Saturday, October 20, 2012

Is homosexuality really skin deep?



It is an argument peculiar to the United States of America, deeply embedded in its cultural history, gnawing away at the national psyche. Those who believe homosexuality to be a sin - whether religious or not; Roman Catholic or Evangelical Protestant; Muslim or hetero-atheist - are really not so very different from the Klu Klux Klan. According to this pastor (the Rev'd Phil Snider of the Brentwood Christian Church, Missouri), the Christian 'religious right', hetero-normative, anti-gay belief is but a reflection of the KKK 'extreme right', white supremacist, anti-immigration creed of hate.

They have simply exchanged white robes, masks and conical hats for purple robes, dog collars and mitres. Instead of burning crosses in defence of racism, they have the Bible preached and the name of Jesus appropriated to oppose the civil rights of gays. Instead of Anglo-Saxon and Celtic blood worship, they have marriage as the union of one man and one woman lauded as the foundational building block of society. Yes, sexuality is just skin deep: if it be a sin to engage in same-sex relations, black skin must still be the mark of Cain.

224 Comments:

Blogger Tony B said...

Is it healthy, this obsession of yours?

20 October 2012 at 10:09  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

It is not easy to balance the idea of a Bible that supports Jewish racialism without reigniting the preadamic theology debate, was the matter ever resolved or merely sidelined

20 October 2012 at 10:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ha, I watched that earlier. It's going around facebook. Clever and effective showmanship.

20 October 2012 at 10:27  
Blogger raggedclown said...

"Is it healthy, this obsession of yours?" asked Tony B.

Probably not. I don't think anyone would be terribly surprised if His Grace were exposed as enjoying an unhealthy interest in little boys' bottoms in a year or so's time.

20 October 2012 at 10:38  
Blogger Aremay said...

I think this man has made his point extremely well, Your Grace. The words and phrases used today against the gay people were once used against the likes of Martin Luther King - a man whose Christian faith was a towering pillar in the landscape. It does not matter to the opponents of homosexuality (how one can be opposed to a fixed, innate thing I shall never know; it is like being opposed to blonde hair) that they are echoing even darker times; what matters is that they do so at such a volume that it drowns out debate and instils fear in the other side.

I suspect that you do not know, Your Grace, what it is like to hated for something you did not choose. You do not know what it is like to be on the receiving end of this hatred and lack of understanding. You do not know what it is like to know when it is safe to hold hands with the person you love and when it is not because you might be set upon merely for that act. You do not know what it is like to have your rights - your equal, inalienable rights - decried as "special" and "oppressive" by elected officials and senior agents of the state. You do not know, and you cannot know, what it is like. I suggest a more humble tone, perhaps, on these matters until you display at least a basic understanding of what it is we go through, sometimes daily. A more Christ-like tone, if you will.

20 October 2012 at 10:45  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

And still people do not understand the difference between being black, or non-white, (or having blond hair) and the active expression of what is seen to be sinful behaviour by faith groups or sexual deviance by the non-religious.

Being black and being homosexual are not the same thing. Where in the bible does it say being non-white is the 'Mark of Cain'? Okay, accepted, this was a non-biblical idea with its roots in the Talmud.

However, one does not choose to express being black; whateve that might mean. It does not have any moral distinctiveness.

Those inclined towards same sex attraction (or children, or lamp posts, animals, blow-uo dolls, or whatever) freely chooses to give expression to their particular predilictions.

Fine. A liberal society can tolerate such private behaviour and protect civil liberties where there is no harm to children, animals, lamp-posts, blow-up dolls - or to the greater good of the wider community. It does not have to, nor should it, be forced by a small minority casting itself in the role of victim, to reorder itself and change its basic moral concepts or cultural mores and institutions to give it equivalence to heterosexuality.

20 October 2012 at 11:19  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Seems clever. But it's the same technique that's been used by the gaystapo brigade for ages.

It's actually a very weak argument but it's enough to convince the casual listener.

Here's how to show how weak it really is: simply swap their juxtaposition with the word "incest" or "paedophilia" or "adultery" etc

20 October 2012 at 11:25  
Blogger Paul de Mello said...

"how one can be opposed to a fixed, innate thing I shall never know; it is like being opposed to blonde hair"

er, but Blonde hair can change to grey/silver, fall-out, or be dyed?

Your statement seems to misunderstand the of claims of Bisexuality and Asexuality, or of the concept of Transgenderism (gender identity) and its new offspring Transracialism. "Inateness" does not imply lack of change or control.

20 October 2012 at 11:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One always views homosexuals with a certain amount of pity. Especially you DanJ0. If God made them that way, why load the additional burden of sin guilt on top. These fellows are already suffering being on the margins of society.

However, it becomes a sin in this man’s eyes when homosexuals so assert themselves they jump in the driving seat and steer society on the road towards Sodom. We don’t want to go there, not at all...


20 October 2012 at 11:42  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 October 2012 at 11:44  
Blogger William Lewis said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 October 2012 at 11:44  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Aremay said..."how one can be opposed to a fixed, innate thing I shall never know; it is like being opposed to blonde hair"

It may be silly to be opposed to blonde hair, but it's not silly to oppose cutting of blonde hair into a mullet.

20 October 2012 at 11:45  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

What a complete and utter Twat.

20 October 2012 at 11:46  
Blogger William said...

Good Dodo, excellent Dodo. Calm, measured and rational.

If you distil all the rhetoric, the argument basically says that marriage is an abuse of human rights.

20 October 2012 at 11:48  
Blogger graham wood said...

Aremay said: "I think this man has made his point extremely well"

That is disputable - Mr Snider is clearly a sly con merchant pretending to defend orthodox Christian belief, but using it as a Trojan Horse to plonk his homosexual ideology on his unsuspecting audience.

Moreover Aremay sets up a straw man with the now familiar victimhood argument - i.e.:
"You do not know what it is like to have your rights - your equal, inalienable rights - decried as "special" and "oppressive" by elected officials and senior agents of the state."
Really?
Here in the UK those "rights" have never been given fuller expression in law than at present.
Civil Partnerships as all agree give homosexuals virtually all the legal rights of those within normal marriage. What are you talking about?
Further, Aremay pleads for "at least a basic understanding of what it is we go through"
This sounds like special pleading, as if homosexuals experience temptations radically different from that of other mortals, requiring special recognition in law.
Perhaps he can enlighten us as to what "rights" this "sorely oppressed minority" are still lacking please?

20 October 2012 at 11:56  
Blogger graham wood said...

Aremay said: "It does not matter to the opponents of homosexuality (how one can be opposed to a fixed, innate thing I shall never know"

Another straw argument along the fmailiar lines and question about homosexuality being "nature or nuture". Or is it merely a matter of genetics?
This innate fixture theory has been exploded many times over, but the real issue in not about homosexual orientation, (which to some degree is acknowledged) but rather about homosexual acts - an entirely different thing.
At some point every practicising homosexual makes a choice to indulge in homosexual fantasy, to identify with the "gay" community or to have homosexual sex.
Regardless of the strength and power of the temptations encouraging that choice, or of any biological of psychosocial forces operating, that choice is always wrong.
The 'nature or nurture' element is not confined to homosexuals, but to us all - as Jesus gets to the root of the matter in his words about our 'nature':
"out of the (human) heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications....etc.
The issue is whether we will allow nature to become nurture.

20 October 2012 at 12:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I like the baldy, bearded man's expression to the speaker at 1.58 when he heard the switch.

It's not much of an argument as it stands but it does highlight the similarity in biblical rhetoric and the approach surrounding this.

It's a video version of this really. It will probably be seen the same too in 40 years.

20 October 2012 at 12:29  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

In America, perhaps, given that anti-miscegenation existed in law (connected, as I've covered many times, to the rise of eugenic theory amongst scientists - the religious "hangers on" came afterward).

We had similar moves in the UK, mostly from liberal types, who thank God were largely resisted.

So, I find much of this a little bizarre - the product more of a collective form of historical amnesia than the triumph of Progress.

20 October 2012 at 12:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

What a truly awesome campaigning machine we have in militant homosexuality. Lowering the age of consent, CP and now full ‘marriage’. Gained along the way, special employment rights, accommodation rights, adoption rights. Rather reminiscent of the NAZIs thrust through the USSR, don’t you think.

And what if a manager who had cause to discipline an employee was met with “You do realise I’m gay”. Watch the blood drain from the managers face.

You all do realise that such a machine will never be stood down. Far too valuable for the cause. What if it ends up making gays uber-menschen. How many gays are going to object to that ?

So what’s next. The field of education of course. The ‘oil fields’ of southern USSR as the NAZIs would put it. They will allow themselves a brief period of celebration after ‘marriage’ then continue. They’ve been doing it too long to stop. Disease might cart a few of them away, but there will always be young disciples to take their place. The types that organise the delightfully tasteless gay pride marches.

Just so you are all aware chaps...

20 October 2012 at 12:40  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Where in the bible does it say being non-white is the 'Mark of Cain'? Okay, accepted, this was a non-biblical idea with its roots in the Talmud.

Dear bird

You will find this nonsense derives from Joe Smith 'the prophet' *another one* and Mormonism, old sport. There is nothing biblical or Talmudic that even explains what this mark is??(Since the mark of Cain is never described in Torah, it leaves the Sages free to speculate as to its nature. The Talmudic figure Rav does just this, suggesting that the mark was actually a dog that God gave to Cain to keep him company in his solitude. *Hilarious tradition nonsense worthy of an apocrypha passage!!*) Remember, the mark of Cain showed God’s mercy and not His anger.
It is a complete mystery never explain by the Almighty. Was he originally white then turned black miraculously at God's command? Sheer rubbish.

Blofeld

20 October 2012 at 12:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Graham: "At some point every practicising homosexual makes a choice to indulge in homosexual fantasy, to identify with the "gay" community or to have homosexual sex."

Pretty much as heterosexuals do.

Obviously Christians don't have sex before marriage if they believe what they preach and so single adult Christians are either sexual virgins or truly repentant 'sinners' resolved not to commit a 'sin' of that magnitude again.

For gay people, the choice is to be normal or not. By normal I mean be a sexual being of course, rather than abnormally repressing something essentially natural. If a gay couple want sex then why would they abstain, all things being equal, when a straight couple wouldn't?

"Regardless of the strength and power of the temptations encouraging that choice, or of any biological of psychosocial forces operating, that choice is always wrong."

Wrong from a specifically religious point of view but, well, we're not all religious. In fact, most of us are not in the UK. Hence, religious arguments from that position have no hold on those of us who are not. We can just disregard them completely. We don't 'sin' in the secular world.

20 October 2012 at 12:43  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Even without a racial agenda to the preadamic debate, those preadamics still had some valid points to make, which are not being addressed by the gay rights activists

Harmony is a neoplatinic ideal and thus it was the neoplatonics who realised the history passed down by their forebears was inconsistent with that being trotted out by jewish historians

Are gay rights activists single minded in their endeavours or real theologians

Christianity is a far more reaching matter than this mans idea of what the right side of history should be

20 October 2012 at 12:56  
Blogger Kinderling said...

When Jesus is cast the role of 'Allah's Messenger' we have those who are in and those who are out with the battle-lines of who is in which.

When Jesus is perceived as the patron saint of children, all unatural desires become a product of a disturbed upbringing.

20 October 2012 at 13:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Did you know that gays don’t do compromise. What gay asks, or should that be demands, gay eventually gets, paid in full. We shall wait with anticipation the first gay couple who demand to be ‘married’ in a Catholic church, or any Christian church come to that. Of course, it won’t extend to mosques. They’ll be a convenient ethnic rights get out clause to look after that, well rather dangerous idea that Johnny Islam will welcome the happy couple in. By all means go into one and look around. Don’t forget to take your shoes off chaps, at least until the the Gay Rights On Entering Mosques Act is up and running...


20 October 2012 at 13:06  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Although it seems such an ever-so-clever technique for making your argument, let this illustrate just how rubbish it is:

"I worry about the future of our city.

Any accurate reading of the Bible should make it clear that [summary justice/incest/polygamy/tyranny] goes against the plain truth of the Word of God.

As one preacher warns, man - in over-stepping the boundary lines God has drawn, by making special rights for [vigilantes/incestuos relationships/polygamists/tyrants] - has taken another step in the direction of inviting the judgement of God upon our land.
This step, of legalising [summary justice/incest/polygamy/tyranny], is but another stepping stone towards the immorality & lawlessness that will be characteristic of the last days.

This ordinance represents a denial of all that we believe in and no one should force it on us.
It’s not that we don’t care about those who want to exercise [summary justice/incest/polygamy/tyranny] but that our rights will taken away. Unchristian views will be forced on us & our children for we will be forced to go against our personal morals.

Outside government agents are endeavouring to disturb God's established order. It’s not in line with the Bible. Do not let people lead you astray. The liberals leading this movement do not believe the Bible any longer but every good, substantial, Bible-believing, intelligent, orthodox Christian can read the Word of God and know what is happening is not of God.

When you run into conflict with God’s established order you have trouble. You do not produce harmony. You produce destruction & trouble and our city is in the greatest danger it has ever been in in its history. The reason is we have gotten away from the Bible of our forefathers, and the right of segregation ... hold on, I’m sorry ... blah blah blah ... I’ve borrowed my argument from the wrong century ... all I have done is simply take out the phrase “racial integration” and substitute it with the phrase [summary justice/incest/polygamy/tyranny] ... I hope you will stand on the right side of history."

Load of crap. But amazing how people seem to think it's some sort of cast-iron proof of validity of the SSM argument! I pity the congregation who have this man as their spiritual shepherd if that is typical of his exegesis.

20 October 2012 at 13:28  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Brentwood Christian Church is part of the Disciples of Christ. It is one of the 'seven sisters' - the old mainline protestant denominations in the US, all of them in advanced stages of decline. It's connection to actual Christianity does not extend beyond form and symbol. There are many church leaders who could give such a speech in the US. They do not have any institutional heft because their churches are populated with aging baby boomers who haven't quite realized the 60s are over. (No one competes for the "religious left" vote because ... well ... there is no "religious left" vote.) But they receive media attention as the "anti-conservative." It reassures the secular reader that religion is moving in his direction - that there is a safe form of religion out there that does not reject the modernist worldview. Safe as in "castrated", that is.

This is just a public statement of the doctrine of counterfeit Christianity. It is religious liberalism dressed up in Christian form but lacking Christian substance. Nothing unusual to see here.

carl

20 October 2012 at 13:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Why do we even listen to the ranting's of men who like the taste of womb lube. Now, THAT'S the sin...

20 October 2012 at 13:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

....or who can’t be left alone with male children.

20 October 2012 at 13:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

....or who carry really unpleasant diseases, including a potentially fatal one that has no cure...

20 October 2012 at 13:57  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

What is the observable? If we say that homosexuality is a result of nature, then what may we observe to validate this assertion? Heterosexuality is validated by the obvious complementarity of the genders, and the necessity of heterosexuality for the propagation of the species. What is the analog for homosexuality?

The homosexual apologist will typically offer up the authenticity of his desire. He will claim his desire is immutable and therefore natural. But the mere existence of immutable desire is not sufficient. It is a trivial task to demonstrate the existence of immutable authentic desires that are neither natural nor morally licit. The desire to have sex with children, for example. So we must move onward to some other observable. And we quickly find that there isn't one.

And so we must return to authentic desire and lock ourselves in a tautology. "My authentic desire proves that I am by nature a homosexual. My homosexual nature justifies my authentic desire. If you reject this reasoning, you are a hopeless hateful bigot." The reason for existence of that last clause should be blindingly clear.

carl

20 October 2012 at 14:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

....or who want the nations children to explore the disgusting act that is sodomy

20 October 2012 at 14:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Blimey, a meltdown. :O

20 October 2012 at 14:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Fast running out of TOLERANCE more like. The stance that has allowed so much militant homosexual success. To be replaced with intolerance. As you might say “Blimey, we’ve gone back 45 years !”

20 October 2012 at 17:30  
Blogger len said...

According to God we are all' sinners' whether this be homosexuals, adulterers, liars,idolaters murderers etc or it could be that we have simply inherited a' sin nature' which pre- disposes us towards sin(in God`s estimation if not our own!)

However how many of the above groups are pushing for adultery to be 'legalised', or lying,or murder?.Should our children be taught that lying is' good?('just for example.)

To call' sin' anything other than 'sin' is to delude oneself and by false teaching delude others.

'But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,'(1Timothy 4:1)

Biblical Truth is the only path to salvation and those false teachers who try to' dress up sin' to make it appear just' human nature' are quite clearly following a course directly opposed to God.

Christians should tell the Truth in love...to compare this to the racial hatred of the Klu Klux Klan is pure nonsense.

The Truth is not always welcome many people will prefer to remain with their illusions (until it is to late in many cases.)

20 October 2012 at 18:28  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

BTW, Cranmer, black skin was never the mark of Cain. Nobody knows what the mark of Cain actually was because the Bible never describes it; it merely says that God put it upon Cain. In any event, we are told, He did this not to punish Cain and his descendents, but to protect them, as in "this man, so marked, is under My protection; you mess with him, you mess with Me".

20 October 2012 at 18:37  
Blogger OldJim said...

Well, yes, this is in the end the heart of the matter:

Whilst homosexuality is developing a literature demonstrating numerous physiological, neurological and genetic correlates which show that homosexuals feel sexual desire for each other in the same way that heterosexuals do (i.e. by nature, not by choice), this will not really do the work. We can all empathise with the reality of feeling desires from birth which are similar to those of heterosexuals but whose indulgence is not tolerated by the Christian community, but that does not mean we will approve.

There is already some sign of and over the next few years there certainly will be a literature demonstrating the numerous physiological, neurological and genetic correlates to paedophilia.

If both of these desires are "authentic" in the sense of being earnestly sought by people who are incapable of heterosexual/adult attraction, feeling their respective, unchosen, "natural" attractions instead, and we do not accept paedophilia, then that kind of case on its own cannot and will not stand.

So the homosexual normalisation case must balance a "natural desire" argument joined with a utilitarian argument outlining that unlike paedophilia homosexual relationships are consensual, and therefore do not cause distress or harm.

This suffices to demonstrate the nonsense of the above video. It only addresses desires. All society rejects that as a sufficient premise, because society as a whole frowns on paedophilia.

Nonetheless, the secular societal consensus then becomes that all sexual relationships are fine as long as the desires are genuine (i.e. they have pressing biological causes which mean that the desires themselves are not CHOSEN) and they are between consenting participants (with the understanding that only adults can consent)

The other logical extension that then follows is that all humans "naturally" have a desire for several partners over the course of a lifetime, and competing desires around exclusivity at any particular moment in their lives (romance vs lust, to put it simply)

Therefore the consensus will be for an institution for serial monogamy (see current divorce laws and cohabitation) if not outright polygamy (see open relationships)

Unfortunately, the logic behind all this IS at least consistent, and does exclude obviously predatory deviance like paedophilia.

Christians must simply weather the storm and continue to assert lifelong monogamous relationships between consenting adults with the firm wish and ability to produce and raise children. If we can all make sure we practice this with the ferocity that we preach it, we will at least get kudos for integrity.

20 October 2012 at 18:38  
Blogger OldJim said...

I hope, incidentally, that the gay commentators on this blog understand that I have not used the example of paedophilia in order to be hurtful or sensationalist.

This isn't some "slippery slope" argument along the lines of "what will come next? Buggering wine bottles?" nor is it an attempt to link homosexuality to paedophilia.

I think my use of paedophilia is legitimate in this context because it allows me to explore the philosophical position that secular society is developing around the legitimacy sexual relationships.

Exploring this ideology seems important in and of itself, and particularly important in this context, where the argument is being made that the parallels in "naturalness" between skin colour and gay attraction makes traditional Christianity necessarily discriminatory against unchosen, "natural" traits.

I do not think this is the case and in the previous comment I hoped to establish why. Again, I hope no one has found the comment hurtful or cheap. It was not my intention.

20 October 2012 at 18:48  
Blogger OldJim said...

I realise now that in my first comment I haven't rendered the orthodox Christian rationale explicit.

To an orthodox Christian, the "naturalness" of a sexual desire combined with a utilitarian analysis of its effects on the participants cannot a moral argument make.

I have already shown that the "naturalness" of a desire alone does not justify an activity in the eyes of society generally.

"Utility" defined merely as "promoting the pleasure or happiness" of society in general or in this case more narrowly and exceptionally the participants involved cannot to a Christian suffice to justify an activity.

The action or behaviour must be in accordance to moral or ethical norms, and to a Christian Utilitarianism is precisely a rejection or abdication of moral norms in favour of merely maximising societal satisfaction and minimising societal friction in the absence of any properly moral frame of reference.

So, in this instance, Christians reject "Gay marriage" for the same reason they ought to oppose "Second Marriage" whilst the previous spouse still lives. Marriage is axiomatically defined as a lifelong, giving relationship between a man and wife with the intention of conceiving and raising a family.

No other arrangement will do.

We could make utilitarian arguments in favour of this definition of marriage all day: societal stability, best environment for a child, the family as a natural unit, the family provides the proper context for full human satisfaction and development and so on and so on. If all the social science in the world were against these statements, the truth is we wouldn't abandon our definition of the institution, for whilst we might make utilitarian arguments to secularists on pragmatic grounds, our moral understanding transcends any cost/benefit analysis.

You see the same thing in the abortion debate. I've seen Christians argue over the past few weeks that foetuses, thanks to medical advances, are viable at an earlier point in pregnancy. The point is, whilst they may make that argument, if a reputable scientist said "not true!" we won't realistically go "Oh, in that case, abort away!".

We might use utilitarian arguments in order to find common ground or common principles with secular society, but unlike secularists, our judgements are ultimately moral. If abortion is murder, viability is really an irrelevance, and only useful for finding common ground with those who cannot see that. I have had some concerns recently about these sorts of arguments being disingenuous and untruthful, but as long as we are careful to flag up our moral beliefs as well as making rival utilitarian claims, that seems within the bounds of civilised debate.

20 October 2012 at 19:33  
Blogger John Magee said...

In November 2008 blacks in California voted overwhelmingly by 70% for Proposition 8 which would define marriage in that state in a ballot proposition that sought to change the California Constitution to add a new section to Article I, that would read: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

The majority of Blacks in the USA may vote for liberals because of economic issues or the welfare state but when it comes to concepts like Gay "marriage" they voted an absolute NO.

Hispanics voted by over 50% against for Prop 8 in CA.

In February 2012 the vote of over 55% of the people of California to ban Gay "marriage" was overturned by the 9th Circuit Court in California (the most liberal court in the USA) and the will of the people was thrown out the window.

@Carl Jacobs

It is sad to see the great Protestant Churches of the USA almost gleefully destroy themselves in the latter half of the last century by rushing to embrace every liberal left wing idea that came down the pike. I saw this slowly evolve in my father's Episcopal Church (Anglican)from my childhood in the late 1940's until the late 1990's. The USA branch of Worldwide Anglicanism is a catastrophe today.
All they have are their beautiful Gothic churches which are almost all empty on Sunday morning.

Meanwhile the refugees from these almost defunct mainline Protestant Churches have flooded the Evangelical and Baptist Churches. Many Episcopalians and Lutherans have joined the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches too. I live in an area with a lot of Russian, Ukrainian, and Greek Orthodox Churches and I often see Anglo Saxon names for their priests in newspaper articles about their church events. These men are almost certainly former Episcopalians.

Things are so bad for the Episcopalians that The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania has in fact left the Episcopal Church USA over Gay "marriage" issues and the consecration of an openly gay bishop and joined the Anglican Church of Latin America. This was my family's diocese.

@ Inspector

The abuse of the subject of homosexuality here is starting to grate on my nevers too.

20 October 2012 at 19:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

By "utilitarian argument", you're talking about consequences mattering I guess. Acts often have social consequences and sex, other than masturbation, requires at least one other person. We have rules around social interaction, and we think individuals have rights. Rights have concomitant responsibilities in the way we normally understand them. It's self-evident that we can't just go around fulfulling our desires irrespective of the consequences for others.

The wider skin colour issue is interesting because on the face of it I'd have thought there was implications for behaviour there. That is, someone who uses skin colour to discriminate is really making some sort of judgement about expected behaviour based on a stereotype, aren't they? The pigment is just a visible manifestation of something deeper in this way of thinking. That is, it's a view about doing as well as being.

20 October 2012 at 19:54  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Tony B said...Is it healthy, this obsession of yours?

An obsesion is a very emotive way of refering to a very serious concern for an issue that is extreemly important to ernest Christians. The observation of God's principles and steering our society away from coruption rather than towards it is our concern, not an obsesion.

20 October 2012 at 19:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

OldJim: "I have had some concerns recently about these sorts of arguments being disingenuous and untruthful, but as long as we are careful to flag up our moral beliefs as well as making rival utilitarian claims, that seems within the bounds of civilised debate."

Matthew Parris wrote a column in the Times about this recently. The comments underneath were quite interesting. Matthew was sailing close to the edge but I think I understood where he was coming from. One of the comments people pointed out that one ought to know that an archbishop is motivated by religious belief and so his secular-based argument ought to stand on its own. Which is true to an extent. However, it does seem a bit weird to argue with someone knowing that if their secular arguments fail then they'll just fall back on an argument based on asserted religious premises instead.

20 October 2012 at 20:03  
Blogger John Magee said...

OldJim

Isn't it odd that the left so far has failed to embrace polygany as part of their obsession with their "equal marriage" concept? Polygany is practiced by Islam, some extreme Mormon fringe groups, many pagans, and was even practice by the ancient Hebrews.

You can bet polygamy will become an issue and get liberal support when Muslims become a large minority with political clout someday.

20 October 2012 at 20:23  
Blogger bluedog said...

Well said, Old Jim @ 18.38. There is no doubt in the mind of this communicant that homosexuality is a branch from the same root as paedophilia. If this can ever be determined, those members of the metropolitan political elite who currently support SSM will look even more foolish than usual.

20 October 2012 at 21:50  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Old Jim

"So, in this instance, Christians reject "Gay marriage" for the same reason they ought to oppose "Second Marriage" whilst the previous spouse still lives. .........

No other arrangement will do."

If you read the Bible. Jesus allowed divorce under certain circumstances when the spouse still lives. Specifically in the cases of unrepentant adultery and abandonment.

"Marriage is axiomatically defined as a lifelong, giving relationship between a man and wife with the intention of conceiving and raising a family."

I agree completely with this statement. The key word here is giving, most marriages that fail are because one or the other gets selfish.

Gay marriage likes to link this with divorce as "more marriage is good for society because there is so much divorce." etc. So Gay couples should raise kids and so help society etc. Completely different argument mainly because the (large measures of) evidence is that children raised with "non traditional families" have far poorer outcomes on every measure than children raised with their biological mum and dad.

Phil


20 October 2012 at 22:50  
Blogger John Magee said...

The dark side of marriage is divorce and Gays are discovering what that the same laws which apply to straights who divorce will apply to them too. Divorce is costly and an ugly legal mess. Ask Czech/American tennis star Martina Navratilova who thought she could throw her long time girlfriend and "wife" out the front door and now has to pay millions in "galimony" dollars to her former "wife" and divvy up their shared property. Divorce will the "gayness" out of Gay "marriage".

When Bruce and Steve get "married" it won't be for a few short months and then "bye bye". They will have to go through the divorce court process to settle their marital problems in a knock down drag out legal battle the same as straight couples who divorce. A process which costs a lot of money.

21 October 2012 at 00:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

What goes around comes around.

There will come a time when manliness is once again prized, and those that would bugger our children shown the contempt they deserve...

The Inspector was wrong about original sin. We really are a dreadful shower, save for a few of us who by the grace of God see this world and its would be corrupters for what it is...

21 October 2012 at 00:31  
Blogger TwentySixDotOne said...

The gay rights issue in the US is nothing more than a straw-man. It does not seek to give homosexuals the right to live their lives as they see fit, as they have always had this right. This issue is instead a tool used by people who could not care less about gay rights but who care mostly about re-ordering the social and moral fabric of our society.

21 October 2012 at 04:31  
Blogger John Magee said...

@Twenty

You are correct!

@Inspector

I hate to be a cynic about life but the two main controlling forces in most people's lives are self interest and pleasure. Could this define original sin. What do you think?

21 October 2012 at 05:49  
Blogger Ivan said...


Actually black skin along with a raging libido is the Mark of Ham according to some authorities that I cannot now recall.

21 October 2012 at 06:24  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Ivan

Actually black skin along with a raging libido is the Mark of Ham according to some authorities that I cannot now recall.

An authority of what?

You should consider yourself fortunate you cannot recall them. You should leave them unrecalled. And unlamented. And pray that their ideas may be consigned to an unmarked grave.

carl

21 October 2012 at 06:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

John Magee, there are already obligations and responsibilities associated with the dissolution of civil partnerships. That is, it's divorce in all but name.

21 October 2012 at 06:56  
Blogger Ivan said...


Carl, true dat.

21 October 2012 at 08:59  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

They call it "desire"but "desires"can never be fullfilled,they simply lead to more extreme lusts,greeds and perversions.The "mentally ill" in this society are removed and incarcerated in instiutions,because they "desire" to murder,rape,self mutilate,or impose thier twisted "desires" upon some-one unwilling,so how can it be commendable and "normal"for one man who parades his "desire"to suck another mans anus,introduce everything from a penis to a fist to penetrate said orifice?the chief "desire" is to force society to sanction that which it despises,revolts and utterly detests,which has little to do with queer perverts,who are the elites "useful idiots"the shock troops of our moral degradation,for political control of each mans thoughts and actions,from which point there can be no progress for the mass of humanity,which is already evident in our society today.The human contains both extremes and we are strongly advised to promote the spiritual over the animal,to aim for an expansion of our higher nature,how will isolating an individual within his perverted "desires" be conducive to this?

21 October 2012 at 09:19  
Blogger len said...

What was the mark that God put on Cain? The Bible does not specifically say. The meaning of the mark, that Cain was not to be killed, was more important than the nature of the mark itself. Whatever the mark on Cain was, it had no connection to skin color or a curse on the descendants of Cain. To use the mark on Cain as an excuse for racism and discrimination is blatantly and absolutely unbiblical. (full article Got questions.org)

21 October 2012 at 09:46  
Blogger len said...

Christianity can never[nor should it]try to fit into 'This Present World System'.

Jesus said "My Kingdom is NOT of this World".

Christianity is entirely of' another World'and preachers who apply the moral systems of 'this World' to the Kingdom of God either have no knowledge of The Kingdom of God or are deliberately misleading people.

Jesus said" For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."(Matthew 5:20) Iwould say this rules about just anyone who relies on their own 'goodness' or righteousness.

The only way to salvation is to completly disown one own 'righteousness' and rely entirely on the righteousness of Christ (imparted bt faith.)

So anyone who tells you that sin doesn`t really matter and that God will Judge you by the standards of this' present World System' is deceiving you and possibly himself as well!.



21 October 2012 at 10:31  
Blogger parepidemos said...

Inspector @ 21st October 0:31 You write: "We really are a dreadful shower, save for a few of us who by the grace of God see this world and its would be corrupters for what it is". That is an interesting mixture of Calvinism and Gnosticism. Catholics who read this blog will, no doubt, detect the heresy of Jansenism.

21 October 2012 at 10:45  
Blogger parepidemos said...

Oh, and Inspector, Whilst I certainly believe that the sexual abuse of children is a particularly abominable sin, you appear to confuse homosexuality with paedophilia; they are quite distinct sexual attractions and there is no excuse for such culpable ignorance.

In your obsessive, irrational ranting regarding gay men, it would also be good to remember that the vast majority of disgusting acts of paedophilia are perpetrated against young girls and usually by a family member or friend rather than a stranger.

21 October 2012 at 10:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Oh, and Inspector, Whilst I certainly believe that the sexual abuse of children is a particularly abominable sin, you appear to confuse homosexuality with paedophilia; they are quite distinct sexual attractions and there is no excuse for such culpable ignorance."

Indeed. Paedophilia is a psychological disorder, whereas homosexuality is not. One category of paedophile, and there are a number, has sexual attraction to children because paedophiles of that type have a 'fixation'. That is, their sexual attraction is because of a disruption in psychological development or maturation. They tend to be attracted more to age rather than a specific gender. This sort of paedophile is usually unable to maintain age-appropriate sexual relationships, resulting in being single or having very short relationships throughout their lives.

21 October 2012 at 11:56  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

It seems that the debate has gone from being one about same sex marriage, to which I don't agree with, to opinions about gays in general and unfortunately most of it ill informed rubbish, such as suggesting that gays are automatically pedophiles (??!).

It does show that a lot of people opposing ssm are not in it for genuine religious reasons, but simply there to jump on the bandwagon to attack a group they don't like full stop.

21 October 2012 at 11:56  
Blogger len said...

The problem begins when man decides what is 'sin' and what is not.

How does one immersed in sin define it?.It takes One who stands outside sin to define what 'a sinner' is.

There is much going on to remove certain aspects of sin from the definition of 'sinners'and to place them in an entirely fifferent'category'.This is exactly why 'gays' are pushing to have their 'gayness' re-defined.

To accomplish this re-defining of Homosexuality will bring them[gays] into conflict with religious groups and it is somewhat of a mystery(to me at least)why Governments are overturning the established moral order to appease a minority group.There can only be a spiritual force[not good]which is opposed to Christianity energising them?.

As moral boundaries are pushed back it gives credence to some of the more radical parties who will make a stand against this.This leads us and our Society into a very dangerous position.








21 October 2012 at 12:30  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Inspector
Chaps-Origin: Middle English chappen. Short for "chapman".
Chapman is a derivative of the Saxon word Caepman, meaning a market man or a bum monger.

Just so you are all aware chaps!

21 October 2012 at 12:31  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Danjo


"Paedophilia is a psychological disorder, whereas homosexuality is not"

That is not how the pedophiles see themselves


See page 12 of


http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/Anglican_Mainstream/gay-myths/1

They claim to be "born a pedophile". See any comparisons here!

Phil

21 October 2012 at 13:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil, I'm surprised you put your name to a comment like that. You sidestep the core point there about psychological disorder and post a bunch of fringe, right-wing Christian propaganda instead.

21 October 2012 at 13:43  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Hannah @ 11:56

Thank you very much for pointing this out.

Sin is not a shopping list of things not to do if you want to be righteous. Sin is an innate failure of humanity to live in a way which brings us closer to God. It causes us to put worldly objects and desires before God, and to fail to see the true meaning of creation; ultimately all sin is a form of idolatry, because wordly things take the place of God, which is why having no other Gods is in at Number 1 in the Ten Commandments.

Homosexual acts are considered sinful because they turn human love into sexual gratification; heterosexual acts can be considered sinful in precisely the same way. Celibacy and sexual abstinence, not marriage, is the Christian lifestyle of choice but very few people are, by human nature, capable of it.

Sacramental marriage acknowledges that fact, and is God's way of channelling the human need for sexual companionship into a positive union which provides love and stability for the children which result. Marriage symbolises the mystical union between Christ and his Church because it is loving, faithful and indissoluble, not because our Lord is in a mystical sense having it off with the Church.

Marriage is not God's way of saying that, as long as you've been through a ceremony, you can indulge in sexual gratification to your heart's content and it's tickety boo with him. As you walk away from the altar you do not suddenly become '0069, licensed to shag'. Marriage acknowledges the awesome responsibility engendered by humanity's ability to create life in God's image.

It is just as possible for married, heterosexual couples to sin as it is for homosexual couples. Homosexual couples, just like heterosexual couples, must accept the consequences of their human nature and live their lives in the best and most faithful way that they can; they are not worse, they are not disgusting, they are not perverts, they are not there for supposedly superior heterosexuals to point at and condemn. They are our brothers and sisters in Christ, who told us to love one another as he loved us.

21 October 2012 at 14:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

John.the two main controlling forces in most people's lives are self interest and pleasure. Could this define original sin.

It’s a far better explanation than some imaginary apple. This is the hand, the hand that takes. Forgive it oh Lord, it does not know what it does...

ENGLISHMAN. A succinct paragraph. One that urges this man to get the horse whip out to purge these individuals of their disgrace. A very powerful emotion, one finds, to prevent the perversion of the stock. A fellow would be interested to hear others opinion on this. Do they themselves have the self same feelings in their soul, or do they default to passive acceptance.

parepidemos.an interesting mixture of Calvinism and Gnosticism. This man rejects the idea that some in this world are pre-determined for goodness. Feels that we can slip in and out of that state depending on external pressures and the extent of our knowledge. It remains an open race to see who will succeed in this life according to God’s plan for us and who falls at the wayside.

It may appear that this man is anti homosexual but he is not. He would much rather the militants abandon their plan to cede from society and drag society their way. But in revolt they are and a fellow must do his bit to help put it down. After it’s over, we can all regret what we had to do in the battle. It would be easier then.

Manfarang You knave. You are apparently so right !

21 October 2012 at 15:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0

Is there a connection between homosexuality and paedophilia. What do you think ?

Is there a connection between paedophilia and being a single man ? A new one on this man who has never had the slightest controlling desire about children of either sex. But then, he is a disciplined intelligent soul with an innate knowledge of what is good and what is bad. He’s also a Roman Catholic and a God fearing man.

How about you, single man. What can you offer to reassure Cranmer’s people you are not one of the accursed...


21 October 2012 at 15:12  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

OIG,

Since the children most at risk of abuse are girls, at the hands of male relatives (usually fathers or step fathers), there would seem to be precisely, if you'll excuse the expression, bugger all relationship between homosexuality and paedophilia.

The idea that gay men are child-abusers-in-waiting has no basis whatsoever in any reliable, observable evidence, which may explain why, like Creationism, it appeals to a particular sort of Christian.

21 October 2012 at 15:40  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Hannah

Homosexuals are not by definition pedophiles. However, homosexual apologists often justify their behavior with arguments from nature. As in "I am biologically constructed to desire sex with another man." These arguments closely parallel similar arguments made by pedophiles. So why may nature be used to justify one sexual behavior and not another? The correct answer is "Children are not a fit object of sexual desire." But then we have left the realm of nature and entered the realm of moral judgment. The nature of the man no longer matters. Well, then, why am I prohibited from saying that a man is not a fit object of sexual desire for another man? If moral judgment takes precedent over nature, then I have made a statement that cannot be refuted with "It is my nature."

Now, the homosexual apologist could at this point abandon the argument from nature altogether and simply assert "Because I am an adult, and I want to, and who are you to deny me?" In fact, that is the true center of the case. But it does leave him vulnerable to implicitly justifying many unsavory activities he might not want to justify. Like incest, for example. Some people will consent to anything. So he returns to the argument from nature to protect his ability to raise some boundaries on sexual behavior. And he considers how to separate the pedophile's arguments from his own.

He casts about for an objective authority and settles on Psychiatry. Homosexuality is no longer considered a disorder. Pedophilia is considered a disorder. This is presented as the obvious difference. Of course this strategy depends upon Psychiatry never changing its mind - like it did about homosexuality. It depends upon a moral judgment perpetually inhibiting a scientific determination, and there is no guarantee that will happen. It is after all never good science to say "That is morally wrong. Therefore it is a disorder." In the absence of such inhibition, the homosexual apologist might again find himself caught in the dilemma. "Why is my argument from nature legitimate but not his?"

Ultimately however we are discussing a moral judgment and not a psychological judgment. It won't matter what psychiatrists say about pedophilia. The moral judgment doesn't change. That is where those such as myself remain on the subject of homosexuality. The moral judgment takes precedence. And there is no temporal authority capable of reversing it.

carl

21 October 2012 at 16:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Darter Noster. You are a few thousand years too late old chap. The connection between the older gay man and the younger male youth was firmly fixed in Ancient Rome. We have to remember in those days, ‘youth’ was any time after puberty.


21 October 2012 at 16:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


“Ancient Greece” of course.


21 October 2012 at 16:41  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah. For homosexuality, read male homosexuality. You must remember Lesbianism in the west is only of recent times. Before, their husbands would simply not have allowed them to be that way. One can even go so far in that apart from an attractiveness to the same sex, Lesbians and male homosexuals have nothing else in common. Well, maybe teenage angst on where they stand in the world, but that will be it.

21 October 2012 at 16:47  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

OIG,

Ancient Greek pederasty was directed at post-pubescent, adolescent boys, not prepubescent children who are the targets of paedophiles.

Women in Ancient Greece would commonly enter into marriage at around 12-14, precisely the same age that boys might take part in pederastic relationships. 12-14 was not an uncommon age for marriage of girls in Mediaeval and Early Modern Christian Europe.

So how does Ancient Greek paiderastia demonstrate that homosexuality and paedophilia are linked when heterosexuals were routinely engaging in the same behaviour?

21 October 2012 at 17:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 October 2012 at 17:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Is there a connection between homosexuality and paedophilia. What do you think ?"

No. I'm with mainstream psychology on this.

"How about you, single man. What can you offer to reassure Cranmer’s people you are not one of the accursed..."

Nothing. I shouldn't need to as there's no link. However, I'm happy to state that I have no sexual interest in children and I never have had. The idea is repellent to me. I see it as likely to cause considerable harm to the child too.

Inspector, I'm old enough to feel that the changes in recent social attitudes have happened too late for me hence I'm single (i.e. not married) and I don't expect that to change. However, that doesn't mean I'm not in a longterm, monogamous relationship. I'd present more details but your sidekick has a lust for any personal information about me he can get his hands on.

Since you've made all sorts of suggestions in the past yet are single, middle-aged, and obsessively homophobic yourself, I let your circumstances do the talking, and add the occasional reference to Ted Haggard, Christian and aggressive homophobe like you, who it turned out was paying for gay sex at the time. It may be a cliché about aggressive homophobes but there's truth in it for sure.

"But then, he is a disciplined intelligent soul with an innate knowledge of what is good and what is bad. He’s also a Roman Catholic and a God fearing man."

Does that mean you're still a sexual virgin as you've never married even at age 53 and your god apparently takes a dim view of sex outside of marriage? I don't care a hoot on a personal level of course but it does sound, well, rather hypocritical to describe yourself as that if you aren't.

21 October 2012 at 17:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Darter Noster. Good point, at what age is the victim that of paedophilia. It didn’t occur to this man that puberty came into it, rather was relying on below the age of consent. The legal definition one would wager...

21 October 2012 at 17:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0.obsessively homophobic

Now you know that the working use of homophobic by the gay community, at least as Cranmer’s blog is concerned is “unwanted criticism of us while we strive to have our way at the expense of whatever it takes”.

Very glad to hear you have no interest in little boys. The little boys would be relieved to know that, but we’ll keep that from them. We’ll let let them enjoy their childhood, eh.

Wouldn’t you like to know further details of the Inspector’s private life, and would be prepared to lick piss off a nettle for any tasty morsels ? Well, who knows, some more might slip out in the future :->

Be seeing you...

21 October 2012 at 17:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, you're 53 and never married. You claim to be a Roman Catholic, and god-fearing, and know right from wrong. On a personal level, I don't care whether you're paying every rent boy in Gloucester for sex. However, if you're not celebate then it shouts hypocrisy there. If you're actually heterosexual then why haven't you, in our hetero-normative society, actually got married? If you're a repressed homosexual, as I believe, and you're claiming that there's a link between paedophilia and homnosexuality then you're just the sort of person one might expect to be a fixated paedophile. You seem to have set yourself up a bit here. Of course, there are possible exits but you haven't seemed very keen to take them so far.

21 October 2012 at 17:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


DanJ0, bless your inquisitive gay hide, but one remembers that away from the Gay Avenger you appear to be on this site, you are mild mannered Danny when at work, jealously keeping your sexual orientation to yourself, and denying your colleagues the opportunity of feeling uncomfortable when in your presence...

heh heh !

21 October 2012 at 18:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, away from this site I'm really lovely. Of course I am. At work, I deliberately separate my personal life from my work life. Firstly, there's no requirement to bring one's private life into work. It's a workplace afterall and I adopt a work role there. Secondly, there may be homophobic people like you at work and so I have no intention of potentially damaging my career. As I have said in the past, I've been subjected to homophobic abuse already in my career, merely based on speculation too, so I know what happens. Now, that's that put to bed, so to speak, with a bit of rational thinking. Back to your dilemma. Are you a humongous hyprocrite, really naive sexually, a repressed homosexual, or what?

21 October 2012 at 18:29  
Blogger OldJim said...

Danj0,

Carl is bang on the money with that comment.

The DSM labelling "paedophilia" a "disorder" is due to its moral judgement, not because "this is a disorder" is lit up in neurons across a paedophile's brain. Homosexuality has indeed also been classified as a disorder in the same way and for the same reasons in previous editions of the DSM. "Paedophiles are disordered" will not do the work you want it to. It's circular. Why is paedophilia wrong? It's disordered. Why does the DSM label it disordered? Because it's wrong. I say this because ultimately all of the definitions in the DSM derive from behaviourally predictable, neurologically rooted deviations from societal norms that people view as threatening. Because of the present ideological consensus of society, paedophilia is viewed as threatening, and homosexuality is no longer. You can argue that that is just, but it involves a discussion of the present ideology of society. DSM merely reflects that, does not make what is written inside it Objectively The Scientific Truth.

The real reason paedophilia is considered wrong by the religious is that it is flagrantly immoral, and by the secular world, in a related but not identical way, because it is non-consensual and causes obvious harm.

So the secular rationale that ultimately differentiates the two is that homosexuality is consensual and does not cause obvious harm. So the "naturalness" of the desire isn't a sufficient argument to anyone to justify a sexual behaviour. So the above video's comparison with race on those grounds is specious. It must be "my desires are innate + utilitarian defence".

I will render explicit what I mean by utilitarianism shortly.


Darter Noster,

the mainstream media will be very interested to learn that the word paedophilia in the case of boys relates wholly or even mainly to prepubescents. Their coverage of the minority of Roman Catholic priests who sexually abuse their charges would have to change dramatically, the children being almost always postpubescent...

21 October 2012 at 18:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


DanJ0, sorry to hear you’ve been subject to homophobic abuse. After all, gays have quietly assumed their place in society, and we hear no more from them these days. Let’s hope that never changes and gays don’t become a pain in the arse demanding special treatment. Because if that happens, there will be an awful lot of shit thrown back at them. One and of course ALL.



21 October 2012 at 18:41  
Blogger John Magee said...

"Homosexuals are not by definition pedophiles."

Let's hope such a reasonable and accurate statement also applies to homosexual RC priests who are celibate and accused of molesting young boys with no concrete proof other than a he said he said argument 35 years after the supposed event and millions of dollars or pounds at stake for the accuser if he wins the case in court based on flimsy evidence.

21 October 2012 at 18:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

OldJim, why are you addressing that to me?

Incidentally, some of the phrases you use look very familiar to me, have you got another blogger ID by any chance?

I'll comment on your post anyway but probably tomorrow as I'm busy now.

21 October 2012 at 18:58  
Blogger OldJim said...

Danj0,

Some grist for your mill.

You suddenly find yourself in a dystopian future in which white people have decided that black people are not properly people, and are using them as a source of meat. They don’t believe the black people should feel pain, and so they dose them with strong analgesics before killing them and taking their meat.

You go on a panel show in order to argue against proponents of continuing this practice. You have notes prepared, but before you speak, you watch the other person who has come on for your side argue first. They begin “The declaration of human rights says…” The members for the opposing side role their eyes. “They still think that human rights are relevant in the 23rd century! Blacks are not properly people. Besides, they feel no pain. They are a very good source of lean protein and they are approximately evenly dispersed in ratio to whites across the country, which is convenient for harvesting”. Before you go on, you are afforded the opportunity to talk to some audience members with whom you are sitting. They say “I really think that they should realise that they live in a democracy. The can’t foist their personal beliefs about human rights on all of us. We don’t believe in those any more. There’s no scientific evidence for human rights. Besides, the people arguing in favour sounded so much cleverer. They were able to give good reasons for their position, whilst the opponent just kept falling back lamely on ‘eating black people is wrong. It violates their human rights’. No analysis or engagement. No arguments.”

21 October 2012 at 19:08  
Blogger OldJim said...

You go on, and decide to offer pragmatic reasons why the policy is flawed. You discuss how the analgesic may not stop the black people feeling pain, how there are better sources of protein. At each point, you are met with a rebuttal, or at best have some small concession made in the manner of killing. But eventually, you go too far. “Admit it!” they cajole you. “Really you are just a believer in human rights dressing yourself up as on the side of science”
Incidentally, there are a couple of human rights lawyers left in your upper legislative house. They’re a lot more “flexible” in their interpretations of the declaration then the old dogmatists at Brussels, but there’s still much popular opposition to them. “I just don’t think they should be telling us how to live our lives. They don’t represent our views any more. Sure, they occasionally say good stuff about property and freedom of assembly, but it’s all based on their unscientific rights. And they seem to be obsessed with black people”

21 October 2012 at 19:09  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Old Jim,

'Paedophile Priest' sounds catchier than 'Hebophile Priest', and since when were the mainstream media particularly bothered about technical distinctions?

That said, sexual exploitation of vulnerable people, whatever their age, is horrific and immoral, so it's hardly worth getting too worked up about.

21 October 2012 at 19:16  
Blogger OldJim said...

Danj0,

I directed the comment at you because you were arguing that paedophilia was disordered according to the DSM. Whilst I think the tone of some of my coreligionists can be unhelpful, and again, I have no intention in this argument of linking paedophilia to homosexuality, I insist that we should have an accurate understanding of how the two are differentiated in our society, and why one is legitimated and the other is not.

It is not because of the DSM. The DSM's content is a reflection of society's views, rather than determining them. If we are to address the nature of society's current ideology in relation to sexual behaviour, we have to look elsewhere.

No, I do not have another blogger alias. Nor do I post very often anywhere else.

The reason why the posts above were directed at you, by the way, was to see what you made of them. We were talking earlier about utilitarian and Christian arguments, and you said it was odd knowing that a religious person having a secular argument with you, if beaten, would simply fall back on a religious premise.

I was wondering whether having the situation translated into one in human rights, in which you presumably believe, might cause you to have any thoughts on how it might be to be a Christian in modern Britain.

Also, you talk sometimes of "religious reasons" as though they were a wholly separate frame of discourse, and were utterly fideistic. As if I, for example, "found Jesus" and then went "Jesus says abortion is evil. So it's evil."

I was wondering if the human rights analogy would make you feel differently. You might have "found human rights" and then defended the content, sure. But you might also have believed some of the content or had come rationally to some of the content, and, finding it written down, realised that this was a document to which you could consequently give your assent. You may have had some trouble with some clauses, but decided that those you had researched more thoroughly were true, and so the remaining ones were worthy of belief. There are many permutations.

So if someone were to say that you "believed in human rights" as though there were no rationality, or as if none of the clauses were supportable by logic but must simply be believed, or as if the clauses must prima facie not be capable of standing except if you accept the document, or as if you didn't feel that without even thinking about it your conscience naturally responded to what was written there, you might be a bit uneasy about the phrase.

Some things I believe are purely beliefs. But a lot of ostensibly "religious" things I believe, whilst deeply involved in my religious life, are the product of rational conviction. Some are from before I became "religious", some of which, having come to them independently, made me realise that I was "religious", and some which, having become "religious", I was persuaded through argument or logic were also true or followed from what I believed already. It's not as simple as a "religious" set of arguments and a "secular" one. Or a discourse of "morality" and one of "consequences", as you parsed my use of the word "utility".

However, it is true that the "moral" set of arguments and the "utilitarian" one are separate, and in fact inimical. This isn't because the latter is rational and the former isn't. It's because the latter presumes axiomatically that there are no rational moral arguments.

21 October 2012 at 19:39  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 October 2012 at 20:28  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0

Indeed. homosexuality is a psychological disorder, whereas heterosexuality is not.

One category of homosexual, and there are a number, has sexual attraction to older men because homosexual males of that type have a 'fixation'. That is, their sexual attraction is because of a disruption in psychological development or maturation. They tend to be attracted more to age. This sort of homosexual is usually unable to maintain age-appropriate sexual relationships, resulting in being single or having very short relationships throughout their lives.


And you now claim to be in a *long-term relationship* when a few months ago you declared you were unattached?

That blow-up doll does not count - even when you dress it in your gold lame hotpants.

Dater Noster

I agree with most of your earlier post on marriage and sin.

However, "homosexiual couples", by the very nature of their desires and their relationship, unless it is celebate, choose sin as a way of life. The union becomes a source of sin rather than a way of directing our sexual natures towards good.

"Homosexual couples, just like heterosexual couples, must accept the consequences of their human nature and live their lives in the best and most faithful way that they can ..."

Which is celebacy, I trust you'd agree?

For a married couple it requires the physical act of love be motivated by more than lust and fleeting physical pleasure and be directed towards selflessness and procreation.

" ... they are not worse, they are not disgusting, they are not perverts, they are not there for supposedly superior heterosexuals to point at and condemn."

Agreed but their desires are, according to my faith, an intrinsic disorder which, if expressed, result in objectively disordered acts and grievious sin.

"They are our brothers and sisters in Christ, who told us to love one another as he loved us."

Indeed. And part of love is pointing to God's truth.

21 October 2012 at 20:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

OldJim: "I directed the comment at you because you were arguing that paedophilia was disordered according to the DSM."

I had to look up what "DSM" meant after your comment so I doubt that. I said it was a psychological disorder though, unlike homosexuality, so perhaps you inferred it. I asked why you were asking me because you presented a much wider ranging argument in that comment, including stuff about the video in the article, as though I was responsible for all of it.

21 October 2012 at 21:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "And you now claim to be in a *long-term relationship* when a few months ago you declared you were unattached?"

You have declared that for me a number of times, and I usually leave it be. What did I say and when?

21 October 2012 at 21:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Actually OldJim, I don't think I will comment on your post. It's already verging on TL:DR with the new stuff you've written on top.

21 October 2012 at 21:18  
Blogger OldJim said...

Oh, I see how that could have confused you. That was to restate the reason why I was using the case of paedophilia in the context of this discussion.

I am not making an argument asserting a link between homosexuality and paedophilia, nor do I intend to be sensationalist or nasty. The sole relevance that paedophilia has in my argument is to demonstrate that the "innateness" of desires isn't a sufficient reason for secular social approval.

Bringing out why one is legitimised and the other is not tells up what the current ideology of sexual acts is in our society. I made this point when I first mentioned paedophilia, and I reiterated the broader context in that comment in order not to be seen to be deliberately lending credence to any other argument being had in this comment section around the subject of homosexuality and paedophilia.

21 October 2012 at 21:18  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

DanJo

"Phil, I'm surprised you put your name to a comment like that. You sidestep the core point there about psychological disorder and post a bunch of fringe, right-wing Christian propaganda instead."

Fringe or not it is fully referenced. Not so long ago Homosexuality was a psychological disorder. Now they are made that way.

The other interesting study in the literature was the findings that female homosexuality was not fixed, but diminished by up to 90% with age (reducing by 50% form age 16 to 17). This was a study of over 3000 women.

____

There are other really sad things happening in today's society.

My neighbour is married. He is a house husband. My wife says that when he comes to the bus stop with his young child for school if he is dressed as a woman he wants to be know as Janice, when he is dressed as a man he wants to be called John.

I have never met the "guy" but I would guess he might have a psychological disorder of some magnitude. I also think that his kids will need their heads sorting out at some stage as well.

Presumably he was "made that way"?

__________________


I thought you might like the "right wing literature" as you call it because it is fully referenced and draws on real statistics, not feelings or Bible quotes.

Phil

21 October 2012 at 21:19  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Dodo,

The best and most Godly path for homosexual people is celibacy, as it is for heterosexuals.

Unfortunately, celibacy is an extremely difficult path for anyone to follow, and most of us are not capable of it.

When I converted from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism I was obliged, with deep sadness, to drop my ambition to be ordained to the priesthood because I will soon be married. I am neither willing nor able to undertake lifelong celibacy.

Homosexual acts may be theologically sinful, but so are very many things which all humans do by their nature, and I will not condemn or criticise homosexual people who, just like me, are unable to face a life of celibacy.

Homosexual people, like heterosexual ones, will have to account for their sins, but it is for God and God alone to weigh up the good things and the bad which make up the sum of all our lives. We must teach the truth as we see it and have received it, but it is not for us to judge and condemn someone because they are unable to undertake a commitment which most of us could not make either.

21 October 2012 at 21:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "Fringe or not it is fully referenced."

It has references, I think you mean. I started on the first amswer page of the slides and immediately saw problems with the presentation of points. Who were the slides originally presented to, do you know?

21 October 2012 at 21:35  
Blogger OldJim said...

Darter Noster,

I appreciate your sympathetic motives in writing what you have, but you are deliberately fudging a distinction.

Celibacy is recommended for everyone in the New Testament, it is true. But Marriage is not consequently viewed as faulty. It is a worthy state with its own blessings, sanctified and raised to a sacrament. An event which Our Lord attended and aided people to celebrate. An estate of which he said "So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate". A way of life to which he compared the relationship between Himself and the Church.

If what you are saying is "We all know how strong these desires are, and heterosexuals have a way to legitimately meet them, we should not throw stones at those who do not", then what you are saying is generous and well taken. If you are lowering the estate of marriage or raising a homosexual sexual act in order to deny a moral distinction then you are taking liberties with the Christian faith.

21 October 2012 at 21:41  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Old Jim,

"If what you are saying is "We all know how strong these desires are, and heterosexuals have a way to legitimately meet them, we should not throw stones at those who do not", then what you are saying is generous and well taken. If you are lowering the estate of marriage or raising a homosexual sexual act in order to deny a moral distinction then you are taking liberties with the Christian faith."

The first thing is definitely what I am saying, not the second.

Marriage is a fundamental sacrament, directed towards the procreation and raising of new life in a secure and loving environment. It is, as His Grace once said more eloquently than the officials in Rome who gave us the new Mass translation ever could, an honourable estate not to be used wantonly. As a Catholic, I do not believe same-sex sacramental marriage to be a possibility; it is a contradiction in terms.

Nevertheless, I find the stones thrown at homosexual people in general thoroughly distasteful and un-Christian. Many gay Christians are aware of the Church's teaching, and simply seek to live their lives in the closest way to God's will for them, as his Children, that they can, without being singled out and permanently reminded of their sinfulness in a way which us equally, though differently, sinful heterosexuals are not.

21 October 2012 at 22:11  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 October 2012 at 22:18  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Hannah,

Sadly, you are indeed.

Same-sex relationships carry a stigma, and engender a consequent visceral reaction, which is out of any proportion to what is actually involved. This is not unique to one faith, and anthropologists rather than theologians (like me) are best placed to analyse this distressing and confusing state of affairs.

Speaking for myself, as a committed Christian when I say that homosexual relationships are sinful that simply means that they are human; all humans are sinful, we simply sin in different ways, and that is why the sacrifice of Christ is necessary.

21 October 2012 at 22:30  
Blogger OldJim said...

Hannah. No orthodox Christian can think that your sexual orientation in and of itself makes you more of a sinner than the rest of us. You are only an "evil sinner and immoral" in precisely the same way we all are. It's not simply that I'm saying no-one here thinks differently. I'm actually saying no orthodox Christian can think differently.

I do not think you are a closet paedophile and have consistently denied the connection in my posts. Unfortunately, I cannot speak for my coreligionists on that count. They must speak for themselves.

The mental illness question was actually raised by danj0 as a way of differentiating paedophilia from homosexuality. I have explained why I don't think that that explanation works and why I think society's ethical distinction of the two orientations must lie elsewhere. I did not intend to imply that I thought of homosexuality as a "mental illness" and to the best of my knowledge none of my fellow Christians have expressed this view either.

I'm very sorry if you feel "got at".

21 October 2012 at 22:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah, sweet thing. You are indeed in the 21st century, but as in centuries before, when two ideologies meet, one goes under and the other triumphs. Forget this notion that you are somewhat excluded from society, and find a yourself a man. There are plenty of men out there who are not as the Inspector but somewhat effeminate of character and who will not trouble you too often in the bed chamber. Raise a family, the glorious destiny of womankind.

21 October 2012 at 22:35  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 October 2012 at 22:49  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Mr Old Jim ,

Oh, I'm not feeling "got at", I don't take these things personally, and I can see that you were clear to make the distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia.

I am just surprised the 'level' of the argument has to come to something quite absurd as that and that there doesn't seem to be a constructive argument from the New Testament, from Christians, regarding the gay marriage (which presumably says something about this which is why Orthodox Christians oppose SSM).

As said above, I am not in favour of gay marriage (having originally agreed with it), but my argument comes from my religion and the Torah, rather than some of the stuff that's put around here, which is by and large "secular" and not "religious".

21 October 2012 at 22:52  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Hannah,

Please ignore the Inspector.

I will say to you the same thing I would say if Holy Mother Church, in her infinite wisdom, allowed me to be a priest:

Man or Woman, Gay or Straight, you are beloved of God. Live the best life you can, as the person you are, and you will be a beacon of God's truth and love. God knows our nature and knows our failings, better than we know ourselves; God loves us for who we are.

21 October 2012 at 22:54  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Darter Noster said ...

" ... when I say that homosexual relationships are sinful that simply means that they are human; all humans are sinful, we simply sin in different ways, and that is why the sacrifice of Christ is necessary."

How very liberal (almost ) of you. 'Theologians' are not above the teachings of the Magisterium.

You wouldn't have made it through to seminary given these opinions - trust me.

21 October 2012 at 22:57  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 October 2012 at 23:00  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Darter Noster,

They are very kind words to me, especially the last paragraph so thank you. And in contrast to Dodo, I think that you would have made a good priest for your religion. And you never know, the celibacy issue might change and G-D has a habit of calling people when they least anticipate it.

21 October 2012 at 23:04  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

"Ignore the Inspector". I think he has been telling me to find a "good man" for the better part of 6 months (Lol).

21 October 2012 at 23:07  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Dodo,

Perhaps I wouldn't have made it through seminary - as there is no theological impediment to a married man being a priest, I would simply have loved to have been given the chance.

However, nothing I have said is contrary to the teachings of the Church. Sin is a consequence of man's fallen nature, and none of us is sinless, with two prominent exceptions - the Blessed Virgin and he who she was meet to bear. If any one of the rest of us was capable of being without sin, we would not need the sacrifice of Christ for our redemption.

However, I shall be able to put your theory to the test, as once I am married I will attempt to be ordained as a Permanent Deacon. I am already close to becoming a Lay Dominican - and we were supposed to be the Inquisitors of old :o)

21 October 2012 at 23:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah, please ignore Darter Noster. He knows not what he says...

21 October 2012 at 23:17  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

You wouldn't have made it through to seminary given these opinions - trust me.

Huh? The child abuse crisis was primarily (and overwhelmingly) a crisis of homosexual Catholic priests using their position to seduce vulnerable teenage boys into a homosexual relationship. The RCC is chock full of heterodox priests who made it through seminary. That's why you had the crisis.

carl

21 October 2012 at 23:20  
Blogger OldJim said...

Yup, again, Darter Noster, homosexual acts aren't some special class of "more sinful" or "extra sinful" acts. It is true that anthropologically some people feel unique disgust at homosexuality and that that may cloud their moral judgement. Your point that this fact might sometimes explain the inordinate amount of ink spilled over this class of sin is well taken.

However, there is an orthodox reason why Christians may talk more about homosexuality and it comes back to lifestyle. If I steal, I may develop a habit of stealing, but there is no extrinsic pressure to continue the habit. If I enter into a homosexual relationship I commit myself to regularly committing sinful acts. This is a special problem, as I have pointed out to you before, because it makes repentance more difficult than in cases where sins are not made regular. The problem is compounded by the nature of romantic relationships, where these commitments have special emotional clout. That is the problem. That is the orthodox reason for the otherwise inordinate attention.

Carl, I have heard some seminary horror stories in my time. I hope and trust things have been improving since the start of Pope Benedict's pontificate. We shall just have to see.

21 October 2012 at 23:50  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

Well, I can't say that being trapped in a loveless marriage would benefit me or any man whom I married.

21 October 2012 at 23:56  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Thank you Hannah, that means a lot to me :o)

22 October 2012 at 00:03  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Old Jim,

I may confess my sins regularly, but I know full well that I will end up committing the same sins again, no matter how much I resolve to avoid them, because that is simply how I am.

I cannot go to Confession and then avoid sin forever more; I know that in future I will be angry, or prideful, or lustful, or any other of the manifold sins which make up the human condition.

We must be aware of our sins, and repentant of them, but we are not perfect, and we all know that we will sin again in the way which we are confessing to at any given moment.

22 October 2012 at 00:14  
Blogger OldJim said...

Darter Noster,
we will sin again, but we must and can honestly resolve not to sin again. We know that we are weak, but we are capable of making reasonable effort to avoid occasions of sin and of promising that we intend not to sin again.

If we are involved in a crime syndicate, or are employed by a dubious company, or are lying to a family member, or are in a non-marital sexual relationship, we are incapable of that. If we have stolen one item in a moment of weakness, we are capable of it. There is a distinction, and the fact that we may steal again is irrelevant.

22 October 2012 at 00:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Darter Noster said ...

"Perhaps I wouldn't have made it through seminary ... I would simply have loved to have been given the chance."

Well, not enough to put vocation above personal choice which suggests you may not have been called to the priesthood.

Now tell me, truthfully, if you had been ordained what would you say in the Sacrament of Reconciliationan to an active homosexual in a long-term partnership? Would you expect him to commit to ending the sexual relationship before granting absolution or simply say we are all sinners and, so long as he's sorry, that's okay?

You do know about the Catholic confessional and contrition, firm purpose of amendment and avoidance of occassions of sin?

I wish you well with the Deaconate and I trust the training will instill in you a greater sense of Catholic orthodoxy and obedience to Rome and help you leave your via media inclinations behind you.

Hannah
Catholic teaching on "intrinsic" and "objective" disorders simply means that desires and actions are not in accord with God's purpose or intention for us should be avoided because they cause a rift in our relationship with God. Judaism believes this too, if I'm not mistaken.

It doesn't mean the Church or Catholics believe you are a nutter or a moral degenerate because you feel same sex attraction!

My issue with Darter Nostra is not his kind words to you. It's the misleading nature of them and the seeming permission he is giving to homosexuals to lead an active homosexual lifestyle because "we are all sinners".

Carl said ...
"The RCC is chock full of heterodox priests who made it through seminary. That's why you had the crisis."

Indeed. I do agree with you.

That's why more particular attention is paid these days to the nature of a person's calling and their attitudes towards a range of issues, icluding sexuality. It's the reason Pope Benedict is so unpopular with modernist 'theologians', some of whom believe they carry greater weight than than the Magisteriun.

22 October 2012 at 00:37  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Old Jim,

Define 'reasonable effort'. Being celibate requires an extraordinary effort and committment which most of us could not make.

People with a homosexual orientation might be aware of their sinfulness, as we all should be, but it is not simply a question of saying 'Oh, I have done wrong, but will never do again.' Stealing one item and then resolving never to steal again is a false comparison.

Sexual orientation is not a personal choice; no one wakes up one morning and says "You know what, I fancied women yesterday but today I'll fancy men, because it's fun."

It is not a crime, an act of individual commission. Christ bore on his shoulders the sins of all mankind - yours, mine and those of gay people.

22 October 2012 at 00:47  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

What would I say to an actively gay person who came to me for confession Dodo?

I would tell them to repent of their sins, and to lead a better life in the way which Christ teaches us as, and this is the crucial point, I would say to a heterosexual person who came and confessed their sins. Priests have given absolution for centuries to people who they know full well will commit again the very sins they have just confessed. The sacrament of reconciliation is not just a clearing of the account with God, as you would know if you studied theology properly.

22 October 2012 at 01:01  
Blogger len said...

Old Jim (21 October 2012 21:41)

I think you have hit on the truth of the matter.The covenant relationship between a man and a women is a reflection'a picture' of the covenant relationship between God and His Church the Body of Christ.

Israel was accused of being a 'whore when she joined with other parners with' other gods'when she was unfaithful.

God had set down a divine order and this was disrupted by evils spirits who sole intention was to destroy the relationship between God and man and to lead man into bondage to sin.

Satan rules over man in the area of sin and has 'legal rights' over those who sin unless they have been redeemed by the blood of the Saviour.

The individual acts of sin are but the root cause of the real problem which is that we have a' sin nature'..but if we have died with Christ we have died to sin and it is no longer' our nature' to sin.

If we walk 'in the Spirit' we will no longer sin but if we 'walk in the flesh'(every part of our nature not under the authority of the Spirit) then we will sin.So sinning is no longer amatter of compulsion but of choice.

(This is of course is if you have followed the command of Jesus"You must be born again"and have a Spirit' born from above')




22 October 2012 at 01:11  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

You make my flesh crawl Darter Noster.You speak with such authority and display your ignorance. You have no concept of the nature of sin or the confessional. You still reek of Anglicanism.I am pleased you will never be a priest.
You are the perfect example of why the Church needs to seriously address its conversion programs.
Your statements are more horrifying to me than any of the filth that Danjo spills on to this site.

22 October 2012 at 03:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Cressida, I usually ignore your comments here as you appear to be a pretty unstable personality. However, I suggest that if you find my comments "horrifying" then you simply don't read them.

22 October 2012 at 05:29  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Please continue to do so as I do not wish to engage with a sick pervert like yourself. I usually ignore your comments as well. This may come as a shock to you but reference to ejaculation on a tv screen and your boasts about performing fellatio on other men are repugnant to decent people.

22 October 2012 at 06:27  
Blogger Kinderling said...

Darter Noster: "Sexual orientation is not a personal choice; no one wakes up one morning and says "You know what, I fancied women yesterday but today I'll fancy men, because it's fun.""

Said the duck to the fox as it emerged from the egg. Such is the imprint of nature.

To claim humans cannot unprogram themselves is to deny Jesus unprogrammed himself to reveal the way to the truth to the life.

DN: "It is not a crime, an act of individual commission. Christ bore on his shoulders the sins of all mankind - yours, mine and those of gay people.

Give a monkey a book and they will bash each other with the cover.

22 October 2012 at 08:03  
Blogger Kinderling said...

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it does not mean it is a duck.

22 October 2012 at 09:46  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

True..it may 'feel' that it is a female ostrich trapped inside the body of a duck and require a sex change to transgender itself.

22 October 2012 at 10:22  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Darter Noster

Yes, that's all well and good but would you expect contrition and and a commitment to turn away from future sin and temptation? To "leave old ways behind"?

Please don't be evasive; its dishonest and unfitting for one who aspires to the Deaconate. And a tad more humility about your theological *knowledge* would be becoming.

The Catholic Catechism covers this topic sufficiently. Do you accept its teaching?

22 October 2012 at 10:24  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Ah, Cressida, what joy your abuse fills me with this fine morning, as I set off to teach my students about Bernard of Clairvaux.

At a time when the funding for theology teaching is being cut across the board, you demonstrate perfectly why it is still very much needed.

I think I'll sing the Regina Coeli with extra gusto today :o)

22 October 2012 at 10:30  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Cressida

Try not to be be too unkind toDanJ0.

As we all know, he has *issues* with older men and likes to shock them to gain their attention. The insults and obscenities are intended to invite rejection and and repulsion. Really he justs wants a warm cuddle from his daddy.

22 October 2012 at 10:36  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

As if the Church does not have enough rotten apples. Must we recruit new ones to teach heresy.Singing Regina Coeli is not going to make any difference,DN... your place is secured in the fires of hell where you will be whistling Dixie

22 October 2012 at 11:35  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Dodo,

I am not being evasive. I accept the teaching of the Catechism, which is precisely why I take this bit -

"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."

- as seriously as I do this bit -

"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible...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."

- and try always bear in mind this bit -

"The divine image is present in every man. It shines forth in the communion of persons, in the likeness of the union of the divine persons among themselves."

And, since Tradition and Scripture are like twin streams from one source, I always try to remember this bit of Scripture:

"Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgement you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbour's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbour "Let me take the speck out of your eye" while the log is in your own eye?"

I'm also particularly fond of this bit:

"Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has bathed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. You gave me no kiss but from the time I came in she has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little."

At no point have I questioned traditional Christian teaching on sexual ethics (Cressida, please note...). I am simply pointing out that Scripture and Tradition tell us some other very important things as well, which we all fail to fulfill but for some reason expend an awful lot less vitriol on.

22 October 2012 at 11:43  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Ooh, Cressida, I love it when you say "Heresy" - it has a wonderfully mediaeval ring to it :o)

22 October 2012 at 11:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Cressida, it's been wondered by various people before if you're one of Dodo's alternative IDs but I've suddenly had another thought. Are you actually Dodo's sister or other family member? It's sometimes said that madness runs in families, you see. If I recall correctly, he's boasted before that he has enough local family to continue trolling that other forum even after being thrown off and IP blocked himself.

22 October 2012 at 12:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, my father is dead.

22 October 2012 at 12:26  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Oh DN I forgot the "H" word is subtituted by the term 'liberal Catholic' now.All the medals and Catholic certificates pinned to your sad little milk sop chest is never going to convince anyone, you know.

22 October 2012 at 13:03  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

That's it Cressida, judge me, judge me - work that outrage baby, you know you love it really :o)

22 October 2012 at 13:14  
Blogger OldJim said...

Darter Noster,

I certainly hold in great esteem each of the passages you quoted. You're quite right that we don't often hold ourselves to these standards and even when we do we often fail to achieve them.

They are, however, utterly irrelevant to the question of the resolution not to sin again in the confessional. I do not see that any one of them, nor all of them collectively, constitute a dispensation from that requirement, which is rooted in Our Lord's command to the woman taken in adultery to "Go and sin no more".

Do you think that by insisting on this disposition of the soul at the time of confession, Dodo and I must be uncharitable, or fail to live up to one of the teachings you have quoted? I don't mind if you think that Dodo and I actually are uncharitable, just interested in whether you think this view of ours necessitates it.

See, I see that insisting that people are capable of this resolution and must make it is not as sentimental as the other position, but I do not see that it is less charitable. What is charitable depends as much on what is an appropriate standard at which to prize human dignity, and what means are offered with which to bring those we love to that dignity, as it does on a mere recognition of human weakness.

So to me, far from being more charitable, you sell people short of their purpose, their meaning and their vocation. People deserve better than to be told that they will inevitably and ineluctably sin again, because that is not their final end, and Christ, ministering through the Church, wishes to bring His flock, by His Grace, to their final end.

That we are weak and will sin again (without planning to prior to our last confession) is theologically irrelevant to this.

22 October 2012 at 13:26  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Danjo, you can play your 'come to me daddy' games with Dodo. He seems to enjoy fulfilling that fantasy for the homosexuals on site. I share Dodo's theological views. That is all.I am not related to Dodo nor could I ever befriend a Dodo for a number of reasons, the most significant one being that he thinks you are clever, whereas I consider you to be incredibly dumb.

22 October 2012 at 14:05  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Darter Noster
Please do not patronie me or pull a theological shoe shuffle.

I asked a straight forward question:

"Now tell me, truthfully, if you had been ordained what would you say in the Sacrament of Reconciliationan to an active homosexual in a long-term partnership? Would you expect him to commit to ending the sexual relationship before granting absolution or simply say we are all sinners and, so long as he's sorry, that's okay?

You do know about the Catholic confessional and contrition, firm purpose of amendment and avoidance of occassions of sin?"


You really should consult the Catecism of the Catholic Church before answering - it reflects the Magisterium's (remember them?) approach to the passages you've cited and to Tradition.

DanJ0
An orphan? Just as I was sorry to learn of your mother's early death, I was sorry to learn your father is dead too. Family issues never leave us, even though our parents and siblings do.

However, there is a clear pattern to your blogging. You go out of your way to invite insult and then relish it. Think about it.

I'll play no more 'games' with you, unless provoked.

Cressida
Such harsh words about a Dodo.

22 October 2012 at 17:20  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Old Jim,

I don't believe either you or Dodo to be uncharitable; what is uncharitable is the way in which so much Christian discourse about homosexuality is talking at gay people, as if they were some sort of uniquely sinful species, rather than talking to them as brothers and sisters, with love, humility and an awareness of our own shortcomings and sinfulness.

To view sin as a list of things not to do has its place, but it is nevertheless a very basic view of sin. Sin is a state of being, which we are all in as a consequence of the fall; the Sacrament of Reconciliation is a waypoint on a long journey, not a destination in and of itself. If a state of sinlessness was attainable for humanity, we would not need the sacrifice of Christ for our salvation; Christ would be akin to a Buddha figure, who simply sets an example for us to follow, rather than the sacrificial lamb present in the Mass. To accept that humans are inherently sinful is not to sell people short - they are created in the image of God and endowed with faculties which enable them to return to their Creator - but to begin to understand the magnitude of God's actions for our redemption.

None of this is against Catholic teaching; read the Church Fathers, read the Mediaeval theologians - it is all there. Repentance is not just about apologising to God for specific acts of naughtiness, having the slate wiped clean, and then toddling off having resolved not to look at naughty pictures on the internet again (or whatever your sin of choice might be); that is a Pharisaic way of looking at it.

To think to one's self "I am less sinful than this person because I'm not gay" is to commit the sin of the Pharisee who prays aloud in the Temple; confident in his own righteousness, he fails to understand the true nature of human sin, whereas the quiet, humble and truly penitent sinner, fully aware of his own shortcomings, will receive forgiveness.

I am not disputing Church teaching; I am neither a liberal nor a heretic (much as I love it when Cressida calls me one :o) ). All I am trying to suggest is that when Christians talk about gay people, Christian or otherwise, they should not do so from an assumed position of greater righteousness in the eyes of God, should do so with love instead of scorn, and should keep in mind that every single one of us, gay or straight, is created in the image of God and loved by him for it.

What is so controversial about that?

22 October 2012 at 17:53  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Harsh?..I don't think so. You have become so accustomed to slippery wiles and insincerity your brain is clogged resistant to honest responses.
'Mal che si vuole non duole'
your words for me
mine for you

22 October 2012 at 18:10  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Darter Noster

To think to one's self "I am less sinful than this person because I'm not gay" is to commit the sin of the Pharisee

Fair enough. But the response to this reality is not to excuse what is evil because we are all guilty. Man is not broken. Man is not sick. Man is evil. Because he is evil, he sins. The response of God to that sin is terrible wrath, and terrible judgment. You do a man no favors by encouraging him to believe God winks at sin.

Take the example of homosexuality. It is not a sad sorrowful affliction with which some must live. There is no understanding on God's part in reaction to it. Homosexuality is open full-throated rebellion. It is the creature who shakes his fist at the God who created him and says "Why did you make me thus? I am not accountable to you! I shall live as I please." And do you imagine that God reacts to such rebllion by saying "Poor creature. The affliction is just too great. I understand." Homosexuality was one of the listed sins for which Canaan was destroyed without mercy.

Every man stands justly condemned. Only the Blood of Christ can turn aside the wrath of God against sin. But we must communicate the reality of that wrath. He didn't bring the full weight of His divine judgment on the Son because sin is trivial and insignificant. The reality of Hell testifies to the contrary. Hell is the evidence of God's wrath against sin. It demonstrates how great is the offense of which man is guilty. We dare not shirk the responsibility to bear witness to that fact. Nor should we encourage people to tempt the wrath of God against sin. We do not sin more that grace may abound.

carl

22 October 2012 at 18:17  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Carl,

I don't deny the reality of consequences for man's rebellion against God; if it didn't have consequences then Christ's sacrifice would again be pointless.

However, if I am going to talk to a gay person of those consequences, it must be from the point of view that we BOTH stand in peril of our souls, not that I am better than they are, which is a prideful and unjustified assumption on my part.

22 October 2012 at 18:29  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

We are not discussing gays ..you are, DN. We are discussing your Anglican interpretation of the sacrament of Reconciliation which demonstrates that you either do not have an understanding of it or choose not to. To receive the Eucharist you are supposed to be in the state of grace.That is why you go to confession. Your idea that man is in a perpetual state of sin regardless of the sacraments is heretical.You wont be laughing when Satan is tickling your catastrophe in the hothouse.You should demand a refund for your internet theology/conversion course.

22 October 2012 at 18:35  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dartar Noster

I am going to talk to a gay person of those consequences, it must be from the point of view that we BOTH stand in peril of our souls, not that I am better than they are, which is a prideful and unjustified assumption on my part.

Correct. 100% correct. Nothing I have written is inconsistent with this statement. (However, being Protestant, I must state for the record that I reject the RC theology implicit in the clause "stand in peril of our souls.")

I don't deny the reality of consequences for man's rebellion

Well and good. Then why did you write this?

Homosexual acts may be theologically sinful, but so are very many things which all humans do by their nature, and I will not condemn or criticise homosexual people who, just like me, are unable to face a life of celibacy.

I am not sure what "theologically sinful" means, but I interpreted it to mean "technically sinful." As in "It's not all that serious." But it is deadly serious.

People can face a life of celibacy. As it is written "I can do all things through Christ, who strengthens me." To suggest otherwise is to tacitly encourage people to indulge their sinful desires. As in "Go ahead. God will understand." This is the undertone that bothers me in what you have written. It is the tacit assertion that God understands that sometimes we just have to sin. No, He doesn't.

carl

btw, welcome to the "List of Persons Offically Disapproved by the Board Misanthrope." It's a long list. And it keeps getting longer.

22 October 2012 at 18:50  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Carl,

I (underlined several times) will not condemn gay people for being unable to do something which I am not either. I, as in me personally, by speaking of them disrespectfully and judgementally. God will judge them, as he will me.

And theologically sinful does not mean less serious; all sins are serious - that is precisely the point I am trying to make, because the sins of gay people seem to be singled out for particular condemnation. When I say theologically sinful, I just mean it's something which is specifically mentioned as sinful, rather than the generic state of sinfulness.

22 October 2012 at 19:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I was going to write something about the implicit is-ought-ness up there but it was all done here some time ago. Reading back, I'm quite pleased with that.

22 October 2012 at 19:29  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Cressida,

Ooh, we do have our dogmatic knickers in a twist, don't we?

Human nature is, to quote Catechism, disfigured by sin. The Church might have the ability to put one in a state of Grace, in accordance with the will of God, but it does not have the ability to keep one in it.

22 October 2012 at 19:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Blimey, auto-delete of the link. Here:

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/another-cameron-u-turn-on-dna.html

22 October 2012 at 19:31  
Blogger len said...

A person can live a celibate life but still be full of lust....does this make them a saint?.

A person can perform every religious practice known to mankind but still reject the saviour and rely on his own 'righteousness'.Who did this you ask?...Answer.... the Pharisees... Paul was one of them!.

I would guess the 'self righteous ' condemning sinners'(of whatever sins)would get just as much condemnation from God as those who were proud of their own [self] righteousness.

John(the Baptist) called people to repent....Jesus called people to repentance. People in' those days' had a much clearer picture of what' a sinner'was.

Today moral boundaries are becoming blurred as people attempt to re-define sin as 'normal behaviour'.
There is a Generation growing up today who will [and are] accepting behaviours which were once outlawed by Society.....where this downward spiral will end is anybodies guess.

So God laid out a 'manual' for an ordered, law abiding , just Society and this has worked very well for Centuries. But there are a 'select few' who wish to tear up and throw away this 'manual' and do their' own thing'because it is in THEIR interests to do so.

When Jesus came as the Saviour of mankind a period of Grace began somewhat like an 'armistice'.
'For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.'(John 3:17)

However those who reject Jesus Christ as Saviour either directly as Atheists or indirectly 'the self rightous religionists'(Modern Pharisees) will be held accountable for their actions in a 'higher Court than the one in 'This Present World System'.


22 October 2012 at 19:46  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Perhaps if you kept your mind off knickers you would keep up with the discussion DN.No one ever suggested that a state of Grace is permanent. You did however state that the state of sin was perpetual.

Carl be assured that your place is at the top of the list.Must be reassuring for you to know that a Morman brother will probably soon be in charge. You can bring out the best bed sheets for a celebration...Set fire to a few crucifixes and party!

22 October 2012 at 20:06  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

If man's inclination to sin is not innate and inevitable, Cressida, why is the state of Grace not potentially permanent?

Surely one is either in a state of Grace or one isn't - or are you suggesting that there is a limbo-esque state in which one is neither gracious nor sinful?

22 October 2012 at 20:17  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Dodo,

I apologise for seeming to patronise you, and for bigging up my own theological study too much; it was late and I was cranky.

The reason I have not given you a completely direct answer to your question is, simply and honestly, because I do not know, and I have been thinking about it.

It is an incredibly difficult question. The rules of the Church, as laid down in the catechism, are clear, that were I to be a priest I could not pronounce absolution on someone who did not resolve not to sin in the same way again. Yet I, as a priest, would routinely be called upon to absolve people who, in spite of all their resolutions not to sin in the same way again, would be well aware that they will sin in the same way in future. If I excluded all future sinners from communion, I would not have a congregation.

There will inevitably be a difficult conflict between dealing with the pastoral needs of people with the love and humility which Christ demands of us all, and adherence to the rules of the Church. None of this is easy.

I, personally, would remind the person of the need for repentance, remind the person of the love of God, which excludes no one, and pronounce absolution for the sins which they confessed and genuinely repented of, as God and the Church permits me to do. Any other sinfulness will have to be between them and God.

22 October 2012 at 21:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Darter Noster, should you have been a Catholic priest, you wouldn’t be the first to keep a bottle of whisky in his side of the confessional, to cope with a narrative of appalling sins. As for the Inspector, he would lean towards a baseball bat....

22 October 2012 at 22:39  
Blogger John Magee said...


Carl

It's a safe bet that at least 60-65% of Roman Catholic's who vote on November 6, 2012 in the USA presidential election will be voting for Romney.

I will be one of them.

Give me a Mormon who understands freedom and capitalism anyday over a Marxist, Muslim, moron named Barack Hussein Obama.

The person who said, "a Morman brother will probably soon be in charge. You can bring out the best bed sheets for a celebration...Set fire to a few crucifixes and party!" obviously knows nothing about Mormon history. Mormons never persecuted Catholics or people of any faith or were part the KKK as was suggest by the sheets I assume. Mormons were in fact the only religion in the history of the USA persecuted by the USA Government. This happened in the mid 19th century if anyone should care to know a little about what they are talking about when they abuse the Mormons.

22 October 2012 at 23:08  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Darter Noster

Thank you ... finally.

However, there's one important qualification to what you said.

The frame of mind of the repentant sinner is the critical factor. A desire to reform at the time of confession is critical - or an admission of hopelessness in the face of temptation.

Sadly, personal confession is on the wane these days. I would never enter the confessional unless I had a genuine desire to place myself in the Hands of God, ask forgiveness and the assistance of the Holy Spirit to change my ways.

The priest's job is to assist sinners in examining how future sin can be avoided and, assisted by the channels of Grace of the Sacraments, their resolve strengthened. God always offers sufficient assistance toovercome one's sin -our responsibility is to respond.

For homosexuals - or anyone addicted to a lifestyle in contradiction to God's plan - this will be extremely difficult and, of course, they might fall again, and again. Intention is what counts.

You see this is all very Roman Catholic and very different to Anglicanism!

Have a read up on Saint Pio Padre.

22 October 2012 at 23:23  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Ps - you wouldn't "remind" the person of the need for repentance ... you'd ask if they had this.

Absolution is administered during an Act of Contrition.

22 October 2012 at 23:27  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 October 2012 at 23:48  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Cressida

Carl be assured that your place is at the top of the list.

Why, thank you. Shouldn't I get a plaque or something?

Must be reassuring for you to know that a Morman brother ...

Yeah, he's not my brother.

... will probably soon be in charge.

I certainly hope so.

You can bring out the best bed sheets for a celebration...Set fire to a few crucifixes and party!

You really need to work on your fashion advice. Maybe you should study the gay agenda some more.

carl

22 October 2012 at 23:50  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

John Magee

I will also vote for Romney. And I will vote for him as easily as I would vote for a Jewish man.

Or maybe even a Catholic. Maybe. Probably.

[Skitters away and hides]

carl

22 October 2012 at 23:55  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Dodo,

Whoa, easy tiger - let's not get too carried away with our little love-in :o)

Whilst I do sincerely apologise for patronising you, I am not in any way shape or form admitting to not knowing the difference betwen Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism; I make my living out of knowing the difference between the two.

I am simply acknowledging that the question you asked is very difficult to answer; Christian life is not just a matter of rules and regs, and is naturally hugely complicated.

22 October 2012 at 23:59  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Darter Noster

I (underlined several times) will not condemn gay people for being unable to do something which I am not either. I, as in me personally, by speaking of them disrespectfully and judgementally. God will judge them, as he will me.

Will you condemn their behavior? Would you say "What you are doing is wrong, and you must stop no matter the cost." You don't have the authority to judge men. You do have the authority to judge actions. You can do that respectfully. You can do that with full recognition that all men are sinful and worthy of judgment.

carl

23 October 2012 at 00:03  
Blogger Kinderling said...

Darter Noster "Christian life is not just a matter of rules and regs, and is naturally hugely complicated."

It's so simple a child could do it.

Now, St Paul's theology is another paganism.

23 October 2012 at 00:04  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Carl,

I will condemn their behaviour in precisely the same way, and with the same knowledge, that I condemn my own.

They are sinners; so am I. They are created in the image of God, and loved by their creator; so are we all.

23 October 2012 at 00:17  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Kinderling,

It's so simple a child could do it, and yet we adults routinely fail.

In his last moments on the Cross, Christ called God 'Abba' which literally means 'Daddy'; the image of the all-powerful creator of the universe as our tenderly loving father is one Christians should never lose sight of.

23 October 2012 at 00:48  
Blogger John Magee said...

carl jacobs

Why "probably" vote for a Catholic?

If you are voting for Romney you ARE voting for his VP Paul Ryan too(the man who will become president if an elected Romney should die while President)who is a conservative and a practicing Roman Catholic.

As a conservative and a traditionalist I don't give a rat's whisker what a man or woman's faith is or even if they have one if they share my basic values and support capitalism and the free enterprise system and value Western Civilization as the backbone of our way of life.

Give me a honest conservative atheist any day over a smarmy Protestant "born again" Christian like that half wit Jimmy Carter, "Catholics" like philandering Kennedy brothers, or how about the serial rapist and seducer of young interns in the White House Bill Clinton?

That crew were and are all Democrats and liberals.

Would you have voted for William Buckley, the foundner of the modern American Conservative Movement in the early 1950's when he wrote his famous book "God and man at Yale" and later staretd his conservative magazine "National Review", if he had run for political office? He was a devout Roman Catholic.

We have more in common as Christians than divides us.

23 October 2012 at 00:57  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

John Magee

It was a joke Magee. :) I subscribed to National Review for 20 years. I would certainly have voted for WFB.

carl

23 October 2012 at 01:01  
Blogger John Magee said...

jacobs

So did I from 1969 until the advent of the internet.

23 October 2012 at 04:48  
Blogger Kinderling said...

Darter Noster: "In his last moments on the Cross, Christ called God 'Abba' which literally means 'Daddy'; the image of the all-powerful creator of the universe as our tenderly loving father is one Christians should never lose sight of."

Never lose sight of that image.

You have defined the Christianity today. It is the classic bait and switch. First, customers are "baited" by advertising for a product or service at the low cost of merely believing; second, the customers discover that the advertised good is not working and are "switched" to a costlier product of prayer and tithing. Every priest shall profit.

Now, what was that thing about being born again to see with eyes to see...

23 October 2012 at 04:55  
Blogger Jon said...

My goodness. A house divided on itself shall not stand.

Christians do so love to fulfil prophecy!

23 October 2012 at 10:50  
Blogger Kinderling said...

My goodness. A house divided on itself shall not stand.

Christians do so love to fulfil prophecy!


Such are those who lead exorbitantly superficial lives.

23 October 2012 at 11:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Darter Noster

Knowing the difference in an academic setting and applying the difference in Ministry is different.

It seems to me you are equivocating about Catholic teaching on sin, personal culpability and contrition/attrition and confession.

And I don't do "love-ins" when it comes to doctrinal givens that are being undermined. There is no "via media" between truth and falsehood.

Yes God loves us; yes we are all sinners. I don't agree with carl that all sin and all individual sinners is man shaking a defiant fist at the Almighty. However, sin is sin, and for a priest to suggest God expects no less than our determined resistance to it, and active our response to His Grace, is false.

Face it, the Church teaches that willful, deliberate and continual sin, with no attempt to overcome it, will result in eternal damnation. This is a significant between difference between protestants and Catholics.

23 October 2012 at 13:22  
Blogger len said...

I don`t think you have fully(or even partially) grasped Protestantism Dodo...

23 October 2012 at 13:28  
Blogger OldJim said...

Darter Noster,

In your reply to carl, you stressed that your problem was that you personally felt hypocritical and judgemental in telling people with a homosexual orientation to remain chaste, when you feel you could not do so yourself.

Might I suggest, then, that, should you be ordained to the diaconate, you point homosexuals in need of this advice to a bloke you'll find in most latin rite catholic churches who is more or less uniquely placed and disposed to insist on the chastity of members of his congregation without hypocrisy.

That way, so long as your problem is one of your feeling personally ill-equipped to deal with the issue, and not a theological objection to the very idea of it being dealt with at all, everyone will walk away quite happy and orthodox.

See, I can understand "this person faces temptations that I do not. Who am I to convict them of sin given that?". I think it's silly, because we all know we all sin, we point out sin not out of our own superiority, which is a suspiciously pagan way to be looking at it in the first place, but out of concern for our neighbour and by virtue of our duty to evangelise. However, whilst it's theologically silly, I can understand the social or personal embarrassment a person might feel due to that.

I just cannot understand "this person faces temptations I do not. Therefore their relenting to them is a-ok". You face temptations that they do not. Sin is sin. Homosexuality is not a unique class of sin, as you said yourself earlier. That goes both ways. They're not "super-duper worse sinners", sure. But homosexual sex isn't "sin-lite", either. The fact that the temptation is unique makes the class of sin and the people to whom it is desirable to commit it salient, but really it's irrelevant.

Sure, it's sad that they don't have an attraction to opposite sex partners. Sure, it's sad that they do have a strong desire for a same sex partner. Sure, you might legitimately feel uniquely sensitive to their needs for this reason, as you would the poor, the powerless, and other groups with special burdens. But you don't exonerate the poor for stealing, the powerless for violence, or the same-sex attracted for homosexual sex. Their temptations may be uniquely powerful, but sin remains sin remains sin. You help not by excusing but by providing them with what they need to stop sinning. The poor with food, the powerless with a voice, homosexuals with a supportive faith community, strong friends and a good prayer life.

Neither will I understand "this person has and will commit a sin, but I swore when I stubbed my toe this morning, so we're all sinners and they can carry on". Not the way sin works. Yes we're all sinners, yes, that means we all commit personal sins. No, that does not mean that we do not bear responsibility for each individual sin committed, no it doesn't mean that we are utterly incapable, even with grace, of even so much as resolving not to sin again. We can and must resolve not to sin again. There is a difference between resolving not to sin again and actually attaining it, the first we can do, the second is highly unlikely in our fallen state. As Catholics, we also believe, much to carl's annoyance, that there is also a difference in gravity of sin. It may not be sensible to imagine that you will never swear when in pain again, but a person is absolutely capable of refraining from mortal sin.

If we can just agree on this much, I think that would be a relief for all concerned. There may be a lot of crossed wires here.

23 October 2012 at 15:14  
Blogger OldJim said...

Dodo,

I don't know that that is a difference between Catholic and Protestants. Even avowed antinomians can insist that whilst salvation is granted with no respect of merits, the provision of the graces attendant on salvation will lead a saved man on earth to behave in a manner more befitting a Christian.

Just like Catholics do not believe that if you're extra good you go to heaven, whereas those who merely trust with all their heart in Christ whilst being bad people will certainly go to hell.

These stereotypes really aren't helpful

23 October 2012 at 15:23  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Where, Dodo, did I suggest that God does not expect us to make determined resistance to our sinfulness?

Where did I suggest that the Church taught anything other than that wilful sin without repentance will lead to damnation?

Your question was not difficult to answer from a theological point of view - as I acknowledged, the rules are clear - but from a moral, pastoral and plain human point of view. What is difficult is making the call as to whether a gay man or woman, aware of their sinfulness, resolved to live the best Christian life they can, but unable to alter their life completely in the way required is any more blameworthy than the legions of straight people who troop into confession on a weekly basis and are given absolution in the full knowledge that their lives will not be perfectly amended ever after either. Absolution is not in the priest's gift; he and the Church are the conduits of God's grace and forgiveness not their arbiter - how can a priest giving absolution know for certain in every circumstance that the person is truly as penitent as the Sacrament requires? He can only pronounce absolution according to the law of God; if a person confesses falsely, and then recieves communion unworthily, that is their problem. Why is that pragmatic standard routinely applied to straight people, but not to gay people?

For what must be the billionth time, I am mot questioning the Church's teaching on sin and repentance; I am questioning why too many heterosexual Christians will cheerfully bang on out about the guilt, sin and depravity of gay people, but fail to recognise their own sin and culpability. It is not the theology that gets on my tits but the double standards and self-righteousness.

God expects us to make determined resistance to our sinful nature, but is well aware that none of us can fully succeed. You tell me, Dodo; if humans can be sinless, and thus justified, through their own ability to amend their lives, what was the sacrifice of Christ for? Why did God bother? Why does the Church teach that salvation can only be attained through participation in the Sacrifice of Christ made present in the Mass and thus accessible to all generations? Why, Dodo? If humanity is capable of perfection on its own then Christ's incarnation, life and death on the Cross are purely exemplary actions, and the Mass is nothing more than a memorial. So go on, since you are so eager to point out that I have misunderstood Church teaching - is the Mass just a memorial? Sounds like Protestant heresy to me...

23 October 2012 at 15:24  
Blogger OldJim said...

Darter Noster,

No one here is saying that people can be sinless, and thus justified, by their own merit.

That last paragraph of yours is silly because in this case we are talking, presumably, of homosexual Christians who are provided with graces to strengthen them against sin. Even in the case of people who are not so strengthened, whilst we do all sin, we do remain culpable for sin. How much more that is the case when we are showered in graces! There's nothing "protestant" in suggesting that in such a state we can avoid grave sin. No one thinks Christ's sacrifice was merely exemplary. But He didn't simply die for my sin. He provides me with graces to avoid sin, as well.

The pastoral situation you describe is unfortunate. However, whilst as you say, in most cases the rule of the church is pragmatism and allowing the congregations to weigh their own consciences, if the confessor knows that the penitent cannot possibly resolve not to sin again, he cannot proceed. This isn't an irrelevance. Consider priests confessing Mafioso or members of the IRA. Insofar as these men had not reformed and did not plan to reform, and the priest knew that, the priest acted contrary to his pastoral duty in allowing them to confess.

With a heterosexual couple, though, it can be hard to tell, as it can be with a number of other relevant occasions of sin. Unfortunately, homosexuality can be a very conspicuous manner of life.

It's not that the priest is discriminating. In theory anyone in a lifestyle that demands repeated grievous sins cannot be shrived. It is just the case that homosexuality is one of the few conditions of life that a priest might spot. If he doesn't, the issue doesn't arise. He must be pragmatic, and the proper understanding of the resolution not to sin again must be with the penitent.

Ultimately, the priest must have some latitude for discretion. But that doesn't mean that resolution not to sin again can be dropped in any circumstances. Even when it's not on the priest's head to discern whether reconciliation can take place, it is on the penitent's.

23 October 2012 at 15:53  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

You are using gaydom to avoid the issue of repentance DN.There is no discrimination against homosexuals wth regard to repentance in the Catholic Church

'If a person confesses falsely and then receives communion,then that is their problem.'

And this from someone who is employed to teach the Catholic faith...with this apparent nonchalant cavalier attitude to the most grievous sin tantamount to spitting in face of God and all our Catholic ancestors I suggest you do the right thing and return to your former religion with haste.

23 October 2012 at 16:21  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Old Jim,

I don't think it's silly; I seem to be getting told that I've got a misguided and/or Protestant view of sin because I believe that all humans have an inclination to sin and depend upon the Grace and power of God for our salvation rather than our own merits. But the fact that we are all unworthy without the Grace of God is the basis of Christ's sacrifice on our behalf, and is drummed into us at every Mass by the Prayer of Humble Access. Christians who take a judgemental attidtude towards gay people (which a) I am not saying you or Dodo do, and b) I acknowledge is something totally different from passing on the teaching of the Church about sexuality) would do well to bear this in mind a little more.

You've put your finger spot on the problem Old Jim, and it takes us right back to where this debate began (so many moons ago :o) ), with a comparison between sexuality and skin colour. The sin of gay people is not more serious (or less) than that of straight people, but it has the unfortunate quality of being more easily detectable. Dealing with that reality in a way which avoids hypocrisy and Pharisaic attitudes to sin (in which actions and gestures are accorded more weight than the inner nature of the heart) is very difficult.

23 October 2012 at 16:40  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Ah, Cressida - I was wondering where my favourite Inquisitor had gone :o)

I didn't say it was a small problem now, did I?

23 October 2012 at 16:44  
Blogger Kinderling said...

'If a person confesses falsely and then receives communion,then that is their problem.'

At least they can be a Knight Commander of the Order of Saint Gregory the Great and have great sex with children.

A refuge for rogues.

23 October 2012 at 17:12  
Blogger Kinderling said...

"The sin of gay people is not more serious (or less) than that of straight people, but it has the unfortunate quality of being more easily detectable."

What, The sin of paedophiles is not more serious (or less) than that of straight people, but it has the unfortunate quality of being more easily detectable?

A congegation of Lip Service creates a society of Hate Speech.

23 October 2012 at 17:20  
Blogger Kinderling said...

And yes, since you put it out there for all to see: "So go on, since you are so eager to point out that I have misunderstood Church teaching - is the Mass just a memorial?"

It is a death cult.

23 October 2012 at 17:24  
Blogger OldJim said...

Darter Noster,

All that you have said there is well taken. Provided that the understanding and usage of the Church is not consequently undermined, your emphases on pastoral sensitivity and on avoiding Pharisaism are sage, appropriate, and a useful balance to the more rigorist side of the discussion.

23 October 2012 at 17:48  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Kinderling,

What's your point exactly? All along I've argued, from a Christian point of view, that things such as hate speech directed towards gay people are unacceptable. Most gay people are open about their sexuality, and as a consequence get a raw deal compared to heterosexual people, who do not have their private lives so openly on display, even though they can be just as sinful; my point is that from a Christian perspective God knows the sins of our hearts, and so heterosexual people have no cause to cast stones at gay people. Lip service is what I would hope all Christians would avoid.

Paedophilia is an abhorrent and grievous sin, but since most acts of abuse happen in the home, and few people are willing to declare their sexual interest in children openly, for reasons of survival if nothing else, it is obviously less detectable.

If you dislike my religion or anyone else's then that is up to you, but with the greatest of respect if you want to have a go at anyone around here for being mean to gay people I'm not quite sure why it should be me...

23 October 2012 at 17:51  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

The victims of the Inquisition were mainly converts and for the first time I have an insight into the Inquisition and the Inquisitors and realise how heresy is so dangerous to the Church.I suppose DN thinks that by joining the Dominicans he will be spared the stake.

23 October 2012 at 18:15  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

It just gets better and better - I love it when Cressida does her Savonarola impression :o)

23 October 2012 at 18:38  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Darter Noster

A career in politics might be more suited to you than Ministry given your propensity for spin.

You say:

"The sin of gay people is not more serious (or less) than that of straight people, but it has the unfortunate quality of being more easily detectable."

The correct terms are homosexual and heterosexual - they are not discriminatory or offensive terms.

Why are these people more easily detectable? Do homosexuals have a sign on them? No. Is it that homosexuals are more detectable because their life style is embraced and proclaimed? Perhaps you mean 'camp' men. They can be heterosexual too. Or is it open expressions of sexual affection? Please be clear.

You've also failed to make a distinction between same sex attraction and an active sexual lifestyle.

If someone is addicted to drugs or alcohol, the advice is to stay away from old haunts and friends where temptation arises and seek a support group. Wiser advice
than this liberal compassion you express.

"Dealing with that reality in a way which avoids hypocrisy and Pharisaic attitudes to sin (in which actions and gestures are accorded more weight than the inner nature of the heart) is very difficult."

Agreed, one should not judge others as worse sinners than oneself. Just how do you judge the inner nature of the heart? By a contrite heart and a commitment to reform?

You've expressed a very modern Pharasaic attitude for a wanna-be priest: Lord I will not admonish sin because, afterall I am a sinner too and a tolerant person.

I do not seek public approval for my sin; nor do I attempt to reinterpret the Gospel; nor change the meaning of the Sacrament of marriage to accommodate it.

I'm interested in what opinion you hold on unmarried cohabitation amongst Catholics. Visible and public but a sin in the eyes of the Church. Divorcees who remarry. Again, visible and public and a grave sin in the eyes of the Church. These are states of being that can be reformed, just as being actively homosexual is.

And, for the record, cressida,in my opinion, is correct. Your lack of Catholic integrity is dangerous and, if you are teaching the views espoused here, you are placing souls at risk.

23 October 2012 at 19:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

The Newer Vainglory

Two men went up to pray; and one gave thanks,
Not with himself—aloud,
With proclamation, calling on the ranks
Of an attentive crowd.

"Thank God, I clap not my own humble breast,
But other ruffians’ backs,
Imputing crime—such is my tolerant haste—
To any man that lacks.

"For I am tolerant, generous, keep no rules,
And the age honours me.
Thank God, I am not as these rigid fools,
Even as this Pharisee."


(Alice Meynell)

23 October 2012 at 19:32  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Whatever, Dodo.

Frankly, trying to convince you that I'm not a dangerous heretic is becoming distinctly boring, and is a total waste of my time. My theological beliefs and teaching are routinely scrutinised by recognised Catholic authorities about whose opinions I give considerably more of a toss than yours.

All I am asking is that heterosexuals, straights or whatever you want to call them, cultivate an awareness of their own sinful nature before calling gay people sinners. If you and that lunatic cross between Savonarola, Lefebvre, and Father Jack Hackett that calls herself Cressida want to call me a dangerous heretic, a despoiler of souls or the devil incarnate because of that, I really don't care.

23 October 2012 at 19:45  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Darter Noster you should spend some time viewing Gay News. There are atheist homosexuals and Christian homosexuals. As you would expect with a disordered outlook on life, they are at each others throats every now and then. There is only one way forward with being gay, and that is celibacy. Tying a knot in it seems extreme but it’s a damn sight more attractive than the alternative...


23 October 2012 at 20:10  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Please, not you an' all, Inspector old chap :o)

I know the teaching of the Church on homosexuality and celibacy, and on sin and repentance, and I don't dispute any of it. I've just spent the best part of 48 hours p***ing in wind trying to convince Dodo that I am not a cross between John Wycliffe and Quentin Crisp.

Much more of this and I'll gladly jump on the fire Cressida is stoking for me :o)

23 October 2012 at 21:26  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

I'm waiting for our Catholic friends to demand that Darter Noster go through an auto-da-fé...

23 October 2012 at 21:29  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...


Yup, let's have inquistion back :

"The Inquistion, let's begin
The Inquistion, look out sin
We have a mission to convert the Jews
We're gonna teach them wrong from right
We're gonna help them see the light
And make an offer that they can't refuse (that the Jews just can't
refuse)

Confess (confess, confess)
Don't be boring
Say yes (say yes, say yes)
Don't be dull
A fact
you're ignoring:
it's better to lose your skullcap than your skull

The Inquistion, what a show
The Inquistion, here we go
We know you're wishing
That we'd go away
But the Inquistion's here and it's here to stay
The Inquistion, oh boy
The Inquistion, what a joy
The Inquistion, oy oy"

23 October 2012 at 21:33  
Blogger Kinderling said...

What's your point exactly? All along I've argued, from a Christian point of view, that things such as hate speech directed towards gay people are unacceptable.

The first problem is you claim to argue from a "Christian point of view". There are openly praticing homosexual Christians and priests. Then, from whose point of view do you argue? Jesus'? He only argued for sanity.

Secondly, what you describe as "hate speech directed towards gay people" is false. For all criticism of the homosexual-act is considered offensive, and thus under the repression of UK Socialism, Hate Speech.

So your argument of a big universe of agreement of dead people behind you, is mere fluff... and a world that is tolerant to wisdom, is too.

You defend the indefensible because that is where you claim salvation: 'I did not discern Lord, but offered the other cheek. See, I still have the talents you gave me'

23 October 2012 at 21:44  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

"There are openly praticing homosexual Christians and priests. Then, from whose point of view do you argue? Jesus'? He only argued for sanity."

In the immortal words of Manuel from Fawlty Towers, 'Que?'

What has that got to do with the price of spuds?

"Secondly, what you describe as "hate speech directed towards gay people" is false. For all criticism of the homosexual-act is considered offensive, and thus under the repression of UK Socialism, Hate Speech."

I would be the first to agree with you that the tendency to suppress any negative opinion on homosexuality on the grounds of offense is deplorable, if you'd given me the chance.

"So your argument of a big universe of agreement of dead people behind you, is mere fluff... and a world that is tolerant to wisdom, is too."

I'm lost altogether now...

"You defend the indefensible because that is where you claim salvation: 'I did not discern Lord, but offered the other cheek. See, I still have the talents you gave me'"

If you'd just like to take a number and join the queue of people in whose bizarre fantasies I am defending anything except the fact that gay people are created as much in the image of God as straight people are, the psychiatrist will see you shortly.

23 October 2012 at 22:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Darter Noster, here’s the deal...

Homosexuals doing whatever they need to do and keeping quiet about it. In other words, not coming here and singing “I am what I am what I am”

That way we can conveniently forget about their presence. Rather like dog shit on the pavement, if you will.

Of course, that’s asking a bit too much of them, don’t you think ?


23 October 2012 at 22:47  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

"That way we can conveniently forget about their presence. Rather like dog shit on the pavement, if you will."


Well, Inspector, thanks at least for providing a perfect example of the kind of gratuitous unpleasntness that I've been arguing against.

23 October 2012 at 23:12  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older