logical proofs, can you instead, advance an actual argument?
No doubt there are more sophisticated versions of Natural Law; but I was reacting to 1) the one stated above. By Patrick. While indeed, 2) you suggest that perhaps evenone major Catholic formulation of Natural Law - Aquinas' version - does not hold. While 3) I suggest finally that the overall "current" and "defensible" Catholic position on Natural Law, also fails. Even the current version of natural law is widely rejected by real academics.
If you think my picture of natural law is false, and yours is better, prove it by arguments; not by mere references to, assertions of, "better" ideas. Prove they are "better."
Anyone can say they are smarter and more knowledgable than anyone else; the hard thing is to prove it. Prove that your idea of Natural law is better.
Rather than merely citing alleged authority, name-dropping ,and merely asserting your own greater wisdom, but without any logical proofs, can you instead, advance an actual argument?
No doubt there are more sophisticated versions of Natural Law; but I was reacting to 1) the one stated above. By Patrick. While indeed, 2) you suggest that perhaps evenone major Catholic formulation of Natural Law - Aquinas' version - does not hold. While 3) I suggest finally that the overall "current" and "defensible" Catholic position on Natural Law, also fails. Even the current version of natural law is widely rejected by real academics.
If you think my picture of natural law is false, and yours is better, prove it by arguments; not by mere references to, assertions of, "better" ideas. Prove they are "better."
Anyone can say they are smarter and more knowledgable than anyone else; the hard thing is to prove it. Prove that your idea of Natural law is better.
8.5.2010 | 8:24pm
Patrick says:
Brenton, in nature (i.e. the subject of biology), children come from the union of a man and a woman. Throughout history, the natural family has been the basis of civilized society, from China to India to Rome. In the modern day, the social science has shown that children are happiest and most successful in a family with their natural (biological) parents.
Learned, civilized societies, like say, Confucian China, have always extolled the virtue of the (natural) family, whereas more rustic and warlike tribes, as well as empires in the late stages of decline, have tended to have less disciplined social structures. The natural family works: it creates a stable and peaceful social order. It works because it's based on and perfects the biological reality of human gender.
Someone brought up Kant's categorical imperative above, and I think you can apply that to this case. According to the CI, if you made homosexual "marriage" the universal law, no one would ever reproduce except through adultery, and that society would eventually die out. Natural marriage realizes the potentiality of the human being and fulfills its perfection in a way that homosexuality cannot.
Learned, civilized societies, like say, Confucian China, have always extolled the virtue of the (natural) family, whereas more rustic and warlike tribes, as well as empires in the late stages of decline, have tended to have less disciplined social structures. The natural family works: it creates a stable and peaceful social order. It works because it's based on and perfects the biological reality of human gender.
Someone brought up Kant's categorical imperative above, and I think you can apply that to this case. According to the CI, if you made homosexual "marriage" the universal law, no one would ever reproduce except through adultery, and that society would eventually die out. Natural marriage realizes the potentiality of the human being and fulfills its perfection in a way that homosexuality cannot.
8.5.2010 | 10:31pm
Mark says:
Gil: Homosexuality is genetic. The multi-millions of dollars invested in finding the “gay gene" didn't pan out, except in twisted non-scientific arguments that turn their “indications” of a gay gene into nothing but fool’s gold.
Scientists just finished mapping the human genome a few years ago. The even more difficult work of finding out what every gene actually does and the long-term effects it has on someone's behavior and physical constitutions will probably go on for decades.
Studies of identical twins strongly suggest a role for genetics in determining homosexuality: identical twin males are much more likely to share the same sexual orientation than non-identical twins who are in turn more likely to share the same orientation than are biological or adoptive brothers.
For adult height, we also have not identified a "tall gene" yet (or at least, when I looked into this a few years ago, we hadn't). Are you going to condemn educators who dare to suggest that height is influenced by genetics and is probably unchangeable once you reach adulthood?
Scientists just finished mapping the human genome a few years ago. The even more difficult work of finding out what every gene actually does and the long-term effects it has on someone's behavior and physical constitutions will probably go on for decades.
Studies of identical twins strongly suggest a role for genetics in determining homosexuality: identical twin males are much more likely to share the same sexual orientation than non-identical twins who are in turn more likely to share the same orientation than are biological or adoptive brothers.
For adult height, we also have not identified a "tall gene" yet (or at least, when I looked into this a few years ago, we hadn't). Are you going to condemn educators who dare to suggest that height is influenced by genetics and is probably unchangeable once you reach adulthood?
8.5.2010 | 10:33pm
JPF says:
brettongarcia: No, sorry, it's not my job to remedy your lack of familiarity with issues your so happily pontificate about without knowing your stuff. You're the one who made outlandish claims in your post; the burden of proof isn't on me here, I'm just letting you know your arguments are bogus, even risible. Suffice it to say that there are heaps of books out there, some scholarly and some more popular, about the natural law (and on sexual issues more particularly) that completely answer your protest. For starters, try Janet Smith's HUMANAE VITAE: A GENERATION LATER (especially chapters 3 and 4), or Elizabeth Anscombe's article "You Can Have Sex Without Children," or some of the various articles Robert P. George has written about the meaning of marriage and why same-sex marriage is absurd. These are all on the scholarly side. If you're looking for something more popular, there's lots of stuff online.
I will just say this: Yes, sexual organs are for procreation. And no, the conclusions you claim follow from that premise (viz., that post-menopausal women shouldn't have sex and that celibate priests should), do not in any way follow.
I will just say this: Yes, sexual organs are for procreation. And no, the conclusions you claim follow from that premise (viz., that post-menopausal women shouldn't have sex and that celibate priests should), do not in any way follow.
8.5.2010 | 10:34pm
Stephen G. Straw says:
The potential for totalitarianism exists everywhere and anytime. We can only counter and defeat it by publishing such articles as Professor Reno's above. I believe Americans will soon reject this type of repression of academic freedom and ideological punitiveness: the fall elections will restore balance in the political scene locally and nationally. The average person in this country is basically conservative—this includes the so-called independent voters--and opposes the radical, nontraditional positions and enforcement actions that Reno cites. A voter backlash is already evident in the Midwest, South, and West. Elitism is not the juggernaut that it sometimes appears to be---the ballooning national debt notwithstanding; however, the state of affairs in academe is serious enough to warrant the vigorous and vigilant exposure of egregious abuses of power. American taxpayers simply will not fund this type of injustice. The people who commit it are mediocrities who can easily be controlled if we speak out against them bluntly and often. Nevertheless, we should never forget how calculating ideological thinking led to the most evil crimes man has perpetrated on his fellow man in the 20th Century (Roe v. Wade is arguably such a crime). I wonder if the academics Reno names have ever read any of Solzhenitzyn's Gulag books, or if they ever took a hard look at Red China, both yesterday and today.
8.5.2010 | 10:39pm
Mark says:
Patrick: According to the CI, if you made homosexual "marriage" the universal law, no one would ever reproduce except through adultery, and that society would eventually die out.
This strikes me as a misapplication of the categorical imperative. One could also say that if everyone decided to drive from Manhattan to New Jersey through the Holland Tunnel at exactly 9 pm, the tunnel would become unusable and nobody would be able to get to New Jersey in any reasonable amount of time.
Therefore, driving through the Holland Tunnel at 9 pm is immoral. QED.
Or not. The fact is that just as everyone in Manhattan with a car does not want to drive to New Jersey through the Holland Tunnel at 9 pm, not everyone in society wants to have exclusively homosexual sex for the rest of their lives.
The categorical imperative has real teeth when it is addressing a behavior that is motivated by a universal or very common desire. Since at most 5% of the population is homosexual, the phenomenon does not pose any threat to the ability of society to continue to the next generation.
But if you are going to go down that route anyway, how would you excuse the selfish choice of certain priests to be celibate. If everyone did what they were doing, humanity would die out very soon.
This strikes me as a misapplication of the categorical imperative. One could also say that if everyone decided to drive from Manhattan to New Jersey through the Holland Tunnel at exactly 9 pm, the tunnel would become unusable and nobody would be able to get to New Jersey in any reasonable amount of time.
Therefore, driving through the Holland Tunnel at 9 pm is immoral. QED.
Or not. The fact is that just as everyone in Manhattan with a car does not want to drive to New Jersey through the Holland Tunnel at 9 pm, not everyone in society wants to have exclusively homosexual sex for the rest of their lives.
The categorical imperative has real teeth when it is addressing a behavior that is motivated by a universal or very common desire. Since at most 5% of the population is homosexual, the phenomenon does not pose any threat to the ability of society to continue to the next generation.
But if you are going to go down that route anyway, how would you excuse the selfish choice of certain priests to be celibate. If everyone did what they were doing, humanity would die out very soon.
8.5.2010 | 11:26pm
Gil Costello says:
Mark - you no doubt have fallen victim to the "let's pretend homosexuality is inherited because it makes gays feel better about themselves. It's not a harmful lie: it's a lie that can only result in good." But the problem is that this lie is now central to a vast assortment of lies that children are being indoctrinated into.
Check this site out: http://www.mygenes.co.nz/summary.htm
Some quotes:
"Researchers trying to find 'homosexual' sequences of genes on the recently mapped human genome have not found any such sequences although they have found them for schizophrenia, alcoholism etc."
"If SSA were caused by many genes it could not suddenly appear and disappear in families the way it does. It would be present in each generation for many (at least 30) generations because it would take that long for that many genes to be bred out. This is not the case, therefore SSA cannot be caused by many genes."
"The occurrence of SSA [same sex attraction] (2.6%?) in the population is too frequent to be caused by a chance mutation in a single gene. Therefore SSA cannot be caused by a single gene."
"The occurrence of SSA is about five times too high to be caused by a faulty (non-genetic) pre-natal developmental process so it is not innate in that sense either."
"The human race shares most of its genes - something between 99.7% and 99.9%. That means all ethnic groups will have most of them. This has the following three implications.
If homosexuality is genetically dictated, homosexual practices will be identical or extremely similar in all cultures. But there is an enormous range and diversity of homosexual practice and customs among different cultures (and within cultures).
There would be a similar incidence of homosexuality in all cultures. But homosexuality has been unknown in some cultures and mandatory in others.
Changes in homosexual practice and behavior in different cultures would take place very slowly, over many centuries. But this is not what history shows. (The decline of whole models of homosexuality [the Greek, over a couple of centuries, and the Melanesian, within a century]; the relatively sudden [in genetic terms] emergence of the present Western model over a couple of centuries; and abrupt changes of practice within an ethnic group, even over a single generation, are not consistent with anything genetic. Even less so the swiftly changing sexual practices within the current Western model.)"
And finally on twins:
"Twin studies: These very complex comparisons of identical twins and non-identical twins definitively rule out genetic determinism. If homosexuality were genetic, identical co-twins of homosexual men and women would also be homosexual 100% of the time, but they aren’t. Theoretically the genetic influence may be as high as 30% for men and 50% for women but is probably as low as 10%. It is important to remember that this 10% influence is indirect not direct. That is, everyone has at least a 10% genetic influence in his or her behaviour - simply because without genes there can be no bodily activity of any kind, or human behaviour (Ch 10). Identical twins with identical genes are (at most) 11% and 14% concordant for SSA (ie. if one twin is SSA the co-twin will be gay only 11% of the time (males), 14% (females). (Other studies have even lower concordances). What does genetic influence mean? Those who say homosexuality is genetically influenced are correct, but only to about this degree:
"If a girl becomes pregnant at 15, we could argue that she is genetically predisposed. We could say that in her culture, her genes gave her the kind of face and figure that send male hormones into orbit and bring her under a level of pressure that she is unable to resist, and she is fertile. But that's about the strength of the genetic influence. There are a huge number of environmental factors that could also have brought the pregnancy about, from cancellation of the basketball game she was going to watch with a girlfriend, permission to use her boyfriend’s father’s car, her boyfriend's company, the movie they had just viewed together, and failure to use a contraceptive, to big environmental factors like personal values systems, peer group pressure, and an emotionally distant father.
"If there is some weak genetic influence towards SSA (quite possible) would you like to be mastered by those genes, or to be their master ?"
Check this site out: http://www.mygenes.co.nz/summary.htm
Some quotes:
"Researchers trying to find 'homosexual' sequences of genes on the recently mapped human genome have not found any such sequences although they have found them for schizophrenia, alcoholism etc."
"If SSA were caused by many genes it could not suddenly appear and disappear in families the way it does. It would be present in each generation for many (at least 30) generations because it would take that long for that many genes to be bred out. This is not the case, therefore SSA cannot be caused by many genes."
"The occurrence of SSA [same sex attraction] (2.6%?) in the population is too frequent to be caused by a chance mutation in a single gene. Therefore SSA cannot be caused by a single gene."
"The occurrence of SSA is about five times too high to be caused by a faulty (non-genetic) pre-natal developmental process so it is not innate in that sense either."
"The human race shares most of its genes - something between 99.7% and 99.9%. That means all ethnic groups will have most of them. This has the following three implications.
If homosexuality is genetically dictated, homosexual practices will be identical or extremely similar in all cultures. But there is an enormous range and diversity of homosexual practice and customs among different cultures (and within cultures).
There would be a similar incidence of homosexuality in all cultures. But homosexuality has been unknown in some cultures and mandatory in others.
Changes in homosexual practice and behavior in different cultures would take place very slowly, over many centuries. But this is not what history shows. (The decline of whole models of homosexuality [the Greek, over a couple of centuries, and the Melanesian, within a century]; the relatively sudden [in genetic terms] emergence of the present Western model over a couple of centuries; and abrupt changes of practice within an ethnic group, even over a single generation, are not consistent with anything genetic. Even less so the swiftly changing sexual practices within the current Western model.)"
And finally on twins:
"Twin studies: These very complex comparisons of identical twins and non-identical twins definitively rule out genetic determinism. If homosexuality were genetic, identical co-twins of homosexual men and women would also be homosexual 100% of the time, but they aren’t. Theoretically the genetic influence may be as high as 30% for men and 50% for women but is probably as low as 10%. It is important to remember that this 10% influence is indirect not direct. That is, everyone has at least a 10% genetic influence in his or her behaviour - simply because without genes there can be no bodily activity of any kind, or human behaviour (Ch 10). Identical twins with identical genes are (at most) 11% and 14% concordant for SSA (ie. if one twin is SSA the co-twin will be gay only 11% of the time (males), 14% (females). (Other studies have even lower concordances). What does genetic influence mean? Those who say homosexuality is genetically influenced are correct, but only to about this degree:
"If a girl becomes pregnant at 15, we could argue that she is genetically predisposed. We could say that in her culture, her genes gave her the kind of face and figure that send male hormones into orbit and bring her under a level of pressure that she is unable to resist, and she is fertile. But that's about the strength of the genetic influence. There are a huge number of environmental factors that could also have brought the pregnancy about, from cancellation of the basketball game she was going to watch with a girlfriend, permission to use her boyfriend’s father’s car, her boyfriend's company, the movie they had just viewed together, and failure to use a contraceptive, to big environmental factors like personal values systems, peer group pressure, and an emotionally distant father.
"If there is some weak genetic influence towards SSA (quite possible) would you like to be mastered by those genes, or to be their master ?"
8.6.2010 | 12:12am
Gil Costello says:
Mark - If scientists spent the millions of dollars it has spent on trying to map a "tall gene" it would have been found. Also, there is no evidence that I know of that social/psychological/environmental influences can determine the height of a person, but there are volumes of documented social/psychological/environmental influences that determine homosexuality, but the universities will no longer allow that documentation to be available to students in its deliberate efforts to suppress truths about homosexuality in its continuing totalitarian support of the sexual revolution.
For example, Rene Girard's discovery of mimetic desire, triadic desire and metaphysical desire that play an enormous role in one's choosing a particular sexual behavior, including same sex engagement. The universities will allow discussion of this genius' discoveries because he is so respected in academia, but all his allusions to dynamics involving homosexuality are excluded from discussion for ideological reasons.
What is so outrageous concerning the lie of a "gay gene" is that it is used to go after children in schools who are experiencing same sex attraction and placing them in gay support groups where they are indoctrinated into embracing a gay lifestyle. This is outrageous totalitarian behavior that can lead to the premature death of these children. If a child is experiencing same sex attraction, the evidence is overwhelming that there are no scientific indicators that can determine if that child will end up gay or straight. It would be equally destructive to take that child and place him in a heterosexual indoctrination group. You see, sexual identity is the big lie in all this. Young teens love to rebel, and the vanguards of the sexual revolution have established in schools a participation in homosexual activity as a form of rebellion, and that rebellion is encouraged.
"In the real world, we really have to make a simple decision about which phenomenon is worse: hatred and bigotry directed toward homosexuals or homosexual sex
For example, Rene Girard's discovery of mimetic desire, triadic desire and metaphysical desire that play an enormous role in one's choosing a particular sexual behavior, including same sex engagement. The universities will allow discussion of this genius' discoveries because he is so respected in academia, but all his allusions to dynamics involving homosexuality are excluded from discussion for ideological reasons.
What is so outrageous concerning the lie of a "gay gene" is that it is used to go after children in schools who are experiencing same sex attraction and placing them in gay support groups where they are indoctrinated into embracing a gay lifestyle. This is outrageous totalitarian behavior that can lead to the premature death of these children. If a child is experiencing same sex attraction, the evidence is overwhelming that there are no scientific indicators that can determine if that child will end up gay or straight. It would be equally destructive to take that child and place him in a heterosexual indoctrination group. You see, sexual identity is the big lie in all this. Young teens love to rebel, and the vanguards of the sexual revolution have established in schools a participation in homosexual activity as a form of rebellion, and that rebellion is encouraged.
"In the real world, we really have to make a simple decision about which phenomenon is worse: hatred and bigotry directed toward homosexuals or homosexual sex
8.6.2010 | 12:14am
Mat says:
I'm also interested in the claim about the Notre Dame philosophy dept. Having been on both sides of the hiring table I think the situation is a bit more nuanced than Marie seems to allow. There is almost never a "perfect candidate"; rather, especially towards the end of the process, there are generally a number of acceptable candidates and the final choice among them comes down to a variety of factors, sometimes things it might be appropriate to call matters of personal taste. I find it plausible that in a close contest somebody might lose support, and thus a hiring vote, on the basis of nothing more than personal animus raised by a claim of "homophobia." That said, unless somebody is willing to provide more concrete information on the case in question, it does seem close to gossip for Reno to drop this nugget as he does.
8.6.2010 | 12:35am
Gil costello says:
Mark - I cut myself off. I was quoting you: "In the real world, we really have to make a simple decision about which phenomenon is worse: hatred and bigotry directed toward homosexuals or homosexual sex."
There should not be hatred and bigotry towards gays. Christians especially must love all sinners because every Christian is a sinner. In other words, for a Christian to hate a gay person would be tantamount to hating himself and God. And I am of the opinion that Christians would fare better not to focus on hating the sin, either, but understanding how that behavior destroys on many levels the participants and their families. The point being, too many gays identify with their sexual acts, what is called sexual identity. Regardless how deluded they have become, when a person hates their sin many gays experience it as hatred of them. That's the direct result of living a lie of sexual identity. Christians must be sensitive to that.
This is why my concern remains with the children. Regardless what a Christian or gay person thinks about anything, the fact remains that sexual liberationists are going after children and will destroy their goals for happiness, and perhaps even their lives.
There should not be hatred and bigotry towards gays. Christians especially must love all sinners because every Christian is a sinner. In other words, for a Christian to hate a gay person would be tantamount to hating himself and God. And I am of the opinion that Christians would fare better not to focus on hating the sin, either, but understanding how that behavior destroys on many levels the participants and their families. The point being, too many gays identify with their sexual acts, what is called sexual identity. Regardless how deluded they have become, when a person hates their sin many gays experience it as hatred of them. That's the direct result of living a lie of sexual identity. Christians must be sensitive to that.
This is why my concern remains with the children. Regardless what a Christian or gay person thinks about anything, the fact remains that sexual liberationists are going after children and will destroy their goals for happiness, and perhaps even their lives.
8.6.2010 | 12:49am
Gil Costello says:
I worked at a prominant corporte law firm. A gay paralegal came on sexually to a 19-year-old copy personin office services. The copier went directly to the human resources manager and filed a complaint. The assailant wasgiven a reprimand. The assailant would later be causegoing through the personell files in the human resources manager's office, and was again simplyreprimanded. Aworkof art wasondisplayin the eception area, and it was determined by thehuman resources manage that it might be an abstract versionof a naked woman and was removed. A lesbian employee had a picture onher office wall of a naked woman and was neve asked to removeit. that same lesbianwould comeintothe records department and talk loudly of her sexual exploits with her lesbian friend and was never reprimanded.
8.6.2010 | 1:18am
Max says:
Although it has not been named directly, its substantive arguments have been touched on in the comments folowing the article (which are fascinating dialogue). This is yet another compelling example of what Humana Vitae predicted would come to pass once you divorce the sexual union from procreative potential. Pope Paul VI is undoubtedly looking down from Heaven and saying, "I hate to say I told you so...."
8.6.2010 | 1:23am
Mark says:
Gil, very quickly, just about everything you quote from that New Zealand website is either flat out wrong or is knocking down a straw man.
1. No reputable scientist claims homosexuality is 100% genetic nor does anyone claim that it is caused by a single gene.
2. The authors concede that genes do play a role but cherry pick their numbers. Bailey and Pillard (1991) found a 52% concordance rate among identical twin males. The authors you quote cite a rate of 11% without providing a citation or saying why they choose to ignore Bailey and Pillard. This is the sign of a hack rather than a scientist.
3. Nothing you provide refutes my contention that it will take years if not decades to definitively link (or not link) certain genes with sexual orientation. Some phenomena like hair color and eye color are simple from a genetic perspective. Others like cognitive ability, adult height, sexual orientation, athletic ability and many others are very complex and will take much longer to fully understand from both a genetic and environmental perspective.
4. Their claim that homosexuality cannot possibly be caused by pre-natal environment is simply wrong. There is literally no factual argument behind what they say.
5. Their claim that we would not see homosexuality appear and disappear in families if it were caused by multiple genes is also simply wrong. Recessive traits, for instance, can appear, disappear and then reappear much further down the line.
Moreover, since nobody claims homosexuality is 100% genetic (unlike in fruit flies, where a gay gene has been positively identified), their objection referenced in #5 would be irrelevant even if it was based on an accurate understanding of genetics.
1. No reputable scientist claims homosexuality is 100% genetic nor does anyone claim that it is caused by a single gene.
2. The authors concede that genes do play a role but cherry pick their numbers. Bailey and Pillard (1991) found a 52% concordance rate among identical twin males. The authors you quote cite a rate of 11% without providing a citation or saying why they choose to ignore Bailey and Pillard. This is the sign of a hack rather than a scientist.
3. Nothing you provide refutes my contention that it will take years if not decades to definitively link (or not link) certain genes with sexual orientation. Some phenomena like hair color and eye color are simple from a genetic perspective. Others like cognitive ability, adult height, sexual orientation, athletic ability and many others are very complex and will take much longer to fully understand from both a genetic and environmental perspective.
4. Their claim that homosexuality cannot possibly be caused by pre-natal environment is simply wrong. There is literally no factual argument behind what they say.
5. Their claim that we would not see homosexuality appear and disappear in families if it were caused by multiple genes is also simply wrong. Recessive traits, for instance, can appear, disappear and then reappear much further down the line.
Moreover, since nobody claims homosexuality is 100% genetic (unlike in fruit flies, where a gay gene has been positively identified), their objection referenced in #5 would be irrelevant even if it was based on an accurate understanding of genetics.
8.6.2010 | 1:36am
Mark says:
Gil: It would be equally destructive to take that [gay] child and place him in a heterosexual indoctrination group.
Thank you for saying so. I take it you oppose "conversion therapy" for children then.
The real issue is that a lot of those children who experience same sex attraction while growing up will continue to experience that attraction as adults. We all know how cruel children and teenagers can be and so in many places, that child will have an extremely tough time going through puberty and relating to their peers compared to the other 97% of his or her classmates. The suicide rates for homosexuals speak for themselves.
I agree that these children should not be "indoctrinated" into the "gay lifestyle." But neither should they be told they are disordered or simply mistaken about their true feelings -- that would certainly be totalitarian. Instead, they need support. And having a support network of gay friends and getting advice from gay adults is almost certainly an important part of that support.
Thank you for saying so. I take it you oppose "conversion therapy" for children then.
The real issue is that a lot of those children who experience same sex attraction while growing up will continue to experience that attraction as adults. We all know how cruel children and teenagers can be and so in many places, that child will have an extremely tough time going through puberty and relating to their peers compared to the other 97% of his or her classmates. The suicide rates for homosexuals speak for themselves.
I agree that these children should not be "indoctrinated" into the "gay lifestyle." But neither should they be told they are disordered or simply mistaken about their true feelings -- that would certainly be totalitarian. Instead, they need support. And having a support network of gay friends and getting advice from gay adults is almost certainly an important part of that support.
8.6.2010 | 2:35am
Charles Cassil says:
George T: Thanks for the great post. To follow up on your second point: An effective counselor must bring authenticity, empathy, and unconditional positive regard to the therapeutic relationship. How could Ms. Keaton bring these three essentials to a theraputic relationship with a homosexual client? Would her business card have to state "Practice limited to heterosexual clients"? If Augusta State University were to award her a counseling degree, would it be obligated to state clearly on her degree "Qualified to offer counseling to heterosexuals only"?
8.6.2010 | 3:00am
John Lamont says:
Some points about criticisms made above:
My comment was on homosexual acts, not on homosexual orientation, so the fact that the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that people with a homosexual orientation should be treated with sensitivity and respect is not relevant; it does not follow from this that homosexual acts should be treated with respect. The catechism I had in mind was the Penny Catechism, which was the standard catechism in Great Britain in the twentieth century. It states:
327. Which are the four sins crying to heaven for
vengeance?
1. Wilful murder
2. The sin of Sodom
3. Oppression of the poor
4. Defrauding labourers of
their wages.
Gen. 4, Gen. 18, Exod. 2, James 5.
The Howell case was not about what one can say in public, but about what one can teach as an academic. There are necessarily more strict rules about this than about what one can say generally; presenting views that lack basic moral or rational credibility as defensible undermines the education of one's students. Astronomers are not allowed to teach that the earth was flat. In the eyes of contemporary secularists, the claim that homosexual acts are wrong is as absurd as the claim that the earth is flat, and a lot more harmful. So there can be no case for an academic's being allowed to teach it, and teaching it is a form of professional misconduct.
I was also interested in Reno's comment about the candidate for the philosophy job not being hired at Notre Dame because of rumours that he was 'anti-gay'. Without knowing anything at all about this situation, I must say that it is an entirely plausible scenario, perhaps even more plausible at a nominally Catholic university like Notre Dame where there would be more anxiety about seeming to conform to the more unpopular views of the Catholic Church. I give Reno enough credit to suppose that he would not have made this statement unless he had solid evidence for its truth; in the nature of things, such evidence is not of a kind that can be made publicly available.
My comment was on homosexual acts, not on homosexual orientation, so the fact that the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that people with a homosexual orientation should be treated with sensitivity and respect is not relevant; it does not follow from this that homosexual acts should be treated with respect. The catechism I had in mind was the Penny Catechism, which was the standard catechism in Great Britain in the twentieth century. It states:
327. Which are the four sins crying to heaven for
vengeance?
1. Wilful murder
2. The sin of Sodom
3. Oppression of the poor
4. Defrauding labourers of
their wages.
Gen. 4, Gen. 18, Exod. 2, James 5.
The Howell case was not about what one can say in public, but about what one can teach as an academic. There are necessarily more strict rules about this than about what one can say generally; presenting views that lack basic moral or rational credibility as defensible undermines the education of one's students. Astronomers are not allowed to teach that the earth was flat. In the eyes of contemporary secularists, the claim that homosexual acts are wrong is as absurd as the claim that the earth is flat, and a lot more harmful. So there can be no case for an academic's being allowed to teach it, and teaching it is a form of professional misconduct.
I was also interested in Reno's comment about the candidate for the philosophy job not being hired at Notre Dame because of rumours that he was 'anti-gay'. Without knowing anything at all about this situation, I must say that it is an entirely plausible scenario, perhaps even more plausible at a nominally Catholic university like Notre Dame where there would be more anxiety about seeming to conform to the more unpopular views of the Catholic Church. I give Reno enough credit to suppose that he would not have made this statement unless he had solid evidence for its truth; in the nature of things, such evidence is not of a kind that can be made publicly available.
8.6.2010 | 11:34am
theo says:
We need to abandon the "homosexuality is normal"/"homosexuality is sinful" paradigm, and look at the actual evidence.
There's growing evidence in the psychological community that homosexual behavior originates in cold and overcontrolling parenting. Dr. Robert Spritzer, the psychiatrist who spearheaded removal of homosexuality from the APA's manual of disorders in 1973, reversed his position in the early 2000's based on a study of gay men and women he conducted, in which he found that nearly 70% ceased experiencing homosexual attraction after successful therapy that addressed early childhood issues. I read an article couple of years ago by a therapist in Canada who found the same thing, 70% of her lesbian clients, women who were well-adjusted in their sexuality and not trying to change, spontaneously ceased feeling homosexual attraction during the course of therapy to deal with early childhood issues, and began feeling attracted to and dating men!
The therapist said she thinks homosexuality is the result of delayed emotional maturation due to unresolved childhood tensions (makes sense; little girls and little boys tend not to like each other, but prefer other little girls or boys for friends). She also noted that the homosexual community behaves exactly the way an emotionally immature person does when confronted with something threatening to it: tantrums, denials, trying to get its own way. And both she and Dr. Spritzer have come under heavy attack by the gay community since releasing their studies.
There's growing evidence in the psychological community that homosexual behavior originates in cold and overcontrolling parenting. Dr. Robert Spritzer, the psychiatrist who spearheaded removal of homosexuality from the APA's manual of disorders in 1973, reversed his position in the early 2000's based on a study of gay men and women he conducted, in which he found that nearly 70% ceased experiencing homosexual attraction after successful therapy that addressed early childhood issues. I read an article couple of years ago by a therapist in Canada who found the same thing, 70% of her lesbian clients, women who were well-adjusted in their sexuality and not trying to change, spontaneously ceased feeling homosexual attraction during the course of therapy to deal with early childhood issues, and began feeling attracted to and dating men!
The therapist said she thinks homosexuality is the result of delayed emotional maturation due to unresolved childhood tensions (makes sense; little girls and little boys tend not to like each other, but prefer other little girls or boys for friends). She also noted that the homosexual community behaves exactly the way an emotionally immature person does when confronted with something threatening to it: tantrums, denials, trying to get its own way. And both she and Dr. Spritzer have come under heavy attack by the gay community since releasing their studies.
8.6.2010 | 2:59pm
Celebi says:
I think all "right wing" posters here need to read a little more than the Cathecism and the Bible, Not all answers are to be found there, The understanding of the Church on Human sexuality is honestly very limited and full of prejudice that limit her ability to understand beyond the "box". If only the Church would admit She doesn't have all understanding and knowledge about this issues and would writte and speak in an "open" code, that is admitting that "this is what we think these issues are, but that can change" instead of "this is the Truth and if you don't accept it you will go straight to hell". Time and History prove that the Church has changed her moral codes many times through it's history, a few centuries ago Slavery was seen as moral, now it is condemned.
I was a "right wing" Catholic a few months ago, until i realized how fanatic and irrational i was becomming, and realizing how afraid i was to analize other opinions leaving indoctrinated prejudices aside. I honestly believe in full conscience with all i have heard, seen and read now that Homosexuality is Natural and poorly understood by both Science and mostly by the Church, I believe that The Church is still trapped in a Psicosexual age of that of a pree-teen boy stage on Sexual Issues and a lot of serious studies show this.
I believe that the current Homosexual Lifestyle as right wingers call it, is very disordered, but that is not because such disorder is inherent to Homosexuality, (There is also a Disordered Heterosexual Lifestyle after all) but it is the result of those whose lives have been damaged by prejudice, cruelty, rejection, fear, poor self-acceptance, You see a lot of these problems (drugs, suicide, dangerious sexual practices, abuse, violence, psichiatric problems) in Heterosexuals subjected to the same conditions as well.
I recommend to read:
Faith Beyond Resentment - Father James Alison
On being Liked - Father James Alison
Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century
-John Boswell
What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality
-Daniel A. Helminiak
If you don't change your mind at least you will widen your paradigms, which is a True Gain for the Church.
I was a "right wing" Catholic a few months ago, until i realized how fanatic and irrational i was becomming, and realizing how afraid i was to analize other opinions leaving indoctrinated prejudices aside. I honestly believe in full conscience with all i have heard, seen and read now that Homosexuality is Natural and poorly understood by both Science and mostly by the Church, I believe that The Church is still trapped in a Psicosexual age of that of a pree-teen boy stage on Sexual Issues and a lot of serious studies show this.
I believe that the current Homosexual Lifestyle as right wingers call it, is very disordered, but that is not because such disorder is inherent to Homosexuality, (There is also a Disordered Heterosexual Lifestyle after all) but it is the result of those whose lives have been damaged by prejudice, cruelty, rejection, fear, poor self-acceptance, You see a lot of these problems (drugs, suicide, dangerious sexual practices, abuse, violence, psichiatric problems) in Heterosexuals subjected to the same conditions as well.
I recommend to read:
Faith Beyond Resentment - Father James Alison
On being Liked - Father James Alison
Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century
-John Boswell
What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality
-Daniel A. Helminiak
If you don't change your mind at least you will widen your paradigms, which is a True Gain for the Church.
8.6.2010 | 3:51pm
Gil Costello says:
Mark – You write “It would be equally destructive to take that [gay] child and place him in a heterosexual indoctrination group.” I do disagree with the fundamental claim of “conversion therapists”, gay and straight, because I reject the lie of sexual identity. But we part company when you claim there is such a thing as a “gay child”, which means you are advocating the imposition of a sexual identity in the same breath that you deny it. In fact you claim that children “having a support network of gay friends and getting advice from gay adults is almost certainly an important part of support.” I think you are missing my point: A SEXUAL IDENTITY IS A LIE. To systematically impose a sexual identity on a child and call it “support” to my mind is criminal. That “support” in fact is training youth to fetishize sex and the persons they are having sex with, which is the farthest distance from an actual relationship. (I always think of Hitchcock’s film “Vertigo”). The gay lifestyle in fact is a fetishistic lifestyle no different dynamically than a heterosexual one. But there is a political difference: gays want to construct an all-encompassing cultural edifice on a fundamental lie, that there is such a thing as a gay identity, and have it mandatorily taught in our schools, which destroys the path of developing honest relationships, sexually and otherwise.
Rene Girard, in discovering the dynamics of mimetic and triangular desire, especially in the context of rivalry, has this to say: “…the model and rival, in the sexual domain, is an individual of the same sex…All sexual rivalry is thus structurally homosexual…If there is no ‘genuine’ homosexuality among animals, that is because, with them, mimetism is not intense enough to have a lasting effect on the sexual appetite of the defeated rival. ..A comparison between animal phenomenon, ritualized homosexuality and modern homosexuality cannot fail to signal that mimetism brings in the sexuality and not the other way round!” And his conversation partner, the psychiatrist Jean-Michel Oughourlian, quotes a gay man on the quintessence of a gay relationship: “Take my word for it—homosexuality is wanting to be what the other is.” In other words, the gay man’s sexual partner is fetishized. (“Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World” pp 335-338).
What Reno has unlocked is a dynamic at universities of suffocating the truth about homosexuality and to permanently stall any investigations into the actual dynamics involved in relating sexually to accommodate the agenda of sex liberationists, and what I’m saying is that this has led to the devastating practice of indoctrinating children into sexual fetishistic lifestyles in our schools. Heterosexually oriented as well as homosexually oriented persons can fetishize sex, so the problem is not with being gay or straight, but with fetishism.
And finally, in the summary you reject, I take particular note of two findings which I find incontrovertible:
“Recent increases in the percentage of those experimenting with same-sex behaviour suggest social influence rather than genetic change, and
“…everyone has at least a 10% genetic influence in his or her behaviour - simply because without genes there can be no bodily activity of any kind, or human behavior.”
Kurt Cobain sang it: “Everyone is gay.” Meaning, everyone is genetically predisposed to all kinds of behavior, including homosexual behavior. I discovered this in 1973 and coined a word, “omnisexual”. The brightest gay philosopher of the 20th century, Michel Foucault, also agreed, rejecting the gay gene theory, saying if his sexual orientation is determined, that he can’t be free sexually. Science is on his side. And everyone must reject your suggestion that we continue to indoctrinate children into a gay lifestyle until genetics proves that they were gay to begin with.
Rene Girard, in discovering the dynamics of mimetic and triangular desire, especially in the context of rivalry, has this to say: “…the model and rival, in the sexual domain, is an individual of the same sex…All sexual rivalry is thus structurally homosexual…If there is no ‘genuine’ homosexuality among animals, that is because, with them, mimetism is not intense enough to have a lasting effect on the sexual appetite of the defeated rival. ..A comparison between animal phenomenon, ritualized homosexuality and modern homosexuality cannot fail to signal that mimetism brings in the sexuality and not the other way round!” And his conversation partner, the psychiatrist Jean-Michel Oughourlian, quotes a gay man on the quintessence of a gay relationship: “Take my word for it—homosexuality is wanting to be what the other is.” In other words, the gay man’s sexual partner is fetishized. (“Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World” pp 335-338).
What Reno has unlocked is a dynamic at universities of suffocating the truth about homosexuality and to permanently stall any investigations into the actual dynamics involved in relating sexually to accommodate the agenda of sex liberationists, and what I’m saying is that this has led to the devastating practice of indoctrinating children into sexual fetishistic lifestyles in our schools. Heterosexually oriented as well as homosexually oriented persons can fetishize sex, so the problem is not with being gay or straight, but with fetishism.
And finally, in the summary you reject, I take particular note of two findings which I find incontrovertible:
“Recent increases in the percentage of those experimenting with same-sex behaviour suggest social influence rather than genetic change, and
“…everyone has at least a 10% genetic influence in his or her behaviour - simply because without genes there can be no bodily activity of any kind, or human behavior.”
Kurt Cobain sang it: “Everyone is gay.” Meaning, everyone is genetically predisposed to all kinds of behavior, including homosexual behavior. I discovered this in 1973 and coined a word, “omnisexual”. The brightest gay philosopher of the 20th century, Michel Foucault, also agreed, rejecting the gay gene theory, saying if his sexual orientation is determined, that he can’t be free sexually. Science is on his side. And everyone must reject your suggestion that we continue to indoctrinate children into a gay lifestyle until genetics proves that they were gay to begin with.
8.6.2010 | 4:25pm
Father John says:
I have a wonderful idea. Since Mexico has ruled same sex marriage valid, let's swap our homosexuals for more good Catholic Mexican families (man and women). You are aware that most, if not all, liberal university faculty members are either gay or want to be. Trust me, ask them.....
8.6.2010 | 4:28pm
Gil Costello says:
Celebi – From reading your post it is apparent that although you are a sensitive person, you have a very limited experience with the dynamics of what makes up gay lifestyles, which in essence fulfill the proclamation that their identity is sexual and therefore to suppress any sexual activity would be a suppression of Self, a negation of freedom. For example, you write “I believe that the current Homosexual Lifestyle as right wingers call it, is very disordered, but that is not because such disorder is inherent to Homosexuality …” In fact, the proud gay man is in no way trying to find ways to limit his very being, his ontological essence as a human person, which is philosophically embedded in sexual acts. For example, a gay man might not enjoy bondage, but he would not want to suppress that sexual expression in others, and if he one day felt an urge to participate in that sexual act, he wouldn’t suppress that desire, and would in no way view it as an affliction. This is why so many simulated “disordered sexual acts” are on display at gay pride parades: it is a celebration of those acts, not a display of what tortures them.
Most gay persons admire and recommend books written by Andrew Sullivan, considered by most gays to be an example of a reasonable gay man living his life in accord with his freedom as a person. And he insists on the joys of two committed life-partners having sex with other men as essential to a freedom that transcends the confines established by traditional married heterosexual folk. He also tries to explain how anonymous sex is a mystical experience; again, a transcendent sexual experience that will no time soon be recommended by sexually repressed straights.
And finally, the gay “guest speakers” that teach in sex education classes about the “joys of anal sex” mean just that. And they want to help children, including heterosexually oriented youth, to experiment with this and discover what they are missing. And as so often happens with these teens, there are boys that want to hurt and humiliate girls sexually, so when the girls resist the advances of these sadistically inclined boys, the boys can accuse them of being sexually uptight and refer them to what they learned in sex education classes. And many girls finally submit. The experts have sided not with her experience, but with the sadist’s.
Most gay persons admire and recommend books written by Andrew Sullivan, considered by most gays to be an example of a reasonable gay man living his life in accord with his freedom as a person. And he insists on the joys of two committed life-partners having sex with other men as essential to a freedom that transcends the confines established by traditional married heterosexual folk. He also tries to explain how anonymous sex is a mystical experience; again, a transcendent sexual experience that will no time soon be recommended by sexually repressed straights.
And finally, the gay “guest speakers” that teach in sex education classes about the “joys of anal sex” mean just that. And they want to help children, including heterosexually oriented youth, to experiment with this and discover what they are missing. And as so often happens with these teens, there are boys that want to hurt and humiliate girls sexually, so when the girls resist the advances of these sadistically inclined boys, the boys can accuse them of being sexually uptight and refer them to what they learned in sex education classes. And many girls finally submit. The experts have sided not with her experience, but with the sadist’s.
8.6.2010 | 7:42pm
MC Masotti says:
The "sexual revolution" was a revolting lie, and unless they repent, it is well-established what becomes of the children of the Father of Lies.
As it is written in the Gospel of Matthew, after He overcame the Devil's temptations, Jesus's FIRST 'THING' was: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
As it is written in the Gospel of Matthew, after He overcame the Devil's temptations, Jesus's FIRST 'THING' was: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
8.6.2010 | 10:32pm
Celebi says:
Gil - I am a proud Homosexual Man that is in no way inside the "Homosexual Lifestyle" as right wingers and hell callers would like to put me in to condemn me, I am celibate. but i do have experience in this, because i am not talking about somebody else, i am talking for myself, i have many good gay friends and they all recall pretty much the same story, just feeling different from the very beginning of our lives.
I found the moment i accepted myself as a moment of deep grace and the beginning of a journey that i have just started, being rejected by the Law of Men and by the Church i have built over the years along my heterosexual brothers and sisters, hearing condemnations, jokes and hate speech from the pulpit from the mouth of Priests have openned my mind to the deepest part of Morality and the knowledge of the Love of God. God is always bigger than what the Church thinks or does, the Church is not God.
I realize that many of the ones that affirm that Homosexuality is objectively disordered are just repeating what they hear others in positions of power or admiration saying, the proof is that when those fervent catholic couples find themselves having a gay child their faith is soon shattered, the wise pastors suddenly become utterly ignorant on the issue and there is no way to call for help, the Heart of a Mother seems to understand things from a more perfect perspective, and soon realizes that her gay child is not evil at all.
If i were you, i would stop condemning and summoning the Devil into this, and start reaching out for the Gay and lesbian members of your church, that by the way are about the 5% of your Local church population, and your priest has a 20% chance to be one of those. but before you reach out to them, educate yourself. The Church needs to rely more on Natural Sciences when formulating moral paradigms, and leave faith issues rely on Revelation.
All of you who openly condemn without thinking, all of you who point your fingers to us, who would never lend a heart and an ear to us, who would sit on the other bench before sitting beside one of us, all of you who call us children of the father of lies....The Blood of many innocents is in your hands, children, teens and adults that have been moved to the edge of suicide because of your ignorance and hate.
I found the moment i accepted myself as a moment of deep grace and the beginning of a journey that i have just started, being rejected by the Law of Men and by the Church i have built over the years along my heterosexual brothers and sisters, hearing condemnations, jokes and hate speech from the pulpit from the mouth of Priests have openned my mind to the deepest part of Morality and the knowledge of the Love of God. God is always bigger than what the Church thinks or does, the Church is not God.
I realize that many of the ones that affirm that Homosexuality is objectively disordered are just repeating what they hear others in positions of power or admiration saying, the proof is that when those fervent catholic couples find themselves having a gay child their faith is soon shattered, the wise pastors suddenly become utterly ignorant on the issue and there is no way to call for help, the Heart of a Mother seems to understand things from a more perfect perspective, and soon realizes that her gay child is not evil at all.
If i were you, i would stop condemning and summoning the Devil into this, and start reaching out for the Gay and lesbian members of your church, that by the way are about the 5% of your Local church population, and your priest has a 20% chance to be one of those. but before you reach out to them, educate yourself. The Church needs to rely more on Natural Sciences when formulating moral paradigms, and leave faith issues rely on Revelation.
All of you who openly condemn without thinking, all of you who point your fingers to us, who would never lend a heart and an ear to us, who would sit on the other bench before sitting beside one of us, all of you who call us children of the father of lies....The Blood of many innocents is in your hands, children, teens and adults that have been moved to the edge of suicide because of your ignorance and hate.
8.7.2010 | 10:55am
Rick J says:
Academic freedom is good because it permits contestants and spectators to broaden, sharpen and understanding of the contesting ideas. At all points along the spectrum, these contests are declared forfeits because they are at variance with (depending on one's point of view) a religious precept or "tolerance."
Those whose minds could expand by observing, or participating in, this contest of ideas, lose the opportunity to find the contours of their own argument, much less accept the truth in another's. The results show in the increasing hysteria with which each side treats the other.
To a more directly Christian point, Christ seemed not just to tolerate, but to relish association with those whose moral practices, to say nothing of their ideas, varied from the views of those who professed the moral law. And nothing drew His ire more than sanctimony.
At all points on the spectrum, then, the enforced disengagement with disagreeable ideas seems to result in a disengagement with the people who hold them. That is the gravest moral danger, I think, in the restriction of academic freedom.
Those whose minds could expand by observing, or participating in, this contest of ideas, lose the opportunity to find the contours of their own argument, much less accept the truth in another's. The results show in the increasing hysteria with which each side treats the other.
To a more directly Christian point, Christ seemed not just to tolerate, but to relish association with those whose moral practices, to say nothing of their ideas, varied from the views of those who professed the moral law. And nothing drew His ire more than sanctimony.
At all points on the spectrum, then, the enforced disengagement with disagreeable ideas seems to result in a disengagement with the people who hold them. That is the gravest moral danger, I think, in the restriction of academic freedom.
8.7.2010 | 4:06pm
Gil Costello says:
Celibi – I in no way question your sincerity and your anguish in your struggle, but it is apparent that you misunderstand what I am trying to accomplish, which is to find ways to get those committed to the ideals of sexual liberation to take their hands off the children.
In the drama of life we are free to adopt any identity we please, and I would argue that most of the time the ones we choose are false: they for the most part lead us in the opposite direction of who we are. When someone takes on a sexual identity, to me it’s always the same, regardless what reductive image the person embraces as a fetish (heterosexual, homosexual, transgender, etc.). A sexual identity in and of itself is always a fetish. So it is that when a person identifies himself in a reductive way, turning him-herself into an object to love or hate, he-she is the farthest distance from being a person, which is always, in my view, a gestalt of a particular and unique expression of Love. So for the Christian, the only accurate way to perceive an other is to perceive that person as Christ, because that is the image he-she has been made in. To hate the other is always a hatred of God; to demean the other is always demeaning God; to demonize the other is always demonizing God, for no person is evil. We all in some degree fail in this, but it helps when we are able to recognize when we fail.
In the film “Batman Begins” Batman says, “It’s what I do that defines me.” A person can become the captain of his own soul and sail away from God, which is always a sailing away from who one really is. But becoming a false identity never alters who one really is. In other words, the identity one has taken on in social-legalistic terms is the identity that gets played out in the matrix of the world that the apostle John rejects (which is the world that men create, not the one God created). It is in that world that we play our sado-masochistic games. ALL the identities of that world are false; they are fetishes. It’s like the game of life has become one huge video-game, and probably why video games are so popular: they mirror what we have become in our waywardness, in our moving away from God who made us in his image and likeness.
I don’t see how we are going to make much progress in limiting the ever-escalating violence we do to each other until we at least grasp the basic concepts Rene Girard has gifted us with. At the heart of what he is telling us is the profound distinction between the Heraclitean (Greek) Logos and the Johnnine (Christian) Logos. He shows how throughout Christian history most Christians continue to subsume what remnant they cling to from the Johnnine Logos into the Heraclitean Logos that orchestrates human affairs in the world John rejects, a world created by men. (explained in Girard’s “Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World” pp 270-274).
A Lutheran minister coined the phrase “oppositional self-imaging”. For a heterosexually oriented person to define himself based on how he opposes homosexually oriented persons, or vice-versa, is an entrapment in a false identity. I don’t oppose any person. I oppose the process that fetishizes persons, including how that occurs in fetishizing sex, which makes relationship impossible. We shouldn’t be indoctrinating children into this destructive dead end.
In the drama of life we are free to adopt any identity we please, and I would argue that most of the time the ones we choose are false: they for the most part lead us in the opposite direction of who we are. When someone takes on a sexual identity, to me it’s always the same, regardless what reductive image the person embraces as a fetish (heterosexual, homosexual, transgender, etc.). A sexual identity in and of itself is always a fetish. So it is that when a person identifies himself in a reductive way, turning him-herself into an object to love or hate, he-she is the farthest distance from being a person, which is always, in my view, a gestalt of a particular and unique expression of Love. So for the Christian, the only accurate way to perceive an other is to perceive that person as Christ, because that is the image he-she has been made in. To hate the other is always a hatred of God; to demean the other is always demeaning God; to demonize the other is always demonizing God, for no person is evil. We all in some degree fail in this, but it helps when we are able to recognize when we fail.
In the film “Batman Begins” Batman says, “It’s what I do that defines me.” A person can become the captain of his own soul and sail away from God, which is always a sailing away from who one really is. But becoming a false identity never alters who one really is. In other words, the identity one has taken on in social-legalistic terms is the identity that gets played out in the matrix of the world that the apostle John rejects (which is the world that men create, not the one God created). It is in that world that we play our sado-masochistic games. ALL the identities of that world are false; they are fetishes. It’s like the game of life has become one huge video-game, and probably why video games are so popular: they mirror what we have become in our waywardness, in our moving away from God who made us in his image and likeness.
I don’t see how we are going to make much progress in limiting the ever-escalating violence we do to each other until we at least grasp the basic concepts Rene Girard has gifted us with. At the heart of what he is telling us is the profound distinction between the Heraclitean (Greek) Logos and the Johnnine (Christian) Logos. He shows how throughout Christian history most Christians continue to subsume what remnant they cling to from the Johnnine Logos into the Heraclitean Logos that orchestrates human affairs in the world John rejects, a world created by men. (explained in Girard’s “Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World” pp 270-274).
A Lutheran minister coined the phrase “oppositional self-imaging”. For a heterosexually oriented person to define himself based on how he opposes homosexually oriented persons, or vice-versa, is an entrapment in a false identity. I don’t oppose any person. I oppose the process that fetishizes persons, including how that occurs in fetishizing sex, which makes relationship impossible. We shouldn’t be indoctrinating children into this destructive dead end.
8.7.2010 | 5:13pm
MC Masotti says:
Science affirms neither homosexual behavior nor suicide. Nor was Jesus abolishing or ignoring any Law with His call for repentance, but rather discouraging the committing of ANY act that is contrary both to nature and the Law of "Nature's God".
8.7.2010 | 8:45pm
shadow_man says:
For those of you claiming homosexuality is a "lifestyle", that is a false and ignorant statement. Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.
And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.
And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."
8.8.2010 | 4:11pm
Caitríona says:
"The reasoning goes like this: Gays and lesbians have been an oppressed minority, as blacks have been, and as we resisted racism by banning it where we could, so we should use our positions to ban prejudice against gays and lesbians and to promote equality and inclusion.
Traditional moral judgments aren’t like the old racists theories. They concern behaviors—the usual focus of moral judgments—not the ontological status of persons as genetically inferior."
The suggestion here is that homosexuality is a choice - that race is not a choice but sexuality is. And furthermore that its ok to discriminate against homosexuality because people choose to behave this way. This is a major flaw and/or a major misunderstanding in the arguments of those who are against homosexuality.
I do agree that people have a right to believe what they believe, and express this belief in a non-offensive way, but a "behaviour" it is not.
Traditional moral judgments aren’t like the old racists theories. They concern behaviors—the usual focus of moral judgments—not the ontological status of persons as genetically inferior."
The suggestion here is that homosexuality is a choice - that race is not a choice but sexuality is. And furthermore that its ok to discriminate against homosexuality because people choose to behave this way. This is a major flaw and/or a major misunderstanding in the arguments of those who are against homosexuality.
I do agree that people have a right to believe what they believe, and express this belief in a non-offensive way, but a "behaviour" it is not.
8.8.2010 | 5:44pm
Gil Costello says:
shadow_man – You write, “For those of you claiming homosexuality is a ‘lifestyle’, that is a false and ignorant statement. Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to…”
Just to be clear, I am not claiming that homosexuality is a lifestyle. Homosexuality is an exclusive sexual attraction to a person of the same sex. But homosexually oriented persons do have the freedom to construct lifestyles that will accommodate the servicing of sexual, psychological and philosophical needs, and this is how gay culture and the lifestyles it promotes have developed. Mainstream culture has been inundated with a plethora of university courses, books (fiction and non-fiction), periodicals, magazines, films and other expressions of gay lifestyles embraced by the gay movement. Are you denying they exist?
There is absolutely no scientific evidence that homosexually oriented persons have inherited their orientation the way African Americans have inherited the color of their skin. Gays keep saying that it will eventually be discovered, even though all the scientific odds weigh against it. And it’s fine with me if gays want to believe that for any reason. I just object to teaching it to children in schools as fact when it has never been established as fact.
I listened to a panel of persons speaking on their sexual orientations, all of them claiming it was genetic, including a man claiming he was a woman trapped in a man’s body (transgender) and a man who claimed that from the earliest age he could recollect (age 3) he had a sexual fixation on leather, and to this day he cannot be aroused sexually without leather being involved, and he made his case that this has to be genetic. The more evidence scientists gather the more dashed become the hopes that gays and others with disordered sexual orientations are genetically determined.
We know that many children who have exclusive same-sex attraction grow out of it and others stay with it, and every time I have asked a gay person how you can tell which child is permanently fixed in a homosexual orientation, they have honestly responded that you can’t. So why would educators want to take children who have reported same-sex attraction and place them in “gay support groups” that will indoctrinate those children into pursuing a gay lifestyle? Neuroscientists have proved unequivocally that any behavior as well as repetitious thinking concerning that behavior that is repeatedly indulged will change the brain, resulting in a child who might have grown out of a same-sex attraction being locked into it.
One of the most flamboyant gay men who had publically come out not as bisexual, but gay, long before most gays even considered it was one of the great master filmmakers of the 20th century, Rainer Werner Fassbinder. During the last 6 years of his life he had an exclusive relationship with a woman. There have certainly been children, as well as some adults, who for a time experienced exclusive same-sex attraction, but somehow discovered one day that the opposite sex could in fact attract. That of course does not negate that there are homosexually oriented men who will stay that way for the rest of their lives, and they must be protected in law from being discriminated against. But this does not mean we should discriminate against and harm children in the process of heightening an adult’s self-esteem with lies.
And by the way, there are children, male and female, as well as men and women who have simply experimented with disordered sex and ended up becoming addicted to it. Again, the “why” of this has been discovered by neuroscientists. One can even enter into a sexual behavior that one might detest (as sometimes happens with children who sell their flesh to adults) and end up becoming addicted to it over time. This is why we have to stop pressuring children to experiment with dangerous (disordered) sexual practices touted as positive expressions of intimacy by sex educators.
Every child deserves a mother and father, and if through some default he/she loses a mother or father, then that single parent should not be penalized. But it’s crazy to institute a system where a child is legally deprived of a mother or father, as in adoption cases by gays. The institution of marriage is one means the State has of protecting children from being discriminated against, guaranteeing that the child will at least have a good chance at having a mother and father.
My fight has consistently been to prevent children from being sacrificed on the altar of the high priests of the sexual liberation movement.
Just to be clear, I am not claiming that homosexuality is a lifestyle. Homosexuality is an exclusive sexual attraction to a person of the same sex. But homosexually oriented persons do have the freedom to construct lifestyles that will accommodate the servicing of sexual, psychological and philosophical needs, and this is how gay culture and the lifestyles it promotes have developed. Mainstream culture has been inundated with a plethora of university courses, books (fiction and non-fiction), periodicals, magazines, films and other expressions of gay lifestyles embraced by the gay movement. Are you denying they exist?
There is absolutely no scientific evidence that homosexually oriented persons have inherited their orientation the way African Americans have inherited the color of their skin. Gays keep saying that it will eventually be discovered, even though all the scientific odds weigh against it. And it’s fine with me if gays want to believe that for any reason. I just object to teaching it to children in schools as fact when it has never been established as fact.
I listened to a panel of persons speaking on their sexual orientations, all of them claiming it was genetic, including a man claiming he was a woman trapped in a man’s body (transgender) and a man who claimed that from the earliest age he could recollect (age 3) he had a sexual fixation on leather, and to this day he cannot be aroused sexually without leather being involved, and he made his case that this has to be genetic. The more evidence scientists gather the more dashed become the hopes that gays and others with disordered sexual orientations are genetically determined.
We know that many children who have exclusive same-sex attraction grow out of it and others stay with it, and every time I have asked a gay person how you can tell which child is permanently fixed in a homosexual orientation, they have honestly responded that you can’t. So why would educators want to take children who have reported same-sex attraction and place them in “gay support groups” that will indoctrinate those children into pursuing a gay lifestyle? Neuroscientists have proved unequivocally that any behavior as well as repetitious thinking concerning that behavior that is repeatedly indulged will change the brain, resulting in a child who might have grown out of a same-sex attraction being locked into it.
One of the most flamboyant gay men who had publically come out not as bisexual, but gay, long before most gays even considered it was one of the great master filmmakers of the 20th century, Rainer Werner Fassbinder. During the last 6 years of his life he had an exclusive relationship with a woman. There have certainly been children, as well as some adults, who for a time experienced exclusive same-sex attraction, but somehow discovered one day that the opposite sex could in fact attract. That of course does not negate that there are homosexually oriented men who will stay that way for the rest of their lives, and they must be protected in law from being discriminated against. But this does not mean we should discriminate against and harm children in the process of heightening an adult’s self-esteem with lies.
And by the way, there are children, male and female, as well as men and women who have simply experimented with disordered sex and ended up becoming addicted to it. Again, the “why” of this has been discovered by neuroscientists. One can even enter into a sexual behavior that one might detest (as sometimes happens with children who sell their flesh to adults) and end up becoming addicted to it over time. This is why we have to stop pressuring children to experiment with dangerous (disordered) sexual practices touted as positive expressions of intimacy by sex educators.
Every child deserves a mother and father, and if through some default he/she loses a mother or father, then that single parent should not be penalized. But it’s crazy to institute a system where a child is legally deprived of a mother or father, as in adoption cases by gays. The institution of marriage is one means the State has of protecting children from being discriminated against, guaranteeing that the child will at least have a good chance at having a mother and father.
My fight has consistently been to prevent children from being sacrificed on the altar of the high priests of the sexual liberation movement.
8.9.2010 | 9:31am
Paul Weithman says:
Professor Reno writes above that "A whisper campaign (“he’s anti-gay”) against a recent candidate for a job in the Notre Dame philosophy department apparently succeeded."
In saying this, Professor Reno clearly means to imply three things: First, some of my departmental colleagues are (at least) selectively hostile to Catholic teaching. Second, when faced with a job application from someone who endorsed one of those teachings, one or more of those colleagues described that candidate as a bigot without openly presenting evidence to support the description. Third, the rest of the department not only let our colleague get away with spreading undocumented calumny of this kind, but we were sufficiently taken in by it that we decided not to tender an offer to the candidate though we would we would otherwise have hired him.
These are serious charges, but Professor Reno insinuates them without substantiating them in the least. We are not told who the candidate was, what his qualifications were or whether his qualifications were such that he would have been appointable to any other of the country's leading philosophy departments. Despite Reno's claim that the candidate was a "recent" one, we are not told what "recent" means or in what academic year the alleged campaign was conducted. (The department did not advertise a position in 2009-10, so the events alleged could not have taken place more recently than 2008-09.) Nor are we told who initiated the whisper campaign, who was fooled by it, where Reno learned of the campaign or what steps he took to check the veracity of his source.
Professor Reno thinks he is reporting on slanderous innuendo. In fact he is indulging in it, and doing so with all the care and scruple of a tabloid journalist. He owes the Notre Dame Philosophy Department a public apology. FIRST THINGS owes its readers a higher editorial standard.
In saying this, Professor Reno clearly means to imply three things: First, some of my departmental colleagues are (at least) selectively hostile to Catholic teaching. Second, when faced with a job application from someone who endorsed one of those teachings, one or more of those colleagues described that candidate as a bigot without openly presenting evidence to support the description. Third, the rest of the department not only let our colleague get away with spreading undocumented calumny of this kind, but we were sufficiently taken in by it that we decided not to tender an offer to the candidate though we would we would otherwise have hired him.
These are serious charges, but Professor Reno insinuates them without substantiating them in the least. We are not told who the candidate was, what his qualifications were or whether his qualifications were such that he would have been appointable to any other of the country's leading philosophy departments. Despite Reno's claim that the candidate was a "recent" one, we are not told what "recent" means or in what academic year the alleged campaign was conducted. (The department did not advertise a position in 2009-10, so the events alleged could not have taken place more recently than 2008-09.) Nor are we told who initiated the whisper campaign, who was fooled by it, where Reno learned of the campaign or what steps he took to check the veracity of his source.
Professor Reno thinks he is reporting on slanderous innuendo. In fact he is indulging in it, and doing so with all the care and scruple of a tabloid journalist. He owes the Notre Dame Philosophy Department a public apology. FIRST THINGS owes its readers a higher editorial standard.
8.9.2010 | 2:25pm
Alfred Freddoso says:
Even though I have had no correspondence with Rusty Reno about the Notre Dame matter and am not his source, I know exactly which case he is talking about -- this despite the fact that one can always claim that the candidate in question was strong but not "strong enough"; that his truly exceptional letters of recommendation (written by indisputably outstanding philosophers in the relevant area) were inflated because the writers felt sorry that he did not already have a "good" academic position; that his published work was not "good enough" for an appointment to Notre Dame's philosophy department (even though it is at least as distinguished as the work of many others of us in the department); that not everyone who opposed him did so mainly on ideological grounds, etc.
Paul Weithman's very, very carefully worded statement is technically correct. There was in fact "documentation." The candidate had once written a scholarly paper for a scholarly conference arguing against special rights for homosexuals, at least for the time being. This was easily discovered through a Google search. The thinking on the part of some in the department was (apparently) that whether or not the candidate was "anti-gay," his presence on the philosophy faculty would, because of this paper, be an embarrassment to the department in the eyes of the profession at large. In the end his otherwise promising candidacy was tabled without discussion, despite the very strong letters of recommendation.
Would the candidate have been offered a job if it had not been for the offending paper just alluded to? Perhaps, perhaps not. Would his candidacy still have been preemptively tabled without discussion? I very much doubt it, given the strength of the letters of recommendation.
What I do know is this: The incident has, rightly or wrongly, led a few of us in the department to warn other faithful Catholic philosophers -- i.e., the sort who assent to everything the Church teaches -- to be, at the very least, extremely careful if they wish to apply for a job in our department.
Paul Weithman's very, very carefully worded statement is technically correct. There was in fact "documentation." The candidate had once written a scholarly paper for a scholarly conference arguing against special rights for homosexuals, at least for the time being. This was easily discovered through a Google search. The thinking on the part of some in the department was (apparently) that whether or not the candidate was "anti-gay," his presence on the philosophy faculty would, because of this paper, be an embarrassment to the department in the eyes of the profession at large. In the end his otherwise promising candidacy was tabled without discussion, despite the very strong letters of recommendation.
Would the candidate have been offered a job if it had not been for the offending paper just alluded to? Perhaps, perhaps not. Would his candidacy still have been preemptively tabled without discussion? I very much doubt it, given the strength of the letters of recommendation.
What I do know is this: The incident has, rightly or wrongly, led a few of us in the department to warn other faithful Catholic philosophers -- i.e., the sort who assent to everything the Church teaches -- to be, at the very least, extremely careful if they wish to apply for a job in our department.
8.9.2010 | 4:53pm
Gil Costello says:
Paul Weithman - I have been a parishioner at a Dominican parish for most of the last 20 years (I had to leave that parish briefly and join another to get my daughter baptized: the lay minister in charge of preparing children for baptism felt strongly that I was not competent enough as a Catholic to catechize my daughter - she embraced abortion and gay marriage and I didn't - and so denied baptism to my daughter). I have been blessed with powerful homilies throughout the 20 years at this parish, and have no intention of leaving: Dominicans still abide with intellectual integrity on orthodoxy more than any other order, although I have been thoroughly ostracized from participating in any ministries, and although I can attend mass and lectures, I have been ordered not to speak in any capacity at the latter. This because I have voiced orthodox views on human sexuality.
I recall a visiting orthodox professor giving a lecture at our parish on human sexuality, and how he was talked down by our lay minister on the Peace and Justice Committee, and how she would call the professor a bigot and other demeaning names. This all occurred with the parochial vicar present, who resides in orthodox views, but feels it unchristian to broach the subject of homosexuality to begin with, as that could have a negative impact on the gay members of the parish.
My point is, do you really expect me to believe that a university like Notre Dame that has proudly harbored Fr. Richard McBrien all these years is not in any way trying to advance the cause of gay ideology, including various forms of intimidation towards those who hold orthodox Christian views on human sexuality? If you do expect that, and you’re being honest, then you are afflicted with severe naiveté.
According to the January 29, 2004 The Observer online, an independent newspaper serving Notre Dame: "Given his current sanctimonious condemnation of the Church regarding clergy sexual abuse, one might assume McBrien, to use his words, ‘responded properly’ when [ Fr. James] Burtchaell's [homosexual] sexual misconduct was brought to his attention. To the contrary, McBrien concealed Burtchaell's conduct; he did not discipline him or remove him from contact with students. In short, McBrien continued to put Notre Dame students at risk of a known sexual predator… Although McBrien had knowledge of [the former National Catholic Reporter contributor] Burtchaell's crimes as early as 1989, Burtchaell's sexual abuse of Notre Dame students was not made public until late 1991. When asked about Burtchaell's serial sexual abuse of students after concealing knowledge thereof for more than two years, McBrien refused to ‘comment on the matter.’” [2nd referenced from http://www.catholiccitizens.org/press/contentview.asp?c=13519].
In other words, one can certainly presume that the leadership at Notre Dame has been at the very least hog-tied to the propaganda of sex liberationists in not wanting to be critical of gay culture and a gay network within the Church, as well as buying into the claims of sex liberationists that sexual deviancy can be successfully treated, essentially following in the footsteps of many bishops and priests.
I recall a visiting orthodox professor giving a lecture at our parish on human sexuality, and how he was talked down by our lay minister on the Peace and Justice Committee, and how she would call the professor a bigot and other demeaning names. This all occurred with the parochial vicar present, who resides in orthodox views, but feels it unchristian to broach the subject of homosexuality to begin with, as that could have a negative impact on the gay members of the parish.
My point is, do you really expect me to believe that a university like Notre Dame that has proudly harbored Fr. Richard McBrien all these years is not in any way trying to advance the cause of gay ideology, including various forms of intimidation towards those who hold orthodox Christian views on human sexuality? If you do expect that, and you’re being honest, then you are afflicted with severe naiveté.
According to the January 29, 2004 The Observer online, an independent newspaper serving Notre Dame: "Given his current sanctimonious condemnation of the Church regarding clergy sexual abuse, one might assume McBrien, to use his words, ‘responded properly’ when [ Fr. James] Burtchaell's [homosexual] sexual misconduct was brought to his attention. To the contrary, McBrien concealed Burtchaell's conduct; he did not discipline him or remove him from contact with students. In short, McBrien continued to put Notre Dame students at risk of a known sexual predator… Although McBrien had knowledge of [the former National Catholic Reporter contributor] Burtchaell's crimes as early as 1989, Burtchaell's sexual abuse of Notre Dame students was not made public until late 1991. When asked about Burtchaell's serial sexual abuse of students after concealing knowledge thereof for more than two years, McBrien refused to ‘comment on the matter.’” [2nd referenced from http://www.catholiccitizens.org/press/contentview.asp?c=13519].
In other words, one can certainly presume that the leadership at Notre Dame has been at the very least hog-tied to the propaganda of sex liberationists in not wanting to be critical of gay culture and a gay network within the Church, as well as buying into the claims of sex liberationists that sexual deviancy can be successfully treated, essentially following in the footsteps of many bishops and priests.
8.10.2010 | 9:22am
Rantisteri says:
God will reward Kenneth Howell for his courageous witness in the face of the homosexual/lesbian takeover of American culture. Many of the mainstream Protestant Churches don't have the stomach to take a moral stand on homosexuality and have fallen into a great apostasy, but there is a Church that stands true to what is right. Ever wonder why some fundamentalist Muslims hate Western culture? In Islam, as in Christianity, homosexuality is correctly called sin, not a lifestyle to be embraced- an inversion of what God intends for humans, and an abomination. Marriage is between one man and one woman and will always be, in spite of caricature ceremonies by same sex couples that imitate marriage. All the rainbow parades and liberal court rulings in the whole universe won't change that truth.
8.10.2010 | 7:30pm
Ferde Rombola says:
Tristian's sad lament for the poor discriminated homosexual is a bit outdated. Homosexuality has been in vogue for over 40 years. In that time its practitioners have been coddled, lauded, legally shielded and elevated far above those who criticize their depraved activity. They insist society tolerate them, yet, as they and Lamont prove daily, they are the most intolerant people on the planet. They are in court in every state in the union claiming right that cannot be found in any constitution in the country. And, as noted in this thread, they have taken over our country's schools, all of them from kindergarten to the universities, and are making policy to silence those who will not sign on completely to their agenda, which includes the indoctrination the youngest of our children to the absurd notion homosexualtiy is no different than hererosexuality and that Sally can, indeed, have two mommies.
I suggest those of us who oppose their agenda speak a little louder. Rather than cower in fear of them, we must reiterate, as loudly and as often as we can, the sure knowledge that homosexual activity is immoral, depraved, degenerate and bestial, that its advocates are a cancer on our society and the world and their dominance of our culture must not be tolerated.
I suggest those of us who oppose their agenda speak a little louder. Rather than cower in fear of them, we must reiterate, as loudly and as often as we can, the sure knowledge that homosexual activity is immoral, depraved, degenerate and bestial, that its advocates are a cancer on our society and the world and their dominance of our culture must not be tolerated.
8.10.2010 | 7:37pm
Ferde Rombola says:
"Rather, we are confronted here with persons who know that, and why, their opinions cannot stand up under critical analysis and who therefore make the prohibition of the examination of their premises part of their dogma. This position of a conscious, deliberate, and painstakingly elaborated obstruction of ratio constitutes the new phenomenon."
This is at least one thing homosexual activists and Muslims have in common.
This is at least one thing homosexual activists and Muslims have in common.
8.30.2010 | 10:48am
Joe O'Leary says:
The Church is slowly coming to recognize that long-term loving gay relationships deserve respect, as papabile Cardinal Schoenborn and also Cardinal Martini have stressed. Even if homosexuality is not genetic but based on circumstances in infancy, and even if it evaluated as a falling short of the heterosexual ideal (which seems a rather crude view), the construction of loving relationships would be a reparatory contribution, investing in the positive rather than brooding on potential negatives. Those who go on about Sodom and Gomorrah here are actually promoting unloving relationships, the very sin Sodom represents.
9.10.2010 | 2:14pm
BettieW says:
Why do so many gay people insist that anyone who disagrees with them must necessarily hate them? I have friends who sometimes do things I don't approve or who believe things I don't believe. As long as we have some kind of affinity for each other, we can still be friends and even have a "friendly argument."
What gets me angry are the "thought police" who want to infringe on my right to free speech and having a "politically incorrect" opinion.
What gets me angry are the "thought police" who want to infringe on my right to free speech and having a "politically incorrect" opinion.
10.9.2010 | 9:52am
Sophie Tindle says:
Instead, in their demand for "marriage", the gay lobby and their fellow travelers are trying to convince the 95% of us who are heterosexual that they are no different to us. Anyone, it appears, who recognizes a difference is a bigot. There's growing evidence in the psychological community that homosexual behavior originates in cold and overcontrolling parenting. Dr. Robert Spritzer, the psychiatrist who spearheaded removal of homosexuality from the APA's manual of disorders in 1973, reversed his position in the early 2000's based on a study of gay men and women he conducted, in which he found that nearly 70% ceased experiencing homosexual attraction after successful therapy that addressed early childhood issues. I read an article couple of years ago by a therapist in Canada who found the same thing, 70% of her lesbian clients, women who were well-adjusted in their sexuality and not trying to change, spontaneously ceased feeling homosexual attraction during the course of therapy to deal with early childhood issues, and began feeling attracted to and dating men!
