www.byzcath.org
Posted By: Scandinavian Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/24/05 06:54 AM
Quote
Protests disrupt Latvia gay march

Latvian police have arrested protesters after they shouted insults and threw eggs at people taking part in the Baltic state's first gay pride march.
The few dozen marchers were outnumbered by hundreds of protesters who blocked the narrow streets of the capital.

Police were forced to alter the march route and to form a chain around the parade participants to protect them.

The march had sparked outrage in Latvia and only went ahead after a court overturned a council ban on the event.

Officials said that six of the protesters had been detained for their part in disrupting the march.

Prime Minister Aigars Kalvitis had opposed the event, saying Riga should "not promote things like that".

"For sexual minorities to parade in the very heart of Riga, next to the Doma church, is unacceptable," he told LNT television on Wednesday.

One of those who took part in Saturday's march, 61-year-old Lars-Peter Sjouberg, from Sweden, said he had been shocked by the offensive remarks made by protesters.

"Protesters here were really aggressive [...] but it won't stop me from helping my Latvian friends fight for their rights."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4711261.stm

:rolleyes:
Posted By: incognitus Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/24/05 08:30 AM
Reminds me of the later nineteen-sixties and protest demonstrations against the Vietnam War - everything one could mention, from epithets to brickbats, was hurled at us (so were a couple of items which won't bear mentioning).

Incognitus
Posted By: Yuhannon Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/24/05 02:28 PM
Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,

Violence in the name of God is wrong in all cases. We need to remember two things, one is that we HAVE TO love others as ourselves, and that it is our God given right to exercise our free wills as long as that does not impact on others directly.

On this Holy Day, let us pray for peace between all of us.

Poosh BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon
Posted By: incognitus Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/24/05 08:17 PM
I am very happy to pray for peace as suggested. But by "this Holy Day" are you referring to Sunday (which is in fact a Holy Day) or had you something more specific in mind?

Incognitus
Posted By: LatinTrad Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/24/05 08:33 PM
Scandinavian, I'm not sure what your point is.

Are you trying to say that homosexuals are vindicated by the fact that other people threw eggs at them? Homosexual behavior naturally inspires a great deal of revulsion in most people.

And Incognitus, protesters were not the only ones who got stuff thrown at them during the Vietnam War. Our returning veterans and POW's didn't exactly get a red carpet welcome either.

On this Lord's Day, let us all pray that Christians will have the grace to accept God's mercy and live according to His commands. I am so far from doing that myself. Please pray for me too.

LatinTrad
Posted By: Carson Daniel Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/24/05 08:37 PM
This kind of perverse pride is not like the anti-war marches of the 1960s and 1970s. I find it insulting to our anti war and anti- discrimination efforts of that era to equate this perverseness with those efforts. There is nothing righteous about these more recent hedonistic parades.

Dan L
Posted By: incognitus Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/24/05 11:01 PM
Throwing eggs at people and hurling insults at them is unlikely to convince them of their own lack of righteousness. They are much more likely to become convinced of the boorishness and barbarism of their assailants.

By the way, did the USA ever get around to an unconditional amnesty for those who refused to fight in Vietnam? [This is not a trick question; I honestly don't know the answer.]

Incognitus
Posted By: Carson Daniel Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/24/05 11:32 PM
Incognitus,

I'm not particularly concerned what a person who would so insult others as to march in a parade demanding acceptance of their hedonism. In America we don't bust into people's homes and demand that they demonstrate what they do in their bedrooms. Likewise, I don't expect people to parade around in the streets demonstrating what they do in their bedrooms. It is completely insulting to anyone who demonstrated for equal rights for blacks to have anyone propose that these parades have anything at all to do with the civil rights efforts of earlier days. It's insulting not only to Christians at large but to all blacks. Within that context throwing eggs seems very minor indeed.

Some amnesty was offered from the Carter Administration if my memory serves. The Ford administration probably offered some limited amnesty as well. I do not know if total amnesty was ever offered.

Dan L
Posted By: Mike C. Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/25/05 12:03 AM
"By the way, did the USA ever get around to an unconditional amnesty for those who refused to fight in Vietnam? [This is not a trick question; I honestly don't know the answer.] "

Ingonitus: Do you have a job?
"
Posted By: Gaudior Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/25/05 12:14 AM
Violence is not acceptable. Nor is a parade of sin. It is interesting to note that marchers came from other places to attend...why is that? Is it a feeble attempt to convince people that this sin is more mainstream and popular than they suppose?

Gaudior, disgusted that people insist on being PROUD of sinning.
Posted By: sam Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/25/05 02:03 AM
Quote
Throwing eggs at people and hurling insults at them is unlikely to convince them of their own lack of righteousness. They are much more likely to become convinced of the boorishness and barbarism of their assailants.
How are we as Catholics to interpret the throwing of condoms on the altars of St. Patrick's Cathedral?

sam
Posted By: incognitus Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/25/05 06:48 AM
Sam asks "How are we as Catholics to interpret the throwing of condoms on the altars of St. Patrick's Cathedral?"

I should hope that any normal person would interpret such behavior as barbarism and boorishness - and would therefore resolve not to emulate such behavior. That sort of misconduct is certainly offensive, and will not convince anybody of the validity of the cause of the perpetrators.

A good friend, who was then the deacon at Saint Nicholas Cathedral, New York, was faced with a bunch of misguided "anti-Communist" demonstrators outside the cathedral, who threw eggs at him, ruining his good riasa in the process. Now just what might we expect was the effect on the deacon? Did he regard the offensive behavior as indicative of people with whom one might carry on a rational discussion of anything? No, of course he didn't. He quite properly called the cops. The egg-throwers spent the night in the slammer, which is precisely where they belonged - or perhaps they belonged in a loony bin.

Yes, I do have a job. I have this habit of eating, which requires some degree of wherewithal! But what does that have to do with my curiosity as to whether - and what sort - of amnesty has been offered to the draft-dodgers of yesteryear?

Incognitus
Posted By: Carson Daniel Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/25/05 01:39 PM
To return to the initial issue which in question form I suppose would go like this: "Are gay parades a form of violence?"

My answer is a simple Yes, of course.

Dan L
Posted By: iconophile Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/25/05 01:58 PM
An aside about the supposed mistreatment of returning Vietnam veterans: it apparently never happened. There exist no contemporary news stories about such mistreatment; the stories are later accusations, apparently with the government as its source. Perhaps at some time somewhere it did occur, but there is no contemporary evidence for it. It is a myth, one that has had a pervasive effect on American public discourse and perception of the antiwar activists of the 60s and 70s.
In fact, peace activists set up coffee shops around military bases and offered counseling to soldiers. After all one of the main points was to stop the deaths of young American soldiers. Vietnam veterans were a very active and visible presence in the movement. I certainly never saw any scorn for ordinary American soldiers.
-Daniel
Posted By: Administrator Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/25/05 02:49 PM
The mistreatment of returning Vietnam veterans is not a myth. Sadly, the press was uniformly against the Vietnam War and pretty much ignored the mistreatment of the returning veterans. It didn�t happen everywhere, but there were plenty of examples of acts of spitting and throwing things at returning military. It reached its peak at roughly the same time the anti-war protests reached their peak. There was a small outburst of support for the troops when they were all brought home, but for the most part the veterans were then ignored. It is true that some anti-war protesters organized various activities to welcome them home. This was, however, the exception rather than the rule.

Anyone seeking first hand testimony of the mistreatment of Vietnam veterans needs only to spend a few hours in a waiting room of any VA hospital to find it.
Posted By: Diak Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/25/05 03:04 PM
Daniel, I tend to agree. My brother runs a VA group home in Lousiana attached to the Alexandria VA, you can certainly ask him directly, but we have discussed this issue.

With the exception of two older men who are Korean vets in his home all of the rest of his men are Vietnam vets.

Their complaints are not with how they were treated by any one member of the public when they came home, but rather their complaints center almost entirely on how they were treated by the U.S. government they served.
Posted By: Administrator Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/25/05 03:08 PM
Christians are well within their rights to protest against as parades by homosexuals demanding special rights for behavior that is evil. Violence, however, is totally unacceptable. The rule of charity must always prevail.

The �condemn the sin but not the sinner� rule applies. The Church and her Scriptures teach us that we must adhere to and witness what is morally right while gently and fraternally correcting someone who has fallen into sin.
Posted By: incognitus Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/25/05 05:50 PM
Christians are certainly well within their rights to protest against anything which we believe to be immoral or otherwise objectionable, particular if a parade is being held in support of such a phenomenon (e.g. - while I've never heard of a parade being held to demand the "right" to divorce, there could be no question that those who regard divorce as a social evil have also a right to be heard). The question is how to accomplish this in such a way as to change people's opinions.

This is not done by throwing eggs, screaming obscenities, threatening or even perpetrating violence, etc. One should also consider carefully which occasions are the most likely to succeed.

So what to do? Well, it is quite possible to call a meeting or rally open to the public, with speakers who know how to deliver a public address that is both truthful and courteous. A leaflet distribution at the appropriate venue might be a good thing.

If it has happened - and especially if it has happened more than once in the same place - that any place of worship has been profaned and/or abused, particular in the course of a public worship service, one can properly invoke the protection of the law. It is unacceptable for people to be intimidated or threatened while they are entering or leaving a place of worship, and scattering condoms on an altar is unspeakable - and illegal; there is no reason to tolerate such misconduct. There is also no reason to descend to such a level. Since this is criminal behavior, I would want chapter and verse before I would be prepared to believe it. But I don't exclude the possibility.

One can also organize a public debate; there are surely people on both sides - or several sides - of almost any such issue who can present their arguments without becoming abusive in the process. Just remember: if you lose your cool the other side wins by default.

Incognitus
Posted By: DocBrian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/25/05 06:54 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Scandinavian:
[QUOTE][qb]Protests disrupt Latvia gay march

:rolleyes:
In today's western culture, this whole story is such a non-issue that one is forced to question the motives of the poster in posting it.

Christians in northern europe have been jailed recently simply for preaching from the bible about the sinful nature of sodomy. Christians in Canada are persecuted and fined and prosecuted continually for any negative comments regarding sodomy.

Before long, we in the USA will be subject to hate speech laws giving civil protection to sodomists.

This story is now the exception, it is certainly not the rule.

And sodomists are far more violent to each other than any outside protest groups are towards them.
Posted By: Carson Daniel Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/25/05 09:00 PM
Doc Brian,

Right you are and thank you for writing it. There's some funny business going on when so many sodomites get protection and support from so many Catholics.

Dan L
Posted By: djs Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/25/05 09:34 PM
Quote
Christians are well within their rights to protest against as parades by homosexuals demanding special rights for behavior that is evil
Parading - which launched the discusion picked up in this thread - is not a special right. Anyone may protest it, but success is unlikely and would probably require repeal of certain portions of the bill of rights.

Quote
There's some funny business going on when so many sodomites get protection and support from so many Catholics
I do and will support their right to parade. What's so funny about that? Do you actually think that being a good Catholic really requires opposition to our experiment in liberty - our manner of governing the US?

I've asked this question some time ago, about judges (when it was more popular to talk about candidates for legislative and executive office.) With the nomination of Judge Roberts for SCOTUS, this has become a lively topic at mirrorofjustice. I hope that Judge gets asked his thoughts on the question in his confirmation hearing. And maybe some bishops will weigh in as well.
Posted By: Mike C. Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/25/05 09:51 PM
Ingonitus:

Do you own a house and a car?
Posted By: incognitus Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/25/05 09:54 PM
Do I own a house and a car? How soon do you need to know? Are such possessions required to legitimize my theological, liturgical, canonical, disciplinary, culinary, musical or other opinions? MYOB!

Incognitus
Posted By: Carson Daniel Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/25/05 11:11 PM
djs,

"I do and will support their right to parade. What's so funny about that? Do you actually think that being a good Catholic really requires opposition to our experiment in liberty - our manner of governing the US?"

Do you still beat your wife?

Dan Lauffer
Posted By: DocBrian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/25/05 11:23 PM
Quote
]I do and will support their right to parade. What's so funny about that?
In Catholic thought, Freedom means the right to pursue Truth. Licence is not the same as Freedom. Licence is "freedom" only in that it allows or is used with irresponsibility; it is a disregard for standards of personal conduct. It certainly is NOT a right in the moral sense, even if perverted modern definitions of 'freedom" claim otherwise.

You are confusing Freedom and Licence.

Catholicism supports and encourages true Freedom, but it is never morally licit to support licentiousness.

Gay pride parades are licentious. They are not an expression of "freedom" but an expression of revolt and slavery to sin.

No Catholic who understands the Faith can in good conscience "support" a gay pride parade.
Posted By: djs Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/25/05 11:34 PM
Dan,

I would love to hear, then, just what is the funny business. And if I am on the wrong track about what's funny, and am therefore begging in my question, it is not for want of trying to ask about and sort out this question.

I know that some folks here would prefer a theocracy. But I don't think that that preference is required to be a good Catholic. If not, then what - as a citizen is permitted? Is defending the rights of all people to march OK, or only those who adhere to Catholic, or some homogneized Christian principles. Does defending speech and assembly rights for sinners in some serious way entail cooperation with evil? What would a Catholic judge be permitted in deciding an injunction on the Nazis marching in Skokie?

And if this is the wrong track, then what, exactly, is the funny business?
Posted By: DocBrian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/25/05 11:43 PM
Quote
.

I know that some folks here would prefer a theocracy. But I don't think that that preference is required to be a good Catholic.
Campion's Law was created on www.freerepublic.com [freerepublic.com] to be a corollary to the widely recognized Goodwin\'s Law [google.com] :


Campion's Law: "As a FR discussion lengthens, the probability of a libertarian or atheist FReeper comparing a Christian FReeper to al Qaeda or a Talibanic theocrat approaches one. Any FReeper who compares their opponent to al Queda or declares their oppenent an advocate of a "theocracy" has automatically lost that point of debate.
Posted By: djs Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/25/05 11:49 PM
Quote
Gay pride parades are licentious
It is fair to say that at the St. Patrick's day parade in Boston, when I lived in the area, there was considerable licentiousness - mainly in public drunkeness and disorderliness. It was, in fact, a disgrace to many, many people in Irish community. It would be a stretch, however, to say that that parade or any parade "is" licentious. But, as incognitus already mentioned, there are remedies that already exist against unlawful behavior.

Quote
No Catholic who understands the Faith can in good conscience "support" a gay pride parade.
I am not sure about your words, exactly. Especially when the key word in in quotes. I support the right of all people in this country to assemble to speak, and to parade. I do this independent of agenda, and with no implication of support for any unlawful behavior.

Now, if you mean that no Catholic who understands the faith can do this (show me this from the magesterium), then you invite disqualification of Catholics (who understand the faith) from any office in which they must swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the US, wherein people in error still have rights. And tha problem is a timely one.
Posted By: djs Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/25/05 11:56 PM
Doc:

You are relatively new here. Had you been here longer you would be more likely to know that I am alluding to specific comments made by specific posters here (and on other forums at which they post). And the model theocrats in question may be Taliban or such over at FR, but here they would be Byzantine emperors, or holy Czars, or maybe Maria-Therese. wink

ps is there a similar law, somewhere, about the a-word?
Posted By: DocBrian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 12:04 AM
Quote
Now, if you mean that no Catholic who understands the faith can do this (show me this from the magesterium), then you invite disqualification of Catholics from any office in which they must swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the US, wherein people in error still have rights. And tha problem is a timely one. [/QB]
If the errors of our secular government "disqualify" Catholics from office, that is the price to be paid for following Christ. Our Pope made this explicitly clear recently, regarding advancement of the sodomists' agenda:

Quote
Vatican condemns Spain gay bill

The Vatican, under the new leadership of Pope Benedict XVI, has condemned a Spanish government bill allowing marriage between homosexuals.
The bill, passed by parliament's Socialist-dominated lower house, also allows gay couples to adopt.

A senior Vatican official described the bill - which is likely to become law within a few months - as iniquitous.

He said Roman Catholic officials should be prepared to lose their jobs rather than co-operate with the law.

The bill would make Spain the first European country to allow homosexual people to marry and adopt children.
Posted By: djs Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 12:06 AM
And the right to parade, which - ah - is what we've been talking about?
Posted By: DocBrian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 12:07 AM
Quote
Originally posted by djs:
[QB]
Quote
Gay pride parades are licentious
It is fair to say that at the St. Patrick's day parade in Boston, when I lived in the area, there was considerable licentiousness -
It would be a stretch, however, to say that that parade or any parade "is" licentious.
1) You are comparing a St. Patrick's day parade to "Gay Pride" parades?!?
2) You've not seen what happens at "Gay Pride" parades? Just the notion itself of "Gay Pride" or throwing a parade to celebrate sodomy is licentious.
Posted By: DocBrian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 12:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by djs:
And the right to parade, which - ah - is what we've been talking about?
Show me where any such "right" is recognized by the Church magisterium...

It is NOT a "right."

It is government condoned licentiousness.

In a similar fashion, the "right" to choose is not a right either. It is government condoned murder.

In Catholic thought, it is a government's duty to protect the innocent and safeguard the welfare of the citizenry.

Permitting sodomites to recruit and break down traditional taboos against sodomy via "Gay Pride Parades" is not part of the constitutionally defined duties of the US government, nor is it permitted in any Catholic moral or social framework whatsoever.
Posted By: djs Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 12:16 AM
Quote
1) You are comparing a St. Patrick's day parade to "Gay Pride" parades?!?
I do make a comparison. Both have entailed licentiousness, the licentiousness of both have been criticized, and remedies to unlawful behavior exist. Nothing more, however, is implied. Is there a law on punctuation?

Quote
2) You've not seen what happens at "Gay Pride" parades?
True. My support for the right to have a parade does not entail participation in any way, even as a spectator.

Quote
Just the notion itself of "Gay Pride" or throwing a parade to celebrate sodomy is licentious
So also a parade "to celbrate Nazism" - although I am not sure that is what the Neo-Nazis were doing in Skokie, nor for that matter do I pretend any certain insight into why gays parade.

But whose rights shall we defend? Just the people who we deem good. That would be no one.
Posted By: DocBrian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 12:30 AM
Quote
But whose rights shall we defend? Just the people who we deem good. That would be no one.
Gosh, you know, it just seems common sense that its not a "right" to promote sodomy or permit gay pride parades to allow sodomists to recruit and further degrade the average American's understanding of basic right and wrong.

The Catholic church just spent three excruciating, gut wrenching, bankrupting years dealing with the aftermath of permitting homosexuals in the priesthood.

We've spent several BILLION dollars in compensating the victims of homosexual molestation, and paying lawyers to defend these cases.

Fully 82% of the moestation cases were homosexual in nature.

What other parades must we defend the 'rights" of the participants to hold?

"Bestiality-pride parades"

"Incest-pride parades?"

"Man-boy love pride parades?"

Sorry, but I refuse to be so dumbed down as to say that I support the "right" of sodomists to parade through our streets so that -- having already destroyed the Christian social prohibitions on sodomy -- they can next fulfill their agenda of lowering the universal age of consent so that there is no longer any crime called "pedophilia" among their target demographic, post-pubescent teens.

Open your eyes. We are in a culture war for our children's world. We lost the battle against sodomy. The next one is to make legal their sodomizing our children. So that they can have "Chickenhawking-pride parades" by 2020.

Maybe my posts on this thread seem harsh. But I've met too many victims of homosexual priests to accept this nonsense that sodomists have a "right" to further push their agenda down our collective throats.
Posted By: DocBrian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 12:39 AM
Quote
The next one is to make legal their sodomizing our children. So that they can have "Chickenhawking-pride parades" by 2020.

Maybe my posts on this thread seem harsh. But I've met too many victims of homosexual priests to accept this nonsense that sodomists have a "right" to further push their agenda down our collective throats. [/QB]
Background documentation for this point:

Fears Grow Over Academic Efforts to Normalize Pedophilia [cnsnews.com]

Potential trouble on the Supreme Court

However, restraining the Court may prove more difficult than expected. Responding to criticism aimed at Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) over his conclusions that the Lawrence decision could lead to legalized pedophilia and other sexual acts, the Catholic Family Association of America (CFAA) pointed to a potential pedophilia advocate on the Court itself.

"Given that homosexual advocates are in a full court press to lower the age of consent as low as it can go, and pro-pedophile sitting Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 's documented advocacy of lowering the age of consent to 12 years old, parents should be horrified that there are so few politicians, like Sen. Santorum, actually defending the family," Timothy Chichester, CFAA president, said April 23.

Chichester was referring to a paper authored by Ginsburg entitled "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," which was prepared for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in April 1977

The allegation was further substantiated by Robert Knight, director of CWA's Culture Institute, in "Homosexual Behavior and Pedophilia," an article he co-authored with the Family Research Council's Frank York.

"When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an attorney for the ACLU, she co-authored a report recommending that the age of consent for sexual acts be lowered to 12 years of age," the article points out.

Knight and York's footnoted documentation on this is as follows: "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," Report for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, April 1977, p. 102, quoted in "Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Feminist World View," The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Vol. 26, No. 12, Section 1, p. 3. The paragraph (from the Ginsburg report) reads as follows: "'Eliminate the phrase "carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years" and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense. ... A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person. ... [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.'"

LaRue said pedophiles may co-opt language used in the Lawrence decision regarding homosexuals; that laws against their behavior are a discriminatory attempt to harm them as a persecuted minority. And they will be supported, she claimed, by academia.

Reclassifying pedophilia already subject to debate

During its annual convention in May, the American Psychiatric Association hosted a symposium discussing the removal of pedophilia along with other categories of mental illness (collectively known as paraphilia) from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

After much criticism following CNSNews.com coverage of the symposium, the APA issued a statement reiterating its position on pedophilia.

But in his 1999 article "Harming the Little Ones: The Effects of Pedophilia on Children," Timothy Dailey, senior analyst for cultural studies with the Family Research Council, chronicled the APA's treatment of pedophilia in the DSM and compares it to the APA evolution of homosexuality.

In DSM revisions, Dailey explained that APA "adds a subjective qualification similar to that which appeared with regard to homosexuality: The individual must be 'markedly distressed' by his own pedophilic activity to be considered needful of therapy," Dailey wrote, adding that in the latest revision, pedophilia "is to be considered a paraphilia when the behavior causes 'clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.'"

Mary Eberstadt, research fellow at the Hoover Institute, told CNSNews.com: "The evidence is plain: there is indeed an ongoing attempt from within the psychiatric and psychological communities to de-stigmatize pedophilia by de-classifying it as a paraphilia in the first place."

Academic efforts to normalize pedophilia draw fire, praise

For further evidence, Eberstadt points to "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples," a study published in the July 1998 Psychological Bulletin of the American Psychological Association.

It contended that "negative effects (of child sexual abuse) were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women." It further stipulated that children's feelings about sexual encounters with adults should be taken into effect and that "a willing encounter with positive reactions would be labeled simply adult-child sex."

Publication of the report resulted in a formal denunciation in the House of Representatives, which voted 355-0 to condemn the essay.

In 1999, after being rejected by several publishing houses, the University of Minnesota Press published Harmful to Minors by journalist Judith Levine, including a foreword by former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders, who was asked to resign by President Bill Clinton after she endorsed making masturbation part of the public school curriculum.

In the book, Levine contends that pedophiles are "myths" and faults the government for making pedophilia illegal.

"Pedophiles are not generally violent, if there is such thing as pedophiles at all," Levin wrote. "More important, sexual contact with a child does not a pedophile make."

After a flurry of controversy ensued, the University of Minnesota Press issued a press release defending its publication of the work.

"Neither the University Press nor the University of Minnesota endorses the theses of authors it publishes, including that of Ms. Levine. In fact, some within the university may vehemently disagree," said Christine Maziar, vice president for research and dean of the graduate school in the release. "University presses by their nature will publish work on controversial subjects; it's our responsibility to ensure that the procedures and processes of the press foster both academic freedom and quality publications."

Eberstadt, LaRue and others have pointed out that Levine's assertions in the book rest solely on pro-pedophilia sources such as the NAMBLA Bulletin, and Levine's work earned her a book prize from the Los Angeles Times.

The roots of de-stigmatizing pedophilia in contemporary society

Peter Sprigg, Family Research Council director of Marriage and Family Studies, told CNSNews.com that the movement to de-stigmatize pedophilia within academia can be traced back to Alfred Kinsey in 1948.

Knight provided further explanation saying: "This view, argued on the fringe by pedophile authors over the past century, gained enormous respect when Alfred C. Kinsey published his books on male and female sexuality in 1948 and 1953, known collectively as the Kinsey Report.

"Kinsey worked to lower penalties for sex offenders and said he couldn't understand why children were harmed by being sexually touched by adults," Knight continued. "He based this on a series of sex experiments on children as young as 2 months of age. A chapter in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male reports on the molestation of hundreds of boys, with Kinsey concluding that the victims enjoyed the activity."

Sprigg said it was "inevitable" that redefining pedophilia as not being a mental disorder would pave the way for greater social and legal acceptance of that behavior.

But Linda Nicolosi, publications director for the National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuality, warned that the concept of mental illness "is not and cannot" be a strictly "scientific" matter, such as a broken leg.

"No one would argue that a broken leg isn't a physical illness," Nicolosi explained to CNSNews.com. "But mental illness is a much more controversial matter; no one has ever come up with a universal definition of mental illness that is consistent across cultures and throughout time."

Nicolosi argued that "as society changes, the definition of mental illness is likely to change along with it. Therefore, as our society comes increasingly to value sexual liberation and children's autonomy, pressure increases on the psychiatric establishment to stop pathologizing things like childhood sexual expression, gender variance and homosexuality."

"The danger arises when the public gives psychiatry too much power; when the layman assumes that psychiatry 'knows something' about sexuality that the moral ethicist does not," Nicolosi said. "Psychiatry cannot tell the layman that homosexuality, or pedophilia, or sado-masochistic sex are 'healthy' because science has no concept of 'healthy sex' that is not values-laden."
Posted By: Peacock 24 Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 01:05 AM
Doc,

This is a little side note.

Last year at this time here in Jersey City, my councilman, with a fine Irish Catholic name, was depicted hoisting the "gay flag" at one of the cultural weekend events sponsered by the tax payers of JC in the local paper on a Sat. morning.

I know this guy and saw him a his pub a few minutes ago. He is the type to do anyting fashionable for a vote.

The scandal of saying the sin of homosexuality is ok might have crossed his mind, but the attitude is apparently that there are are a block of voters who are homosexual, so pander to them.

The regular people just put up with this crap.

These are tough times we live in.

Jim
Posted By: Carson Daniel Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 01:44 AM
Doc Brian,

You are my kind of guy. I hope we meet someday. I find the arguments put forth by the defenders of gay rights parades to be completely secular and non Christian entirely. What's "funny" actually "rotten" about this is that it is a defense of licenteousness. Why would a Catholic pander to licenteousness? Such pandering is scandalous. Such pandering gives a serious appearance of evil.

The arguments may be innocent, though I find it a stretch to believe that. It is one thing to say that we are limited for the time being in praying for the lost souls who participate in such parades. We must bide our time, I suppose. It's quite another to pander to this evil. It is one thing to say I've lived in a secluded room all of my life and have never ever seen a gay parade. And quite another to claim to have had a normal social life and have never seen one. I simply don't believe someone who says that they have never seen a gay rights parade either live or on Television. The claim is not believable.

Be that as it may, my method for confronting this evil is and always will be to try to convert the evil ones and work to get their parades banned from public consumption. I have never thrown an egg nor an epithet and don't intend to.

CDL
Posted By: DocBrian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 01:51 AM
Quote
Be that as it may, my method for confronting this evil is and always will be to try to convert the evil ones and work to get their parades banned from public consumption. I have never thrown an egg nor an epithet and don't intend to.

CDL [/QB]
Beautiful advice, Dan, thank you. I've never thrown an egg. (And a good Christian polemicist would defend me when I say I don't throw epithets. Unfortunately, some people have differing definitions of epithets.) :rolleyes:
Posted By: DocBrian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 02:01 AM
Quote
I hope we meet someday.
I tried to convince my wife that the long-weekend vacation we scheduled (while the children visit their grandparents) over the August 5th weekend, for our 15th anniversary, would be well spent at the August 6 Forum on "Transfiguring Our Future" in Indiana.

She said, "That's great. We can go up to Indiana for a day."

When I informed her it was the STATE of Indiana, not Indiana PA, she reneged. Go figure.

Oh well, I tried. I really wish we could have attended.
Posted By: Carson Daniel Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 02:17 AM
My gracious man, where do you live that Indiana, Pa. seems more appealing than Indiana? I note that Indiana, Pa. is east of Pittsburgh. Are you familiar with Bushy Run Battlefield State Park in Jeannette? My brother and I are attending our national family reunion there on August 28. If you are near stop by and we'll share a beverage. Since I've never before attended this I don't know what kinds of beverages will be available.

Dan L
Posted By: DocBrian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 02:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Dan Lauffer:
[QB] My gracious man, where do you live that Indiana, Pa. seems more appealing than Indiana?
My sincere apologies for any misunderstanding, but it is not that the State of Indiana is less appealing. Its just that it is less ... close.


Quote
I note that Indiana, Pa. is east of Pittsburgh. Are you familiar with Bushy Run Battlefield State Park in Jeannette?
I had never been there prior to last fall.

However, my direct ancestors were well-known and respected gunsmiths in the early to mid 1800's, and last fall we drove over to Bushy Run Battlefield State Park to examine three superb examples of their rifles at the museum there.

I'd be happy to drive over to visit! Its less than 90 minutes from here in Johnstown PA.
Posted By: Carson Daniel Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 02:39 AM
Doc,

That would be great. We plan to be there around noon though the reunion doesn't start until 1:00 p.m. I expect that it will be fairly well attended as our family has been in the states since before there were states ca. 1730. A draft copy of a new edition of the family history will be shown. The first one was published in 1906 and this one is due for print in 2006.

Dan L
Posted By: djs Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 03:42 AM
Quote
What's "funny" actually "rotten" about this is that it is a defense of licenteousness. Why would a Catholic pander to licenteousness? Such pandering is scandalous. Such pandering gives a serious appearance of evil.
Thanks for clarifying the "funny business". But my recollection is that no one on this forum has ever defended or pandered to the licentiousness. I am happy to be corrected on this point, but I cannot recall a single example.

btw I have not been to a gay parade. I have, however, seen brief clips on TV - probably they are sanitized for prime time viewing. You really ought to check about a person's meaning, Dan, before you make a claim about their remarks being unbelievable. :rolleyes:
Posted By: djs Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 04:32 AM
Doc:
Quote
Gosh, you know, it just seems common sense that its not a "right" to promote sodomy or permit gay pride parades to allow sodomists to recruit and further degrade the average American's understanding of basic right and wrong.
You've moved from parades to recruiting. Maybe those of you with more experience can comment on the recruiting done at such parades. I will say, however, that it fair to criticize the use of the word "right". There are fundamental rights of assembly and speech and equal protection of the law. There is no right to parade, but if some can parade, then equal protection means that there has to be a compelling reason to deny it others - and in America we have very strict standards about such denials.

And this situation of course does violate common sense. Common sense says: "what I think". It took some brilliance, to see beyond this. And the payoff is not that we can get (or ignore for those not transfixed by it) execrable junk, the payoff is that we are secure in the possibility of our speaking out and having our say. What makes you think that it is a given that Catholics could speak out, or even worship in this country? If you deny rights of speech, assembly, and equal protection to others, who do you expect to support it for you. Rememeber that the constituion was framed in Philadelphia because it was the one place in America where the founders could each go to their own church.

[And, btw, what does any of this have to do with the billions spent? If you read the report from Boston, your time line is way off; the vast majority of incidents antedated any gay parades that I am aware of (and also VII, btw). So what are you talking about?]

Quote
Open your eyes. We are in a culture war for our children's world. We lost the battle against sodomy. The next one is to make legal their sodomizing our children. So that they can have "Chickenhawking-pride parades" by 2020.
I think, Doc, that you are missing the boat, here, tragically. The culture was lost before the battle over sodomy. And IMO drawing the line there continues to be a losing tactic.

We live in a sex saturated, contraceptive, quick to divorce, promiscuous, heterosexual culture. That is not the fault of gays, they are just keeping up. In a society that valued chastity and modesty, in which one's sex life was a private matter, gays would be invisible. And as long as we scapegoat them - at the risk of contributing to invidious discrimination and even violence - we will not overcome the fundamental problem that we face. But with the notable exception of Bill Bennett, how often do you hear conservatives stipulating that gay issues are of minor consequence on our children's lives as compared, e.g., to rampant divorce. But what attention does it get as an issue? Why the disparity?
Posted By: Scandinavian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 08:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by djs:


We live in a sex saturated, contraceptive, quick to divorce, promiscuous, heterosexual culture. That is not the fault of gays, they are just keeping up. In a society that valued chastity and modesty, in which one's sex life was a private matter, gays would be invisible. And as long as we scapegoat them - at the risk of contributing to invidious discrimination and even violence - we will not overcome the fundamental problem that we face. But with the notable exception of Bill Bennett, how often do you hear conservatives stipulating that gay issues are of minor consequence on our children's lives as compared, e.g., to rampant divorce. But what attention does it get as an issue? Why the disparity?
djs,

you are truly a voice of sanity in the midst of the insane.


And those were my final remarks on this board!
Posted By: Yuhannon Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 11:18 AM
Shlomo Incognitus,

I was refering to Sunday.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon
Posted By: antonius Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 11:49 AM
I fail to see how sodomy, one of the
Sins that Cry to Heaven for Vengeance
is "of minor consequence on our children's
lives...."

antonius
(who HAS met DocBrian)
Posted By: louisix Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 11:57 AM
A need reality check.

At a local School Board meeting some years ago I heard something that, as a Catholic, I found to be so totally preposterous that I could not believe someone calling himself "Catholic" capable of making such a statement.

The Board and the Community were told by a "c"atholic that the "sin of Sodom was inhospitality" and that Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica challenged natural law arguments, and said that "homosexuality is natural, not unnatural and that homosexuality among animals is natural, not unnatural."

I would simply ask this individual to give us the exact references in the Summa Theologica where Thomas Aquinas made those statements.

It should not be required to formally refute such outrageous, scandalous statements but because of the confusion spawned by dissident theologians who would create their own heretical "magisteria" co-equal with that of Holy Mother Church, a response is in order.

I will let Saint Thomas Aquinas respond directly through his own words in the Christian Classics 1948 Benzinger edition translation of the Summa Theologica, the clarity of which is unmistakable. First the Natural Law will be addressed, then homosexuality.

The Natural Law.

"Since, however, good has the nature of an end, and evil, the nature of a contrary, hence it is that all those things to which man has a natural inclination, are naturally apprehended by reason as being good, and consequently as objects of pursuit, and their contraries as evil, and objects of avoidance.

"Because in man there is first of all an inclination to good in accordance with the nature which he has in common with all substances; inasmuch as every substance seeks the preservation of its own being, according to its nature: and by reason of this inclination, whatever is a means of preserving human life, and of warding off its obstacles, BELONGS to the Natural Law. Secondly, there is in man an inclination to things that pertain to him more specially, according to that nature which he has in common with other animals: and in virtue of this inclination, those things are said to belong to the Natural Law, WHICH NATURE HAS TAUGHT TO ALL ANIMALS, such as sexual intercourse, education of offspring and so forth.

"Thus man has a natural inclination to know the truth about God, and to live in society: and in this respect, whatever pertains to this inclination belongs to the Natural Law." [Summa Theologica, Vol II, Pt. I-II, Q.94 Art. 2]

"For it has been stated that to the Natural Law belongs everything to which a man is inclined according to his nature.

"Wherefore, since the rational soul is the proper form of man, there is in every man a natural inclination to act according to reason: and this is to act according to virtue.

"Temperance is about the natural concupiscences of food, drink, and sexual matters, which are indeed ordained to the natural common good, just as other matters of law are ordained to the moral common good.

"By human nature we may mean either that which is proper to man - and in this sense all sins, as being against reason, are also against nature, as Damascene states (De Fide Orthod. ii. 30): or we may mean that nature which is common to man and other animals; and in this sense, certain special sins are said to be AGAINST nature; thus contrary to sexual intercourse, which is natural to all animals, is unisexual lust, which has received the special name of the UNNATURAL CRIME." [Summa Theologica, Vol II, Pt. I-II, Q.94 Art. 3]

"Consequently we must say that the Natural Law, as to general principles, is the same for all, both as to rectitude and as to knowledge.

"As, in man, reason rules and commands the other powers, so all the natural inclinations belonging to the other powers must needs be directed according to reason." [Summa Theologica, Vol II, Pt. I-II, Q.94 Art. 4]

"The Natural Law dates from the creation of the rational creature. It does NOT vary according to time, but remains unchangeable.

"The Natural Law was perverted in the hearts of some men, as to certain matters, so that they esteemed those things good which are naturally evil." [Summa Theologica, Vol II, Pt. I-II, Q.94 Art. 5]

"THY LAW IS WRITTEN ON THE HEARTS OF MEN, WHICH INIQUITY ITSELF EFFACES NOT. But the law which is written in men's hearts is the Natural Law. Therefore the Natural Law CANNOT be blotted out.

"There belong to the Natural Law, first, certain most general precepts, that are known to all; and secondly, certain secondary and more detailed precepts, which are, as it were, conclusions following closely from first principles. As to those general principles, the Natural Law, in the abstract, can NOwise be blotted out from men's hearts." [Summa Theologica, Vol II, Pt. I-II, Q.94 Art. 6]

Homosexuality.

"The unnatural vice IS a species of lust. It is reckoned together with other species of lust (2 Cor. xii. 21) where we read: 'And have not done penance for the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness," where a gloss says: 'Lasciviousness, i.e., unnatural lust.'

"The venereal act is rendered unbecoming through being contrary to right reason, and because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called THE UNNATURAL VICE. This may happen by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Rom. i. 27): and this is called the VICE OF SODOMY." [Summa Theologica, Vol IV, Pt. II-II, Q.154 Art. 11]

"Augustine says (De adult. conjug.) that 'of all these', namely the sins belonging to lust, 'THAT WHICH IS AGAINST NATURE IS THE WORST.'

"I answer that, in every genus, worst of all is the corruption of the principle on which the rest depend. Now the principles of reason are those things that are according to nature, because reason presupposes things as determined by nature, before disposing of other things according as it is fitting. This may be observed both in speculative and in practical matters. Wherefor just as in speculative matters the most grievous and shameful error is that which is about things the knowledge of which is naturally bestowed on man, so in matters of action it is most grave and shameful to act against things as determined by nature. Therefore, since by the UNNATURAL VICES man TRANSGRESSES that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter THIS SIN IS GRAVEST OF ALL. After it comes incest, which is contrary to the natural respect which we owe persons related to us.

"Just as the ordering of right reason proceeds from man, so the order of nature is from God Himself: wherefore in sins contrary to nature, whereby the very order of nature is violated, an INJURY IS DONE TO GOD, THE AUTHOR OF NATURE. Hence, Augustine says (Conf. iii. 8): 'Those foul offenses that are against nature should be everywhere and at all times DETESTED and PUNISHED, such as were those of the people of Sodom, which should all nations commit, they should all stand guilty of the same crime, by the law of God, which hath not so made men that they should so abuse one another. For even that very intercourse which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature, of which He is the author, is POLLUTED BY THE PERVERSITY OF LUST.'

"Vices against nature are also against God, and are so much more grievous than the depravity of sacrilege, as the order impressed on human nature is prior to and more firm than any subsequently established order.

"The nature of the species is more intimately united to each individual, than any other individual is. Wherefore sins against the specific nature are more grievous.

"Wherefore among sins against nature, the most grievous is the sin of bestiality, because use of the due species is not observed. After this comes the sin of Sodomy, because use of the right sex is not observed." [Summa Theologica, Vol IV, Pt. II-II, Q.154 Art. 12]

Thus spoke Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Posted By: louisix Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 11:59 AM
REINVENTING RELIGION

The PC police constantly remind us of the great "diversity" which exists in the world and the need to accommodate it. But somehow all this diversity ends up looking the same. Moreover, this "diversity" does not include those who cherish the traditional family and have moral objections to issues like abortion, homosexuality, and the lie of safe sex outside of marriage. These people are treated as merely obstructionists in need of "education" as somehow "diversity" would be better served by having everyone agree. They are forced to embrace ideas which their faith holds in anathema and are hypocritically coerced to give sole allegiance to a "state belief system (religion)" of amorality. This can take many forms. Locally, it is subsidizing a University which promotes homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle, a cause for affirmative action, through the Vice-Provost Office of Educational Equity. It is subsidizing a school district which has succeeded in doing nothing but polarizing a large segment of the community through the efforts of a minority of board members to follow the University lead in the recognition of sexual orientation as a civil right - a problematic concept. We are talking about behavior which has been proven changeable as opposed to skin color and ethnicity which isn't. This observation has been made by Alveda Celeste King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and General Colin Powell.

In a recent column purporting to "straighten out the issue of gay 'choice'", we saw in response to a Christian mother's concern regarding the homosexual tendencies of her son, that "we choose the God we need." An interesting comment given that Genesis tells us that man was created in the image of God, not vice-versa. This constitutes a "reinvention of religion" which was addressed by Anthony Sheehan in "The Georgetown Academy", March 1995, quoting Cardinal Newman. "This is a religion which is pleasant and easy, benevolence is its chief virtue, intolerance and excessive zeal are its first sins. It includes no true fear of God, no deep hatred of sin, no indignation at the blasphemies of heretics, no jealous adherence to doctrinal truth, and is therefore neither hot nor cold but rather lukewarm." This is a religion which refuses to talk about the gravity of certain sins as measured by the extent in which they depart from the rule of right reason totally ignoring the words of Our Lord to Pilate (John 19:11); "He that hath delivered me to thee hath the greater sin." This is a religion which merits the most serious admonishment by God in the Book of the Apocalypse, "I would vomit you out of my mouth."

As Philippe Beneton describes in his essay "True and False Tolerance", "Tolerance is an ambiguous word greatly valued in the prevailing multicultural climate. Who would be against tolerance? There wouldn't be anything left to say if the current idea of tolerance was not fundamentally distorted."

Properly understood, tolerance implies respect for people but not agreement with their error or fault. Another way of saying this is that it is not people who are being judged but rather their actions if anarchy is to be avoided - a positive law precept also found in the Decalogue. This distinction is clouded by those seeking victim status for their actions.

In a relativistic world, to affirm that a particular proposition is true by itself, apart from mere opinion, is considered an attack on tolerance. After all, "there is no such thing as right or wrong" - the message of the homosexual agitprop video "It's Elementary" recently shown to some of our public school teachers.

Another column asks us to "challenge, but don't silence the voice of art." We are told that all citizens have the right to express their views, however they wish to do it, without harming their fellow man". And that "the expression of ideas is sacred and crucial to the growth of individuals and the evolution of society." There is a slight problem here. Just who determines whether or not "their fellow man" is being harmed? Surely not the one doing the harming; he's the agent for conjectured harm. Those claiming that they've been harmed? Hardly, they have nothing to fall back on except their opinion. In the absence of some universal truth, how is this situation resolved? It isn't in a moral relativistic world which doesn't have an answer to the question "what happens when A's unlimited rights (freedoms) conflict with B's?" It also overlooks the fact that there is something called a "common good" for society which carries precedence over "individual good." It confuses freedom with license.

Beneton continues, "These are my values, say the brutal, the violent, the sadistic. If all values" are equal, how can I answer them? Pure freedom knows no limit. Pure liberty subverts everything, including liberty itself. The relativism of choices, values, and opinions results in a comprehensive leveling. If everything is worthy, nothing is."

Sheehan points out that personal morality for most people has become subjective dictating a God made in man's image. "One can do anything as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Such an attitude encourages every kind of depravity and vice within a man, while it ignores the reality that only good people can make society good. Man's relationship with God is even more crucial because all morality depends on it. We cannot learn to love our neighbors as ourselves until we first learn how to love God, and we cannot learn to love God unless we learn to obey Him."

The chasm between personal morality and man's relationship with his creator cannot be bridged by any amount of shared values or moral discourse. There is no common ground in this sense as evidenced by Christ words in Scripture, "He who is not with me is against me." Toleration is not the uncritical acceptance of all ideas and does not extend to evil or error which must be condemned because truth and falsehood cannot be equal. Truth whether rational or revealed cannot be compromised.

As G.K. Chesterton said, "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and never tried." Of late, it might be added, "it has been reinvented" in the best tradition of the political spin-doctors. They want us to forget that before the Resurrection was a cross that had to be carried. A cross that explains why bad things happen to good people. (John 3:16).
Posted By: louisix Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 12:02 PM
Subject: Canada "sodomite marriage" bill to be signed into law today. This is no law that can be obeyed since it is against the Law of God to which all others are subsidiary.


What does the world expect when it ignores the Catholic teaching against contraception? When procreation is no longer important in marriage, what's to keep Joe from marrying Sam?

As rational beings we do things in a distinctive human way. The Natural Law is our guide to human flourishing, i.e., the determination of how and what activities contribute to our good or bad. The telos or end of human sexuality is three-fold, pleasure, intimacy or bonding (union), and babies (procreation). We also must consider the nuptial meaning of the body in regard to human sexuality, an absolute requirement else we�re left with moral anarchy and a civilization in ruins. Animal sex is a willy-nilly occurrence with raw physical action the principle characteristic. A human being is much more than just a body in an animalistic sense; a human being is a body and a soul with an intellect � the soul being the form of the body, the life giving essence to the body without which the body is reduced to matter at death. Before and after death bodies still exist. So humans have to be much more than just bodies. At death something has left. That something is the soul. Thus the physical pleasure of animal sex is differentiated from human sex with the soul coming into play on the part of human sexual activity, which facilitates a caring bonding, resulting in a human life coming from human life, not animal instincts. Moreover, unlike animals instinctively reproducing for survival of the species, human beings with souls procreate to populate Heaven in accord with God's plan for His Creation!

Humans, then, are multidimensional (body and soul) rational creatures ordering things to the good. They are made in the image and likeness of God and act out of thinking and choice, not just instinct. This choice is in accord with what is good. We can think of an analogy with the Triune God, having a relationship with three Divine Persons in One God. We�re also relational since humans are not nourished by being sufficient only unto themselves, totally divorced from the world about them. We are not disembodied minds ala Descartes unable to know the universe via sensory perception. Our bodies show us that we are directed toward someone of the opposite sex, our natural tendencies verified by our physical plumbing albeit there are those who confuse rectal waste function with reproduction. According to the Natural Law, which is God�s plan, two become one � another trinity, male, female, and baby. This trinity becomes a community of love, which is what human sexuality is directed or ordered to.

It is impossible to be a human being and engage in sex without some kind of bonding going on. Sex brings a special closeness as we�re not just talking about two bodies uniting but also two spirits. The soul that makes humans human is directly involved. Bodies may be able to walk away from a sexual experience but spirits don�t, which makes sexual intercourse � the total giving of yourself to another person not easy to take back. You are affected radically for all time.

We arrive at a fundamental principle of the Natural Law. Since sex brings with it babies, the rational responsible good human being will not have sex unless that human being is prepared for babies and bonding. The conclusion drawn from this is that you�re not prepared for sexual intercourse unless you are married. To do so outside of marriage is to hold back, not totally giving yourselves to each other. Babies require a lifetime of care. If you are not prepared for this then you should not be having sexual intercourse. This obligation to your child for its lifetime demands the best possible environment for its upbringing. Just as certain foods are good for you while others are not, certain sexual activity is good for you while others are not. This begs the question "What kind of sex is good for you in that it promotes intimacy and bonding?" The only common sense answer, which is what the Natural Law is all about, is sex within marriage since premarital intercourse only wants pleasure, nothing else. The inevitable result of ignoring this Natural Law principle is babies born out of wedlock with the concomitant chaotic consequences for all involved including not just the immediate parties but also their children and the culture as a whole.

The power of sex makes you overlook other values that you should be taking into account. The Natural Law teaching on sexuality is that you must respect the goods of sexuality, pleasure, intimacy, and bonding. You should not be engaging in sexual intercourse unless you can assume the full responsibilities of the consequences that naturally result from it. The wisdom of the Catholic Church has always taught that the proper place, moreover the only place, to protect the goods of sexuality in a Natural Law sense is marriage.

Let us go back to the topic of contraception and ask "What has been the effect of contraception in contributing to the creation and furtherance of a culture-of-death that pervades the world today?" Young people need to be chaste before marriage not only because of the love they hope to share with their future spouses, but also because of the responsibilities they have to their future children. In the past the chief reason for refraining from sexual activity before marriage was the fear of pregnancy. Pregnancy was feared both because young people were not prepared to take care of children and also because there was considerable societal disapproval of sexual intercourse before marriage. The societal disapproval is gone and contraceptives have largely removed the fear, though not the reality, of unwanted pregnancies. As such, contraceptives have become one of the chief reasons for much of the sexual misconduct of our times. There were fewer teenage pregnancies, many fewer abortions, a lesser incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, etc., before contraception became widely available. An enterprising psychologist might ask, "Why are we seeing these results such as documented by the well known October 1994 issue of Atlantic Monthly which totally debunked the Planned Parenthood version of sex education, which is prominent in most of our schools, i.e., the "safe sex" myth via contraceptives?" The answer is simple. All one has to do is look at the ignorance of the goods of the Natural Law in regard to human sexuality. Contraception makes people feel secure that they can have sexual union apart from the obligations of marriage and child rearing. However, contraception does not remove the responsibilities that come with the child-making possibilities of sexual intercourse. Young people, being notoriously irresponsible about almost everything, are roughly as responsible about using contraceptives as they are about doing their homework, hanging up their clothes, and doing their chores. Those using contraceptives are not out of the woods because contraceptives are not really safe; they do not always work, in particular in an age when the size of a deadly virus is measured in microns causing no difficulty whatsoever in its going through porous contraceptive materials. It must be emphasized to our young people that they are not ready for sexual intercourse until they are ready to be parents, for sexual intercourse always brings with it the possibility of being a parent.

In any sane society, if George and Harry apply for a license to "marry" each other, the response would be some variant of "Get lost." But if it is entirely up to man to decide whether sex will have any relation to procreation, why should marriage be limited to male-female combinations? The contraceptive society cannot deny legitimacy to the homosexual lifestyle without denying its own basic premise. Its only objections to homosexual activity and homosexual "marriage" will be pragmatic or aesthetic. "Homosexual activity, like contraception, also frustrates the interpersonal communion that is intrinsic to the conjugal act. And where that act should be open to life, homosexual activity is a dead end. It rejects life and focuses instead on excrement, which is dead." [See 50 Questions On The Natural Law, Charles Rice.] This is why you invariably see Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL, NGTF, PFLAG, and national homosexual rights organizations all on the same side, the unholy alliance between the two most prominent components of the culture-of-death, Big Abortion, and Big Homosexuality. It is ironic that those, whose constitutions destroy forever the concept of marriage as a holy sacrament, are married eternally in the culture-of-death. Barring repentance, their wedding reception will occur in a "very hot place."
Posted By: louisix Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 12:04 PM
Same-Sex "Marriage" and Mental Health
Interview With Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons of Catholic Medical Association

WEST CONSHOHOCKEN, Pennsylvania, JULY 20, 2005 (Zenit.org).- A recent meeting of the American Psychiatric Association calling for the legalization of same-sex marriage shows a political agenda that disregards scientific data, says a psychiatrist.

Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons was a major contributor to "Homosexuality and Hope," an essay by the Catholic Medical Association, and co-author of "Helping Clients Forgive: An Empirical Guide for Resolving Anger and Restoring Hope" (American Psychological Association Books, 2000).

Fitzgibbons shared his views with ZENIT about the APA's definition of same-sex marriage as a mental health "need" for the stability of the partners and the children they adopt.

Q: Is the opinion of the APA on same-sex unions and adoption consistent with the research on the medical and psychiatric difficulties in those with same-sex attractions and on the developmental needs of children?

Fitzgibbons: No. The APA has chosen to ignore the significant medical research which has documented serious psychiatric and medical illnesses associated with those same-sex attractions and behaviors.

This research and that on the needs of children for a father and a mother have been reviewed in several important recent papers from the University of South Carolina School of Medicine and the University of Utah School of Medicine.

The peer-reviewed literature demonstrates that an inability to maintain committed relationships and rampant promiscuity are the norm in the homosexual lifestyle. To illustrate this, one recent study in Amsterdam, by Xiridou, demonstrated that 86% of the new cases of AIDS came from those in committed relationships, and that those in casual relationships averaged between 16-28 sexual partners per year.

Q: What else does the research show in regards to psychiatric and medical health risks for those living the homosexual lifestyle?

Fitzgibbons: Well-designed research studies have shown that many psychiatric disorders are far more prevalent, three to five times, in teen-agers and adults with same-sex attraction [SSA]. These include major depression, suicidal ideation and attempts, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, conduct disorder, low self-esteem in males and sexual promiscuity with an inability to maintain committed relationships.

It is important to note that "homophobia" is not the cause of these disorders, as many of these studies were done in cultures in which homosexuality is widely accepted.

Another recent study has shown that a high percentage, 32%, of males with SSA have been abused by other males with SSA.

In addition, those with SSA have a shortened life expectancy. The sexual practices in the lifestyle, particularly sodomy, are associated with numerous serious medical illnesses. All this research was ignored by the APA.

Q: What do the social and medical perspectives of scientific research indicate about the needs of a child for a father and a mother?

Fitzgibbons: Dr. Reekers and Dr. Byrd's summary of some of the vast literature on child development demonstrates the vital importance of a father and a mother for the developmental needs of a child.

In effect, the social science research supports the recent statement of the Vatican that to deliberately deprive a child of a father or a mother through adoption by those in the homosexual lifestyle would inflict severe harm onto those children.

The APA's statement ignores the vast scholarship on the needs of children such as Henry Biller's "Fathers and Families: Paternal Factors in Child Development," which includes a bibliography of almost 1,000 separate articles or books on the positive effects of fathers on children.

These studies were not done as part of a political campaign, but as serious scholarship to increase our knowledge of child development. The literature on the needs of a child for a mother is even more extensive, and was equally ignored.

Q: If the opinion of the APA in support of same-sex unions and adoption is not based on medical, psychiatric and social science research, then what do you think it is based upon?

Fitzgibbons: I believe that the decision is an ideological and a political one, not one based in medical science or on the protection of the health of adults or of children.

The unscientific position of the APA brings to mind the warning of Pope Benedict XVI in regards to the dictatorship of relativism in the West.

In my professional experience as a psychiatrist with expertise on the nature and treatment of excessive anger, the APA's decision is strongly influenced by a long standing bias toward Judeo-Christian and, particularly, Catholic morality. The recent legal recognition of same sex unions by Canada and Spain which is not based on medical science or on the well-being of adults and children is another illustration of this bias.

This bias has led to the experience of not a small number of Catholics with mental health professionals in which their faith and morality have been blamed for either their emotional struggles or those in their child, or in which attempts were made to change their moral code in regard to sexuality.

Q: What advice would you give to other psychiatrists, psychologists and counselors, faced with this ideological trend in their fields?

Fitzgibbons: A number of colleagues have told me that they plan to leave the APA because of its abandonment of medical science and its caving in to an ideological and political agenda.

Personally, in this struggle I have been encouraged by, and have encouraged some of my colleagues, with the words of John Paul II, "Prayer joined to sacrifice constitutes the most powerful force in human history."

Catholic mental health professionals need to trust that the Lord will act to protect the sacrament of marriage, but we need to do our part.

Also, regardless of the APA's unscientific statement, doctors have a responsibility to inform their patients of the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle.

In his study "The Health Risks of Gay Sex," an internist and colleague, Dr. John R. Diggs Jr., wrote, "As a physician, it is my duty to assess behaviors for their impact on health and well-being. When something is beneficial, such as exercise, good nutrition or adequate sleep, it is my duty to recommend it. Likewise, when something is harmful, such as smoking, overeating, alcohol or drug abuse, it is my duty to discourage it. As a physician, it is my duty to inform patients of the health risks of homosexual sex, and to discourage them from indulging in harmful behaviors."

Q: What advice would you offer Catholic parents in regard to the attempt to redefine marriage and establish same-sex civil unions and adoption?

Fitzgibbons: Catholic parents today need an understanding of homosexuality in view of both the attempts to redefine marriage and of the crisis in the Church.

This knowledge is available in the updated brochure of the Catholic Medical Association, and at the Web site of the National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality.

Contrary to the media and professional organizations' political propaganda, same-sex attractions are not genetically determined and are preventable and treatable.

Parents would be helped by reading Pope Benedict's recent statement on marriage and civil unions when he headed the Congregation for Doctrine and Faith. He wrote, "The marital union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church."

Other excellent family resources which can help parents present to their children the beauty of God's plan for marriage and for human sexuality are "The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality," from the Pontifical Council for the Family; "Humanae Vitae"; "Love and Responsibility"; John Paul II's "Theology of the Body"; and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

In response to the recent APA statement, Catholic parents need to monitor more carefully their children's education, because many educators will now intensify their present efforts to initiate required curriculum on homosexuality from grades 1-12.

These programs fail to present the truth about the homosexual lifestyle, including the inability to maintain commitment, the rampant promiscuity, the medical and psychiatric illnesses and damage done to children who are denied their right to a father and a mother.

Instead, these biased efforts attempt to falsely portray homosexuality as a healthy alternative lifestyle. Parents should request that the truth be presented to their children.

Many of these educational programs attempt to mask their true goals by the use of names such as diversity, tolerance or "no name-calling weeks" when, in fact, they attempt to undermine the Church's teaching on marriage, human sexuality and, now child-rearing.

Catholics should also act in the political arena to influence elected officials to learn the truth about homosexuality and to support the basic unit of society upon which the well-being of a society is founded, the family, based on a marriage between a man and a woman.
Posted By: louisix Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 12:06 PM
Why is the Church in Canada allowing itself to be tried in a Kangaroo court?

The Canadian bishops should not be hesitant whatsoever to witness to the Truth Who is a Someone, not a something. What I find very disturbing in the report below is the willingness of bishops to shy away from testifying to the fact that faith and reason are married not divorced. Faith enables a reason, which in turns reinforces faith. How dare pro-sodomite MPs presume to question Holy Mother Church on what she can and cannot do it fulfulling the only reason for her existence - to get souls to Heaven instead of hell!

[Note: I am speaking of the article that appeared in LifeSiteNews.com on June 8, out of Ottawa which reported in part:]

Calgary Bishop Fred Henry was grilled by openly homosexual MP Bill Siksay.

Siksay was the MP chosen to replace disgraced gay activist MP, Svend Robinson in his Burnaby-Douglas riding in Vancouver BC. Siksay has been vigorously supporting the proposed legislation and in committee hearings has made no secret of his contempt for religious arguments. Bishop Henry, however, stressed that he had made no reference to religious reasoning but had argued purely from the Natural Law philosophy common to people of any religion or none.

He said, "I specifically decided not to talk about sacramentality. I haven't quoted scripture, not one verse. I'm simply saying, let's look at this from the vantage point of philosophy, of reason, and natural law."

Despite this, Siksay persisted in pursuing the issue of religion asking, "Can you be a devout Catholic and still support same-sex marriage? Are there any dissenting Catholic voices?"

Bishop Henry responded: "There are some who call themselves Catholic, but then it gets to be questionable as to whether or not they ought to go parading under that label of devout Catholic. For example, if they were in my diocese, they were a public official, they would be refused communion."

The exchange continued:

Siksay: So you would take action to do that?

Bishop Henry: Absolutely.

Siksay: Do you do that on other issues as well?

Bishop Henry: Yes, there are some issues, that if you're a notorious public sinner, you're refused communion also.

Siksay: Can you give me some examples of what those would be?

Bishop Henry: I would say, I have told some people, for example, that have acknowledged that they are in abusive relationships that they are not to receive communion until these matters have been dealt with forthright.

Some time later Conservative MP Jason Kenney asked Bishop Henry jokingly, "Your Grace, it might comfort Mr. Siksay, from the NDP, to know that one nickname the media has given you in the past--if I may--is "Red Fred". Is that not correct?" To which Bishop Henry replied, "Yes, Ted Byfield gave me that one when I got a little too far to the left on some social issues."

We are talking about more than a sin against the dignity of man, i.e. man's nature. We are talking about a grave sin against Almighty God, a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance per Sacred Scripture.

We have to think of family all the time in the promulgation of our laws which are rooted in the natural law which is a participation in the eternal law of God. The Ten Commandments can be considered an early warning system. They are not the ten suggestions. If you obey them, you will flourish; if not, you will participate in your own destruction. Civilizations that have played fast and loose with the Commandments, stable marriage, and family life no longer exist. What the reinventers of St. Thomas Aquinas, Sacred Scripture, and Church tradition do not understand is the proper interpretation of Aquinas� natural law in a metaphysical context. They fail to understand Aquinas� understanding of nature and its role in his evaluation of ethics.

There are several fundamental principles that one must keep in mind when interpreting Aquinas� natural law teachings:

1) Aquinas understands God to be the author of nature and thus what is natural is good.

2) The primary meaning of the word �nature� for Aquinas is not physical or biological but ontological in that �nature� most precisely refers to the essence of a substance, in the case of man, to a substance that is a unity of spirit and body.

3) natural law ethics and virtue ethics are integrally related for virtues are a perfection of man�s nature. All sins are a violation of some virtue.

4) Since the Fall, man�s physical nature and intellectual nature are flawed and thus can mislead him in his actions.

Aquinas is concerned about what is fitting for man�s telos. What is fitting in this sense is what is ordered to the good, not what is objectively disordered. His concern about this �good ordering� is centered around its leading to the perfection of one�s nature toward this final end, something totally rejected by modernists like Spinoza, which leads to the union of body and soul, the soul being the form of the body. So Aquinas has a very metaphysical purpose in defining nature in that the soul cannot be divorced from the body in an eternal sense.

Although Aquinas speaks of the good of sexuality as being �the propagation of the species,� the propagation of the human species should not be understood in the same way as the propagation of all other species, since humans have immortal souls, and are destined not just to contribute to the longevity of the species but also possess an intrinsic value in their own right. Humans in generating offspring are not just preserving the species; they are �multiplying individuals,� i.e., they are helping to populate Heaven, not just Earth. Thus, humans not only reproduce; more properly they procreate. They participate in the coming to be of a new human soul. God is the Creator of each and every human soul but He requires the provision of matter by human beings in order to affect the coming to be of a new human being (body and soul). Semen, then, (and the ova) is part of the matter into which God infuses the human soul. To deliberately misuse semen, or the ova, i.e., to use them in a way that prevents them from providing the matter for new human life, is to violate a great good in a metaphysical sense, which is against the natural law. Man is not allowing God to be God. Thus, the �natural� in the natural law for Aquinas not only applies to �natural� in a biological sense, i.e., a violation of the plumbing, but more properly to �natural� in a supernatural sense, where metaphysics is the path of reason to the Divine.

Aquinas�s first level of human inclination, common to all beings, is to do good and to avoid evil with the primary good on this level being one�s preservation in affirming life, not destroying it. How are killing innocents, in what should be their safest place of refuge � their mothers� wombs, affirming life? How is promoting sexual perversion, which leads to an inordinate amount of sickness and death in the homosexual community relative to the total population, affirming life?

The second level of inclination, common to all animals, was the preservation of family and children. How is aborting children preserving them and perfecting the family? What does the celebration of homosexuality have to do with any sane concept of the traditional family as opposed to a bastardization of it? How can homosexuals have children when the very act of homosexuality carried to the limit guarantees their extinction?

The third level of inclination is distinctively human as a political being, the forming of associations, acknowledging the good and fairness of getting along with others with concomitant concepts of justice. How is killing human beings for the sake of expediency for specious reasons of female �reproductive rights� going to provide for political associations when humans are eliminated? Where is the justice for the unborn? What about their rights to existence? What associations can be formed among homosexuals that will lead to societal common good given that homosexuality has been proven to lead to physical and psychological ruin? In regard to the final level of inclination, how can the truth about God be known by violating His commandments, which is what abortion and living homosexual lifestyles do?

The natural law is an ethics that requires much observation of the world around us, and penetrating insight into the nature of things. This insight is gained through a process of induction that leads us to recognize that man is a rational animal. Through the experience of man we learn what his natural inclinations are and to what goods he is naturally inclined. Next we must discover and determine what are good means of achieving these goods.

The fundamental tenet of all human thought is the principle of non-contradiction, something cannot �be� and �not be� at the same time and in the same respect. To deny this is to verify it. Natural law theory works on the same premise. We should all act for the good at all times. �Do good and avoid evil.� This leads to the following initial natural law principles:

1. All things have a nature, essence or purpose � a telos (an end or goal), a principle which is relatively uncontroversial.

2. That nature in question is good; all things have an internal principle that makes them tend towards what is good.

3. It is good for things to act in accord with their nature.

The natural law is based on man�s ability to make generalizations about things having natures, what they are, what is good for these natures and acting in accord with them. If a person did not believe in God he still would know how to treat a person in a certain way through a realization of the natural law.

Expanded to the supernatural level God is the author of all nature. As such the natural law becomes a law of God written on the hearts of men. In recognizing the truth of the natural law we will have more reverence for God�s creation and the Creator as He is behind the great ordered universe making it His will that we live in accord with the natural law.

How can we know what is in accord with the natural law? All non-rational created things participate in the natural law by inclination only, by instinct. All rational creatures participate by inclination and rational free will. In considering the natural inclination to things, experience telling which are good or bad, the rational reflection upon what to do, and the rational ordering of the doing, we see a natural algorithm that human beings follow in determining what is good or bad, an algorithm that is unique to human beings.

God did not intend for the state to be some disinterested observer in regard to man's redemption. He did not intend for man to live in solitude but rather socially with his neighbors whereby the common good is promoted naturally by the state leading ultimately to a supernatural end. In that regard the state has an obligation to be advised by the eternal immutable truths of Holy Mother Church. This is traditional Catholic teaching.

The bottom line is that no Catholic, in particular Catholic bishops as successors of the apostles, should be reticent to relate the natural law to the Decalogue. They should not let themselves be intimidated by the disciples of the devil in this regard. Rather, they should unashamedly profess that which they are solely called to do as priests, i.e., their only reason for existence as priests - to preach Christ crucified to the world for the sake of its conversion to the one true faith per the end of Matthew's Gospel. They certainly should put the devil on notice that he has no rights, i.e., "Who is he [Siksay or any of the other Canadian MP's] to arrogantly question the Church that Christ founded upon the Rock that is Peter on matters of Catholic dogma (faith and morals)?"
Posted By: louisix Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 12:08 PM
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 3:19 PM

[Subject: My Letter to the editor, as a Catholic member of the research faculty, re PSU's same sex benefits per the enclosed report.]

In an age where reason is eclipsed on a daily basis with indoctrination masking as education, the news of Penn State giving domestic partner benefits to individuals inclined to homosexual acts, sadly, comes as no surprise. However, I find it hard to believe that there is so little opposition, as reported in the CDT, based on my experience with concerned members of the General Assembly, faculty and administrative colleagues, students, local and state residents, who do not share Penn State�s zeal for promoting sexual promiscuity to the extreme of unnatural acts as part of official University policy.

This is nothing more than a frontal assault on the institution of marriage. Since when are benefits entitled for pleasure only? This deviates from what every culture in history has recognized as the heart of marriage: the begetting and education of children. The happiness of the couple is vital, to be sure, but it is not the only or primary purpose and never has been. Why? Because �happiness� produces no definitive benefit for society, whereas the rearing of children clearly does. Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage.

It is incredible that an institution of purported �higher learning� would summarily ignore the well documented adverse physical, psychological, and social consequences of such policies as consistently reported, for example, by the Center for Disease Control whose statistics clearly show that homosexual acts are the main cause of HIV/AIDS in the U.S., and all of the social indicators showing the inordinate increase of STDs of all types, with the resulting problems, which are directly correlated with a selfish permissive society that trashes the �common good� � the primary goal of the state on an altar of hedonism.

For a major university receiving State funding to arrogantly ignore the fact that a significant number of Commonwealth residents do not appreciate seeing their hard earned tax dollars being irrationally used to promote aberrant behavior, which is held to be in anathema by their faith, and antithetical to the �common good,� does not speak well for Penn State�s leadership. To ignore the consequences of the natural law and its Author is lunacy, not education, as typified by the pathetic excuse that the �best and the brightest� are found exclusively among those inclined to homosexual acts.

-------------------

[Enclosed report]

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/11982362.htm


Posted on Sat, Jun. 25, 2005


Penn State offering benefits to same-sex partners

By Genaro C. Armas

The Associated Press

UNIVERSITY PARK -- Penn State is now formally offering health benefits to workers with same-sex partners, adding one of Pennsylvania's largest employers to the dozens of colleges and universities around the country offering such benefits.

The change went into effect in January. Faculty and staff were told of the new benefits then, though the school didn't issue a press release.

About two dozen workers have signed up for the benefits, school spokesman Tysen Kendig said Friday. Penn State is the seventh-largest employer in Pennsylvania, with almost 39,000 people, just over half of them full-time, at its 24 campuses.

"We make changes to the benefits package all the time and don't issue a statement or news release on it," Kendig said. "We're dealing with such a small number of people who have signed up to receive the benefits."

Before this year, Penn State workers with same-sex partners could apply for benefits out of an "emergency special assistance fund" established in 2003 from private donations. It was established primarily to help gay and lesbian domestic partners, Kendig said.

"We did it that way to get a feel of how the program would operate" before such benefits were made part of the regular plan, he added.

The university didn't feel any political pressure over the move, Kendig said.

The change has been greeted warmly on campus by advocates, although some students, faculty and staffers who sit on diversity advisory committees also questioned whether the school wasn't being more vocal because of political or legislative pressure.

Under its classification as a state-related university, Penn State receives some state funding but isn't owned by the state.

"It's been a challenge for the university because, politically, they face numerous people who don't want to see this at Penn State," said Tom Donohue, executive director of Who's Positive, a State College-based AIDS awareness and outreach program. Donohue served on an advisory committee two years ago and makes presentations at Penn State through his program.

Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights advocacy group, said 290 colleges and universities around the country offer some sort of domestic partner benefits, up from about 267 in 2003. Besides Penn State, 22 other Pennsylvania schools offer such benefits, including Temple University, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Pittsburgh.

Schools that don't offer comprehensive same-sex benefits would be left "out of the game when it came to attracting the best and brightest employees," said Daryl Herrschaft, the group's deputy director. "It's also demonstrative of how far workplace policies are progressing in the state of Pennsylvania."


-------------------

[A response to this letter follows with a subsequent rebuttal from me]


http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/opinion/12102874.htm

Posted on Tue, Jul. 12, 2005


Your Letters

Changed concept of marriage

Those in favor of marriage or even domestic partner benefits for gays and lesbians are often portrayed as being far out of the mainstream. Marriage is and has been between a man and a woman, opponents argue.

While this is (more or less) true, the institution of marriage has changed over the years, for the better in the view of most folks.

Wives are no longer the property of their husbands. Partners are chosen by each other based on love rather than by their parents based on financial or political considerations. It is no longer considered acceptable (in Western culture) to marry a girl of the age of 10 or 13.

[The] recent letter showed just how far out of the mainstream opponents of domestic partner benefits are.

"Every culture in history," he wrote, has recognized "the begetting and education of children" as the heart of marriage.

While child-rearing is clearly a social benefit, do most people really believe in mandatory procreation as a condition for receiving the benefits of marriage?

The implication is that childless marriages should perhaps be aned (sic) when discovered, freeing the fertile partner to remarry. (The barren one could perhaps be sent to a nunnery to protect her virtue and channel her energies toward more socially productive activities.)

This is a radical proposal, one that goes against the widely accepted view that marriage is about love and commitment, that partners should be free to choose each other, whether or not they decide or are able to have children.

Penn State is right to confer domestic partner benefits on committed couples regardless of their ability or interest in having children.

-----------------

[My rebuttal follows.]

What a sad selfish letter, which is to be sadly expected in a world where hedonism reins supreme!

Children are a gift from God. It is not for man to "choose" whether or not to have them. When man does that, he becomes the ultimate arbiter of when life begins, and will soon demand to be the ultimate arbiter of when life ends. Just ask the family of Terri Schindler Schiavo. Man's "choice" in this regard has resulted in the barbaric consequences of Roe v. Wade where innocents are slaughtered in what should be their safest place of refuge, their mothers' wombs. Moreover, this "choice" resulting from the contraceptive mentality of the age is the primary cause of the world's moral aberrations to especially include the oxymoronic concept of sodomite marriages. If the procreation of children is no longer of any importance, what's to keep Ray from "marrying" Sam? This is exactly the argument presented in the letter above.

One of the most selfish acts that man can commit is to enter into marriage with the express intent of NOT having children. In the eyes of the Church, this is mortal sin. It is one thing to want to have children, and not be able to. At least the correct intent is there. It is something else to not cooperate with God in His plan for creation, which is not just to reproduce for survival of the species, which any animal is instinctively capable of, but primarily to procreate to populate Heaven. Alas, the supernatural importance of what is happening here is lost to a Godless world.

Reference the The Forgotten Teaching of Casti Connubii

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/g/l/glm7/m199.htm

rooted in Sacred Scripture

The adverse social consequences of blatantly promoting sexual promiscuity by eliminating the need for marriage have been well understood for some time with the children suffering the most. Of course the father-of-lies uses this fact to promote contraception instead of the solution proposed by God in Genesis resulting in the Holy Sacrament of Marriage, which was instituted by God to give the Grace needed for man to survive naturally, leading ultimately to his supernatural salvation.

Nowhere in the letter is there any reference to what I originally pointed out regarding the well known documented adverse health consequences, e.g., physically, psychologically, socially, of such policies. It is hypocritical for the President of Penn State, Graham Spanier, to go before the General Assembly of the Commonwealth asking for more money because of increasing health costs when he goes out of his way to promote behavior which is as unhealthy as it comes. How is such a position conducive to the common good, the furtherance of which has been classically understood from the time of Aristotle's Politics to be the primary goal of any "good" state?

I repeat, Why should a significant number of the residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have their hard earned tax dollars going to support aberrant behavior that is antithetical to the common good, and held to be in anathema by their faith? Faith and reason are married, not divorced. What Penn State is doing is an assault on both faith AND reason. As such, it needs to be called to task for such irrational policies!

You would think that [the author] could see the folly of what he�s advocating economically, if for no other reasons. Demographic studies clearly show that countries are dying because of an inability to reproduce themselves. Such are the consequences of violating God�s Natural Law, which is a participation in His Eternal Law. And we have the audacity to wonder about the demise of the social security system! You don�t need a PhD to see that without children, there will soon be no one to support an aging population that deserves more than to be euthanized, which is on the horizon. These things happen when you don�t allow God to be God! That the modern world considers such truth to be �extreme� is a gauge of the insanity that has overtaken it.
Posted By: louisix Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 12:11 PM
We Want a Supreme Court, Not a Supreme "Farce" - Some History Worth Revisiting; Else, It Might Be Repeated!

Of late, clearly, logic, common sense, and reason are not qualifications for the Supreme Court. Is there an indication that this will change with the nomination of John Roberts by President Bush? It has been said that Roberts is a �devout Catholic.� This is cause for hope, as certainly that descriptor applies to the best Justice on the Court right now, Antonin Scalia. It also must be remembered that being a Catholic in the true sense of the word means not checking your faith at the door upon entering public life, regardless of your secular vocation to particular include being a judge at the highest level. If a �devout Catholic� isn't going to correct the errors of what can only be considered the �unsettled law� of pseudo-Catholic Kennedy, per his horrendous decisions that are irrational in the extreme being assaults on both faith AND reason, e.g. Planned Barrenhood vs. Casey, and Lawrence vs. Texas, then I don't know who is. Catholics are supposed to be setting a good example for the attainment of a Kingdom not of this world with the natural leading to the supernatural.

I have read some encouraging things about Mr. Roberts, and I hope and pray that they are true. But I also live in the reality of a Vatican II Church that accords error rights, which is why a Catholic pedigree has to be examined carefully these days given that much masquerades for Catholicism.

While there is cause for hope, there is equally cause for concern, given reports implying that Roberts might tend to agree with the lunatic faction that �privacy trumps all, to heck with the common good.� In an article appearing in Knight Ridder Newspapers nationally on Sunday, July 24, 2005, by Stephen Hendersen entitled �Roberts may bring restraint to the court,� we see the following.

"His own approach?

"A look at his 2003 testimony and the opinions he�s issued as a judge since then suggests he embraces a conservative judicial restraint that evokes an approach that has largely been absent from the Supreme Court for decades. If Roberts employs a restrained judicial outlook once he�s confirmed, he�ll probably disappoint both liberals and conservatives who look to the court for consistently favorable political results �
But on balance, court historian David Garrow said, �there�s every indication that Roberts is not an ideologue or an activist.�
�If the president had wanted to pick someone like that, he had choices available. This guy doesn�t look like he�s going to overturn any apple carts,� he said �

"Roberts seems unlikely to embrace the �strict constructionist� brand of constitutional interpretation the president says he admires.
Roberts said in 2003 that he found that approach helpful sometimes, but not always. He said he didn�t adhere to any particular school of constitutional interpretation �

"Roberts also hasn�t indulged efforts to wipe away the expanded notions of individual and civil rights that have evolved �

"Roberts told the Senate in 2003, for example, that the idea of a right to privacy, the foundation for Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 abortion case, goes back much further in American law than most people think.
That isn�t an answer you�d probably get from court conservatives such as Justice Antonin Scalia or Rehnquist, who�ve been critical of that right. For many conservative thinkers, the constitutional right to privacy, which doesn�t appear in the text of the Constitution, is the hallmark of liberal court activism."

I will wait until Mr. Roberts makes some decisions on the court before I make mine. In particular, the judiciary must understand that man's laws are subsidiary to God's.

Now it�s time for that necessary revisiting of history.

In what can only be regarded as a �day of judicial infamy� of tyrannical proportions, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court told the country �privacy trumps all� regardless of what despicable acts are involved. That Justice Kennedy led the charge of this madness should come as no surprise since this is the same man who, in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, held that the autonomous unencumbered rights of the individual extend to the extreme that every man can define his own universe of rights with no thought whatsoever about the consequences of what happens what his universe collides with his neighbor�s in the absence of universally recognized moral absolutes. The answer is easily to see for anyone still capable of rational thought � �anarchy is inevitable.�

Now, in a decision that eclipses Roe v. Wade in its monstrous illogic, this same Justice Kennedy tells the country that being inclined to aberrant unnatural changeable behavior, if performed in private, is perfectly OK with no consideration again for the consequences as a result of bastardizing the classical primary goal of the state understood from the time of Aristotle�s Politics, which is promoting the �common good� of society.

What's next, a constitutional right to bestiality? After all, the pervert [bestialist] in question, I am sure, will ensure that his despicable acts are performed in private�which makes them OK, as privacy trumps all, right? No matter that the allowance of the private act wounds society severely. Just where does Justice Kennedy�s judicial madness stop? That Kennedy somehow purports to be �Catholic� boggles the mind!
What is happening in America is the excusing of aberrant self-destructive behavior, which has been recognized as such for millennia from both faith and reason standpoints, on the part of a radical fringe that is hell-bent on getting society to confirm them in their vices under force of law. Such actions are not solitary in ANY sense. They affect society as a whole. Those responsible individuals who recognize that faith enables reason, and reason reinforces faith, i.e., faith and reason are eternally related, not divorced, are not obliged to forfeit their rights under the Constitution because a majority of the Supreme Court has lost its collective mind.

Jacques Maritain in Man and the State reminds us of the importance of a �higher law�, a natural law in regard to the limitations of the �will of the people.�

"There is no need to add that the will of the people is not sovereign in the vicious sense that whatever would please the people would have the force of law. The right of the people to govern themselves proceeds from Natural Law: consequently, the very exercise of their right is subject to Natural Law. If Natural Law is sufficiently valid to give this basic right to the people, it is valid also to impose its unwritten precepts on the exercise of this same right. A law is not made just by the sole fact that it expresses the will of the people. An unjust law, even if it expresses the will of the people, is not law."

Maritain goes on to distinguish authority from power.

"Authority and Power are two different things: Power is the force by means of which you can oblige others to obey you. Authority is the right to direct and command, to be listened to or obeyed by others. Authority requests Power. Power without authority is tyranny.

"Thus authority means right. If, in the cosmos, a nature, such as human nature, can be preserved and developed only in a state of culture, and if the state of culture necessarily entails the existence in the social group of a function of commandment and government directed to the common good, then this function is demanded by Natural Law, and implies a right to command and govern.

"Finally, since authority means right, it has to be obeyed by reason of conscience, that is, in the manner in which free men obey, and for the sake of the common good.

"But by the same token there is no authority where there is no justice. Unjust authority is not authority, as an unjust law is not law.
Whatever the regime of political life may be, authority, that is, the right to direct and to command, derives from the people, but has its primary source in the Author of nature."

What is this �Natural Law� that Maritain is talking about? As Socrates reasoned, it is something above power or force that gives content to the notion of justice. There is such a thing as a natural right. This is a notion, which in turn, suggests that there is a higher law or a natural law by which the positive law of the city is to be measured and judged. Saint Thomas Aquinas gives us the formal definition of such a law in the Summa Theologica I-II. He does this via a logical sequence starting with the definition of law in Question 90, presenting a formal definition for the natural law in Question 91, discussing its characteristics in Question 94, going on to present its relationship to human law in Question 95, and considering when such laws are binding in Question 96.

"Law is an ordinance of reason for the common good, decreed by authorities in charge of the community. [See ST I-II, Q. 90, a. 4.]

"Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to divine providence in a more excellent way, insofar as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others. Wherefore it has a share of the eternal reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end, and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law. Hence, the Psalmist, after saying �offer up the sacrifice of justice,� as though someone asked what the works of justice are, adds: �Many say, �Who shows us good things?�,� in answer to which question he says: �The light of Your countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us�; thus, implying that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which pertains to the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature�s participation of the eternal law. [See ST I-II, Q. 91, a. 2.]

"A law is a certain dictate of practical reason. Now it is to be observed that the same procedure takes place in the practical and in the speculative reason, for each proceeds from principles to conclusions. Accordingly, we conclude that just as, in the speculative reason, from naturally known indemonstrable principles we draw the conclusions of the various sciences, the knowledge of which is not imparted to us by nature but acquired by the efforts of reason, so too it is from the precepts of the natural law, as from general and indemonstrable principles, that the human reason needs to proceed to certain particular determinations of the laws. These particular determinations, devised by human reason, are called human laws. [See ST I-II, Q. 91, a. 3.]

"The precepts of the natural law are to the practical reason what the first principles of demonstrations are to the speculative reason because both are self-evident principles. Wherefore the first indemonstrable principle is that the same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time, which is based on the nature of �being� and �not-being,� and on this principle all others are based, as it is stated in Metaphysics IV. Now, as �being� is the first thing that falls under apprehension simply, so �good� is the first thing that falls under the apprehension of the practical reason, which is directed to action, since every agent acts for an end under the aspect of good. Consequently, the first principle in the practical reason is one founded on the notion of good, viz., that good is that which all things seek after. Hence this is the first precept of law, that good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided. All other precepts of the natural law are based upon this, so that whatever the practical naturally apprehends as man�s good (or evil) belongs to the precepts of the natural law as something to be done or avoided.
Since, however, good has the nature of an end, and evil the nature of a contrary, hence it is that all those things to which man has a natural inclination are naturally apprehended by reason as being good, and consequently, as objects of pursuit, and their contraries as evil and objects of avoidance. [See ST I-II, Q. 94, a. 2.]

"As regards the general principles, whether of speculative or practical reason, truth or rectitude is the same for all and is equally known by all. [See ST I-II, Q. 94. a. 4.]

"The natural law dates from the creation of the rational creature. It does not vary according to time but remains unchangeable. [See ST I-II, Q. 94. a. 5.]

"Augustine says, �Thy law is written in the hearts of men, which iniquity itself effaces not.� But the law which is written in men�s hearts is the natural law. Therefore, the natural law cannot be blotted out. [See ST I-II, Q. 94, a. 6.]

"As Augustine says, �that which is not just seems to be no law at all�; wherefore the force of a law depends on the extent of its justice. Now, in human affairs a thing is said to be just from being right according to the rule of reason. But the first rule of reason is the law of nature, as is clear from what has been stated above. Consequently, every human law has just so much of the nature of law as it is derived from the law of nature. But if, in any point, it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law. [See ST I-II, Q. 95. a. 2.]

"Laws framed by man are either just or unjust. If they be just, they have the power of binding in conscience from the eternal law whence they are derived, according to Pr. 8:15: �By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things.� Now laws are said to be just from the end, when, to wit, they are ordained to the common good, and from their author, that is to say, when the law that is made does not exceed the power of the lawgiver, and from their form, when, to with, burdens are laid on the subjects according to an equality of proportion and with a view to the common good.

"Augustine says, �A law that is not just, seems to be no law at all.� Where such laws do not bind in conscience. Laws may be unjust through being opposed to the divine good; such are the laws of tyrants inducing to idolatry or to anything else contrary to the divine law, and laws of this kind must nowise be observed because, as stated in Acts 5:29, �we ought to obey God rather than men.� [See ST I-II, Q. 96, a. 4.]"

It is Aquinas�s doctrine of Natural Law that is recognized as the best formulation of the understanding of a higher law that guides, restrains, and influences the will of a government or a people.

His doctrine in relation to human law can be summarized as follows. Laws are the works of reason for the common good. The Natural Law is the participation of a rational creature in the Divine Law in that it is a participation in the wisdom and goodness of God by the human person, formed in the image of the Creator. The Natural Law expresses the dignity of the person and forms the basis of human rights and fundamental duties. For Aquinas the Eternal Law, God�s will for His created universe, consists of the Divine Law, God�s Eternal Law as revealed in Sacred Scripture, and the Natural Law, our participation in the Eternal Law. In turn, Human Law comes directly from the Natural Law as it is a particular demonstration of it, being the measure or norm of all human law. The Natural Law is a key to the understanding the foundation of political authority. Positive law ultimately derives its authority from the foundation of what is right by nature. If the purpose of the polis is that of societal common good, i.e., human flourishing, the lawmaker must know what are the elements of human flourishing. Aquinas identifies the fundamental goods of human flourishing from the various inclinations of the human being and the intelligible good which is achieved through such activity. He does this by observing that the rational creature has a natural inclination to its proper act or end with the first principle in the practical reason founded on the nature of the good; hence, this becomes the first precept of law: good is to be done and promoted and evil is to be avoided. All other precepts of the Natural Law are predicated on this such that all things which practical reason naturally apprehends as man�s good belong to the precepts of the Natural Law under the form of things to be done or avoided. This is an immutable law that is the same for all, known by all, and not erasable. Any human law that deflects from the law of nature is no longer a law but a perversion of the law. Human laws are just or unjust. The former are binding in conscience because of their derivation from the Eternal Law via the Natural Law; the latter are not binding.

The political relevance of the teaching of the Natural Law as a higher law can be readily appreciated in the American experience. Our founders appealed to �nature and nature�s God� as the foundation for the rights which government ought to secure. See the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence below.

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature�s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Orestes Brownson in �The Democratic Principle�, Quarterly Review 1873, voiced a concern that the rule of law as rooted in Nature and in Nature�s God might be forgotten. Such a principle declares that the will of the people is the sole foundation for political authority, an extreme version of democracy run amuck that is described as a regime to be avoided in Aristotle�s Politics. What shapes or restrains the will of the people? Brownson feared the philosophy of democratic government that would brook no restraint upon the will of the majority. There is no authority above the people, not God, not nature, not Nature�s God. Utility and not justice becomes the final rule of government � a doctrine that is diametrically opposed to authentic freedom leading to true human flourishing. Brownson recommended various political devices to protect freedom such as rule of law and constitutionalism but most of all he looked to the sentiments, convictions, manners, customs and habits of the people. In particular, good habits or virtues, which man needs to reach his perfection, the acquisition of which is acquired through training. [See ST I-II, Q. 96, a. 3.]

The people must acknowledge a moral law that guides and forms their conscience. Without moral order, and divine sanction, Brownson thought that the teaching of the democratic principle would corrupt a free people. Brownson was right. Moreover, without the moral order, without some type of a realization that there are absolute immutable truths in accord with the Natural Law, corruption of a free people is guaranteed with anarchy the only possible result, and the eventual destruction of civilization as we know it.

We will now look at the importance of a higher law in regard to two contemporary issues, abortion and homosexuality. We will do this by asking some rhetorical questions pertaining to Aquinas�s tenets of the Natural Law, specifically, the inclinations of human beings to their proper end.

Recall Aquinas�s first level of human inclination, common to all beings, is to do good and to avoid evil with the primary good on this level being one�s preservation in affirming life, not destroying it. How are killing innocents, in what should be their safest place of refuge � their mothers� wombs, affirming life? How is promoting sexual perversion, which leads to an inordinate amount of sickness and death in the homosexual community relative to the total population, affirming life? The second level of inclination, common to all animals, was the preservation of family and children. How is aborting children preserving them and perfecting the family? What does the celebration of homosexuality have to do with any sane concept of the traditional family as opposed to a bastardization of it? How can homosexuals have children when the very act of homosexuality carried to the limit guarantees their extinction? The third level of inclination is distinctively human as a political being, the forming of associations, acknowledging the good and fairness of getting along with others with concomitant concepts of justice. How are killing human beings for the sake of expediency for specious reasons of female �reproductive rights� going to provide for political associations when humans are eliminated? Where is the justice for the unborn? What about their rights to existence? What associations can be formed among homosexuals that will lead to societal common good given that homosexuality has been proven to lead to physical and psychological ruin? In regard to the final level of inclination, how can the truth about God be known by violating His commandments, which is what abortion and living homosexual lifestyles do?

Yves Simon in Philosophy of Democratic Government is careful to point out that only in the gravest circumstances do the people have a right to exercise, albeit in limited fashion, a power greater than that of the governing personnel, which the governing personnel received by the act of transmission via a duly proper election procedure. This is the right to undertake campaigns of intense opinion for decision-making purposes. When conditions are so bad that these campaigns of opinion must act in a decision capacity as opposed to their more proper consultative capacity is the criteria that Simon uses for their proper choice in the former capacity. I respectfully submit that, given the current state of the United States of America, where hedonism is promoted as a cause celebre by our legislators, judges, and government administrators, to include particularly those calling themselves Catholic, such a grave condition exists and has existed for some time. In short, in regard to abortion and homosexuality, we are not dealing with just laws in a Natural Law sense and, as such, we are bound by our informed consciences not to obey them.

I heard the pro-sodomite Human Rights Campaign reiterating the equal protection clause on FOX News as justification for the horrendous Supreme Farce decision in Lawrence vs. Texas.

What's equal about the natural vs. the unnatural? Why doesn't anyone immediately answer the HRC's aforementioned insane equation with that question, i.e., "What's natural about equating an orifice used solely for waste with one for reproduction?"

However, there is a more important point to be made. When you divorce the procreative from the unitive aspects of the marital act, which is what is done via contraception, you have just put a severe constraint on your arguments. Recall that, in God's plan per Genesis, we're procreating for Heaven. See The Forgotten Teaching of Casti Connubii

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/g/l/glm7/m199.htm

The following section from Casti Connubii speaks particularly to the sodomite bastardization of marriage in regard to the just punishment deserved by replacing sanctity in accord with the natural and divine laws of God with the hedonism of the devil!

"By matrimony, therefore, the souls of the contracting parties are joined and knit together more directly and more intimately than are their bodies, and that not by any passing affection of sense of spirit, but by a deliberate and firm act of the will; and from this union of souls by God's decree, a sacred and inviolable bond arises. Hence the nature of this contract, which is proper and peculiar to it alone, makes it entirely different both from the union of animals entered into by the blind instinct of nature alone in which neither reason nor free will plays a part, and also from the haphazard unions of men, which are far removed from all true and honorable unions of will and enjoy none of the rights of family life. {Para. 7}

"From this it is clear that legitimately constituted authority has the right and therefore the duty to restrict, to prevent, and to punish those base unions which are opposed to reason and to nature; but since it is a matter which flows from human nature itself, no less certain is the teaching of Our predecessor, Leo XIII of happy memory: "In choosing a state of life there is no doubt but that it is in the power and discretion of each one to prefer one or the other: either to embrace the counsel of virginity given by Jesus Christ, or to bind himself in the bonds of matrimony. To take away from man the natural and primeval right of marriage, to circumscribe in any way the principal ends of marriage laid down in the beginning by God Himself in the words 'Increase and multiply,' is beyond the power of any human law." {Para. 8}"

Casti Connubii makes it very clear that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children. Man does not just reproduce for survival of the species, which is something that any animal is instinctively capable of doing. Rather, man, made in the Image and Likeness of God, procreates to increase the population of Heaven, which was God�s intent for man at creation.

"Since, however, We have spoken fully elsewhere on the Christian education of youth, let us sum it all up by quoting once more the words of St. Augustine: "As regards the offspring it is provided that they should be begotten lovingly and educated religiously," - and this is also expressed succinctly in the Code of Canon Law - "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children." {Para. 17}

"Nor must we omit to remark, in fine, that since the duty entrusted to parents for the good of their children is of such high dignity and of such great importance, every use of the faculty given by God for the procreation of new life is the right and the privilege of the married state alone, by the law of God and of nature, and must be confined absolutely within the sacred limits of that state. {Para. 18}"

It does not get any clearer than the following sections from Casti Connubii as to what man�s priorities are given that the �first blessing of matrimony� is the procreation of children.

"The second blessing of matrimony which We said was mentioned by St. Augustine, is the blessing of conjugal honor which consists in the mutual fidelity of the spouses in fulfilling the marriage contract, so that what belongs to one of the parties by reason of this contract sanctioned by divine law, may not be denied to him or permitted to any third person; nor may there be conceded to one of the parties anything which, being contrary to the rights and laws of God and entirely opposed to matrimonial faith, can never be conceded. {Para. 19}

"Wherefore, conjugal faith, or honor, demands in the first place the complete unity of matrimony which the Creator Himself laid down in the beginning when He wished it to be not otherwise than between one man and one woman. And although afterwards this primeval law was relaxed to some extent by God, the Supreme Legislator, there is no doubt that the law of the Gospel fully restored that original and perfect unity, and abrogated all dispensations as the words of Christ and the constant teaching and action of the Church show plainly. With reason, therefore, does the Sacred Council of Trent solemnly declare: "Christ Our Lord very clearly taught that in this bond two persons only are to be united and joined together when He said: 'Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh.�" {Para. 20}

"Nor did Christ Our Lord wish only to condemn any form of polygamy or polyandry, as they are called, whether successive or simultaneous, and every other external dishonorable act, but, in order that the sacred bonds of marriage may be guarded absolutely inviolate, He forbade also even willful thoughts and desires of such like things: "But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with her in his heart." Which words of Christ Our Lord cannot be annulled even by the consent of one of the partners of marriage for they express a law of God and of nature which no will of man can break or bend. {Para. 21}

"Nay, that mutual familiar intercourse between the spouses themselves, if the blessing of conjugal faith is to shine with becoming splendor, must be distinguished by chastity so that husband and wife bear themselves in all things with the law of God and of nature, and endeavor always to follow the will of their most wise and holy Creator with the greatest reverence toward the work of God. {Para. 22}"

The sodomite faction uses the sophistry of the former nonsensical equal rights analogy along with the prevalence of contracepting and aborting generations into oblivion to say, that "What are we doing that's so unlike what you're doing?"

What I am referring to here is traditional Catholic teaching rooted in Genesis where the call by God for man to multiply is to populate Heaven, i.e., we're not reproducing solely for natural reasons for survival of the species. We're going beyond that in accord with God's reason for creating us. God made us to show forth His Goodness, to know, love and serve Him in this life, and especially to share an eternity with Him in the next. To come to the point, we're procreating for supernatural reasons, to populate Heaven. That is the reason for the sexual complimentarity of the sexes, a supreme gift to mankind from God, a gift to be cherished, not bastardized by the blasphemous extension of it to unnatural acts.

This extension is made easier by the divorce of the unitive from the procreative in regard to the sexual act, which is not possible if we are obedient to the Will of God. Once this divorce is made, the sodomites can say, we're doing exactly the same as you are, i.e, seeking sexual pleasure for its own sake. What's your problem? By embracing contraception, we make it difficult to answer this question with the force that we can in union with our observations about the unnaturalness of the act as opposed to heterosexual sex.

If man makes himself, through contraception, the arbiter of when life begins, he will predictably make himself the arbiter of when life ends. Contraception prevents life while abortion kills existing life. Both involve the deliberate separation of the unitive and procreative aspects of sex, which cannot be separated according to Natural Law principles. A contraceptive society requires, moreover, demands abortion to the point of insuring that a dead baby always occurs as a result of the intrusion of the abortionist into what should be the safest place in the universe for a baby, its mothers womb, regardless of whether the abortion is "botched" and the baby somehow is delivered alive in the manner God intended. Man needs the insanity of a "born-alive infants act" to combat the heinous evil of infanticide, insanity in the sense that we have digressed as a society to the point of being unable to recognize First Degree Murder for what it is. The availability of abortion is also a factor in the decision of some to engage in sexual relations without using contraception. Many contraceptives are abortificient in that they cause the destruction of the developing human being, RU-486 being the prime example.

The Church recognizes that having a sexual-genital attraction to another person of the same sex can never lead to a morally good act between the two individuals, but rather will always lead to an immoral act as the unitive and procreative aspects of sexuality are violated.

Where the procreative and unitive aspects of sexuality are violated is by the unnatural acts of homosexuality which is why the Church teaches that any orientation to this behavior is objectively disordered, i.e., it is an orientation to a misuse of human sexuality, an orientation to acts which are sins against nature and nature's God. The unitive is violated because the plumbing doesn't work, i.e., man wasn't created physically for homosexual acts; the procreative is a consequence of this fact.
Heterosexual attraction is natural to man and woman (Catholic Catechism #2333), while homosexual tendencies are unnatural. Heterosexual attraction is God-given, and for the vast majority of the human race, leads to marriage, children, and family; same-sex attractions are an objective disorder, but not sinful in themselves (CDF Statement, 1986, sect. 3). One often hears this objection to the term "objective disorder" being applied to homosexual tendencies: "If a man lusts for a woman or vice versa, this too is an objective disorder." But this is not so, because, if the man or woman controls this natural attraction, and wills to express it in the natural state of marriage, it is a good thing, desired by the Creator. But if one has a sexual-genital attraction to another person of the same sex, it can NEVER lead to a morally good act between the two individuals, but rather it will ALWAYS lead to an immoral act. That is why it is called an objective disorder.

To say that the "Church does not ask homosexuals to deny their homosexuality" implies somehow that homosexuality is a gift from God - another obfuscation of Church teaching reinforced by the latest research in regard to homosexuality and orientation toward it. The Church clearly is teaching those inclined to homosexual lifestyles out of unconditional love for them that they are embarking down a road leading elsewhere than to salvation per the Catechism.

The word "orientation" has serious theological implications. If you believe that some people are essentially homosexual, you turn Christian anthropology on its head. Christianity holds that we are all heterosexual in our God-given nature, though some heterosexuals have a problem with same-sex attractions. If you believe that homosexuality is part of a person's nature, given by God, then homosexual acts become a fulfillment of a person's God-given nature, and that has never been the Catholic teaching.

Dr. Janet Smith of Ave Maria College in "Aquinas�s Natural Law Theory and Homosexuality", Homosexuality And American Public Life ed. by Christopher Wolfe, tells us that no thinker is as closely associated with Natural Law theory as Thomas Aquinas, which is why his thought is a point of departure for those who appeal to the Natural Law tradition in arguing against the validity of a homosexual lifestyle. Similarly, those who wish to undermine the Natural Law understanding of homosexuality, of necessity, must attack or attempt to reinterpret Aquinas. For if Aquinas�s understanding of homosexuality would turn out to be groundless or incoherent, the Natural Law approach to this question could be vitiated.

There are several fundamental principles that one must keep in mind when interpreting Aquinas�s Natural Law teachings: 1) Aquinas understands God to be the author of nature and thus what is natural is good. 2) The primary meaning of the word "nature" for Aquinas is not physical or biological but ontological in that "nature" most precisely refers to the essence of a substance, in the case of man, to a substance that is a unity of spirit and body. 3) Natural Law ethics and virtue ethics are integrally related for virtues are a perfection of man�s nature. All sins are a violation of some virtue. 4) Since the Fall, man�s physical nature and intellectual nature are flawed and thus can mislead him in his actions. Aquinas is concerned about what is fitting for man�s final end (telos). What is fitting in this sense is what is ordered to the good, not what is objectively disordered. His concern about this "good ordering" is centered around its leading to the perfection of one�s nature toward this final end, which leads to the union of body and soul, the soul being the form of the body. So Aquinas has a very metaphysical purpose in defining nature in that the soul cannot be divorced from the body in an eternal sense.

Although Aquinas speaks of the good of sexuality as being "the propagation of the species", the propagation of the human species should not be understood in the same way as the propagation of all other species, since humans have immortal souls and are destined not just to contribute to the longevity of the species but also possess an intrinsic value in their own right. Humans in generating offspring are not just preserving the species; they are "multiplying individuals", i.e., they are helping to populate Heaven (not earth). Thus, humans not only reproduce; more properly they procreate. They participate in the coming to be of a new human soul. God is the Creator of each and every human soul but He requires the provision of matter by human beings in order to affect the coming to be of a new human being (body and soul). Semen, then, (and the ova) is part of the matter into which God infuses the human soul. To deliberately misuse semen, or the ova, i.e., to use them in a way that prevents them from providing the matter for new human life, is to violate a great good in a metaphysical sense, which is against the Natural Law. Man is not allowing God to be God. Thus, the "natural" in the Natural Law for Aquinas not only applies to "natural" in a biological sense, i.e., a violation of the plumbing, but more properly to "natural" in a supernatural sense, where metaphysics is the path of reason to the Divine.

Joe Sobran wrote a good column a few months ago addressing just this topic when he said that we're all sodomites in that sense.
I will quote from Sobran's article The Traditional Catholic and Liberal Cultures, which appeared in The Latin Mass, A Journal of Catholic Culture, Vol. 12, No.2 Spring 2003 pp. 34-37.

"We're All Sodomites now," crows the title of an essay by the only sodomite columnist Andrew Sullivan, who claims to be both Catholic and a conservative. How times have changed, one sighs for the hundredth time. Sodomite, conservative, and Catholic? What happened to the country - the world - we were born in?

"Sullivan does have a point, thought. In days of yore, "sodomy" had a broader range of meaning than homosexuality. It referred to a wide variety of perverse sexual practices, including contraception, in which nonprocreative sexual pleasure was sought for its own sake. And since about 95 per cent of American married couples now use contraception, Sullivan argues, under the old definition nearly everyone now qualifies as a sodomite, one way or another. Sodomy has become normal.

"Who are Moses and St. Paul against Gallup?

"Sullivan's real "point" is that one you legitimize "unnatural sex" in any form, there are no limits. One possible conclusion is that Sullivan is right, and all is well. Another is that we are now seeing the social cost of disregarding strict Catholic teaching on sexual morality.

"The Catholic Church is now isolated in upholding the "old" morality. What was not so long ago the consensus of Christians has become "the Catholic position," or as it is called in some quarters "the Vatican position," since the American bishops have become rather notably silent and noncommittal about it.

"As a middle-aged Catholic, I feel an increasingly deep pity for young Catholics, who hardly know - and can hardly be expected to take seriously - a teaching so at odds with contemporary culture that their own pastors rarely dare to assert it. The only world they know is one in which fornication (now known as "premarital intercourse," and not even confined to a prospective spouse), sodomy ("gay sex"), and abortion ("choice") have become "rights," not only legal but moral.

"It is no use blaming the young for this. They have been spiritually disinherited. How can they know? They rarely even realize there was once, and not so long ago, another and better world, in which "the Catholic position" was the anchor of nearly universal moral presumptions. In that world, fornication was shameful, and the sodomite and the abortionist (not the "abortion provider") were figures of horror and disgust.

"For my generation that world is only a fading memory. For the young it is not even that. People now approaching middle age have no recollection of when abortion was a crime. . .

"With the confusion of Catholics has come the defilement of America. The America of 2003 would have been unrecognizable, and utterly appalling, to the America of 1961, when I was baptized. Catholics wanted to be good Americans; and it seems that they have succeeded only too well. Will Christ, at the Last Judgment, congratulate them on having assimilated so perfectly to this America?

"It would have been better for them, and better for America, if the Church in this country had remained less adaptable to the environment, teaching her children that keeping the Faith was still, and would always be, a stern duty."

Hopefully, John Roberts IS the �devout Catholic� that he�s claimed to be, understanding the totality of the eternal truths of the faith, in particular, that faith enables a reason, which, in turn, reinforces it. If he�s not, then President Bush will have followed in the sorry footsteps of his father. The United States of America cannot afford more Souters if it is to survive. Moreover, it will not deserve to survive, as Almighty God will not be mocked indefinitely! God will not bless a country that is no longer worthy of His blessing.
Posted By: louisix Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 12:17 PM
3.1.1 No right exists to aberrant behavior
Making sexual orientation a cause for nondiscrimination says that orientation to objectively disordered behavior is acceptable. One could logically ask, if this is true, what prevents anarchy?

In 1990 J. of Homosexuality produced a double issue devoted to adult-child sex. One of the many disturbing quotes said, �parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son �not as a rival or competitor, not as a thief of their property, but as a partner in the boy�s upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home...�� (pg 164). The American Psychological Association did not denounce this position. Why? Why are these views being publicized in �homosexual� journals? The answer is in J. Sex and Marital Therapy which shows a strong correlation between homosexual males and pedophilia in proportion to their numbers (about 1 out of 36 men).

The following evidence showing the correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia is current research from NARTH, The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, in an article entitled The Problem of Pedophilia.
http://www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html

Gay advocates correctly state that most child molesters are heterosexual males. But this is a misleading statement. In proportion to their numbers (about 1 out of 36 men), homosexual males are more likely to engage in sex with minors: in fact, they appear to be three times more likely than straight men to engage in adult-child sexual relations (8). And this does not take into account the cases of homosexual child abuse which are unreported. NARTH's Executive Director Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, for example, says that about one-third of his 400 adult homosexual clients said they had experienced some form of homosexual abuse before the age of consent, but only two of those cases had been reported.

While no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual, some studies indicate that approximately 35% of pedophiles are homosexual (9). Further, since homosexual pedophiles victimize far more children than do heterosexual pedophiles (10), it is estimated that approximately 80% of pedophilic victims are boys who have been molested by adult males (11).
8. Freund, K. and R. I. Watson, The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443.
9. K. Freund et al., Pedophilia and Heterosexuality v. Homosexuality, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (Fall 1984): 197.
10. Freund, K. and R. I. Watson, The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443.
11. Schmidt, Thomas (1995). Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate. Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, p. 114.

A Fringe Element Begins to Make Inroads into the Mainstream
NAMBLA--the North American Man-Boy Love Association--was once the lone voice lobbying for the normalization of pedophilia. NAMBLA representatives marched in gay-pride parades as a fringe element of the gay-rights movement.

Then in 1990, the Journal of Homosexuality produced a special double issue devoted to adult-child sex, which was entitled "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" (1). One article said many pedophiles believe they are "born that way and cannot change" (p. 133). Another writer said a man who counseled troubled teenage boys could achieve "miracles... not by preaching to them, but by sleeping with them." The loving pedophile can offer a "companionship, security and protection" which neither peers nor parents can provide (p. l62). Parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a thief of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home..." (p. 164).

A British university professor wrote: "Boys want sex with men, boys seduce adult men, the experience is very common and much enjoyed" (p. 323). A professor of social science at the State University of New York says he looks forward to the day when Americans will "get over their hysteria about child abuse" (p. 325) and child pornography.

A.P.A. Publishes a New Study: Not All Pedophile Relationships are Harmful

The American Psychological Association did not denounce the positions advanced within that journal. In fact, just recently, the A.P.A. published a new, major study (2) written by one of those same Journal of Homosexuality writers.
This latest article appears in the A.P.A.'s own prestigious Psychological Bulletin. It provides an overview of all the research studying the harm resulting from childhood sexual abuse.

The authors' conclusion? That childhood sexual abuse is on average, only slightly associated with psychological harm--and that the harm may not be due to the sexual experience, but to the negative family factors in the children's backgrounds. When the sexual contact is not coerced, especially when it is experienced by a boy and is remembered positively, it may not be harmful at all.

The authors of the article propose that psychologists stop using judgmental terms like "child abuse," "molestation," and "victims," using instead neutral, value-free terms like "adult-child sex." Similarly, they say we should not talk about the "the severity of the abuse," but instead refer to "the level of sexual intimacy."

The authors conclude that behavior which psychotherapists commonly term "abuse" may only constitute a violation of social norms. And science, they say, should separate itself from social-moral terminology. Religion and society, these writers argue, are free to judge behavior as they wish...but psychiatry should evaluate behavior by its own set of standards.

In fact, the authors of the Psychological Bulletin article propose what they consider may be a better way of understanding pedophilia: that it may only be "abuse" if the child feels bad about the relationship. They are in effect suggesting a repetition of the steps by which homosexuality was normalized. In its first step toward removing homosexuality from the Diagnostic Manual, the A.P.A. said the condition was normal as long as the person did not feel bad about it.

Few laymen are aware that the American Psychiatric Association recently redefined the criteria for pedophilia. According to the latest diagnostic manual (DSM--IV), a person no longer has a psychological disorder simply because he molests children. To be diagnosed as disordered, now he must also feel anxious about the molestation, or be impaired in his work or social relationships. Thus the A.P.A. has left room for the "psychologically normal" pedophile.

The questionable worth of our professional psychiatric and psychological associations
Thus, the American Psychological Association�s prestigious Psychological Bulletin concludes that childhood sexual abuse is on average, only slightly associated with psychological harm - and that the harm may not be due to the sexual experience, but to the negative family factors in the children�s backgrounds. Incredible!

It is good to remember that much has been made of the American Psychiatric Association no longer including homosexuality on their disorder list. This APA, the other being the American Psychological Association, also no longer includes sadism, masochism, and pedophilia on this list, depending on what tortured version of its Diagnostic and Statistics Manual is referenced. Does this mean that these �orientations� might eventually be embraced as causes for nondiscrimination?

Furthermore, the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of the American Psychiatric Association has said that there is no problem with pedophilia unless it bothers the pedophiliac - so much for the concern of the safety of children.

Are we as a society obliged to follow the dictates of so-called professional associations whose surreal positions defy reason?
Posted By: louisix Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 12:22 PM
What kind of message do we send to our children?

Noted Catholic moral theologian, Msgr. William Smith once commented on how �rights talk� and �tolerance� have reached intolerable proportions. He observed that G.K. Chesterton was right to say that tolerance is the only virtue common to those who do not believe in anything. What Msgr. Smith was referring to indirectly related to the situation in the public square where many believers are being coerced into supporting laws which their faith holds in anathema. Somehow, this clarion call for unconditional tolerance conveniently excludes those who, for reasons of faith, cannot welcome the sin with the sinner. Moreover, they are certainly not required to do so in any sane reading of Sacred Scripture and Church tradition that does not erase significant portions of the Bible or Church teaching to accommodate the current vices in vogue.

What kind of message do we send to children growing up? If we send an ambiguous or ambivalent message, a message that human sexuality whether it is normal or deviant is just like being right or left handed, we are sending a very dangerous message leading to physical as well as spiritual destruction.

Law functions as a teacher

Law functions as a teacher as to what we approve and disapprove of in society. Thus, to imply that �sexual orientation� is equated with immutable natural characteristics or constitutionally protected behavior says that being inclined to behavior which is an intrinsic moral evil is OK, and there is nothing wrong with inclinations that are objectively disordered (morally reprehensible).

What we must never lose sight of is that we are talking about a disordered form of behavior to which no one has any conceivable right. If there is no right, there can be no discrimination in regard to opposing this behavior.

Every parent with an IQ in double figures knows that growing up with extra burdens, extra pains is not good for children. Sending wrong signals in our society will only complicate their lives.
If we cannot affirm the normative position of stable, heterosexual marriage and family life of �mother, father, and children,� then our society will become a footnote in history like so many others which destroyed themselves from within.

We have to think of family all the time in the promulgation of our laws which are rooted in the natural law which is a participation in the eternal law of God. The Ten Commandments can be considered an early warning system. They are not the ten suggestions. If you obey them, you will flourish; if not, you will participate in your own destruction. Civilizations that have played fast and loose with the Commandments, stable marriage, and family life no longer exist.

The proper interpretation of Aquinas�s natural law in a metaphysical context

What the reinventers of Aquinas, Sacred Scripture, and Church tradition do not understand is the proper interpretation of Aquinas�s natural law in a metaphysical context. They fail to understand Aquinas�s understanding of nature and its role in his evaluation of ethics.

There are several fundamental principles that one must keep in mind when interpreting Aquinas�s natural law teachings: 1) Aquinas understands God to be the author of nature and thus what is natural is good. 2) The primary meaning of the word �nature� for Aquinas is not physical or biological but ontological in that �nature� most precisely refers to the essence of a substance, in the case of man, to a substance that is a unity of spirit and body. 3) natural law ethics and virtue ethics are integrally related for virtues are a perfection of man�s nature. All sins are a violation of some virtue. 4) Since the Fall, man�s physical nature and intellectual nature are flawed and thus can mislead him in his actions. Aquinas is concerned about what is fitting for man�s telos. What is fitting in this sense is what is ordered to the good, not what is objectively disordered. His concern about this �good ordering� is centered around its leading to the perfection of one�s nature toward this final end, something totally rejected by modernists like Spinoza, which leads to the union of body and soul, the soul being the form of the body. So Aquinas has a very metaphysical purpose in defining nature in that the soul cannot be divorced from the body in an eternal sense.
Although Aquinas speaks of the good of sexuality as being �the propagation of the species,� the propagation of the human species should not be understood in the same way as the propagation of all other species, since humans have immortal souls, and are destined not just to contribute to the longevity of the species but also possess an intrinsic value in their own right. Humans in generating offspring are not just preserving the species; they are �multiplying individuals,� i.e., they are helping to populate Heaven, not just Earth. Thus, humans not only reproduce; more properly they procreate. They participate in the coming to be of a new human soul. God is the Creator of each and every human soul but He requires the provision of matter by human beings in order to affect the coming to be of a new human being (body and soul). Semen, then, (and the ova) is part of the matter into which God infuses the human soul. To deliberately misuse semen, or the ova, i.e., to use them in a way that prevents them from providing the matter for new human life, is to violate a great good in a metaphysical sense, which is against the natural law. Man is not allowing God to be God. Thus, the �natural� in the natural law for Aquinas not only applies to �natural� in a biological sense, i.e., a violation of the plumbing, but more properly to �natural� in a supernatural sense, where metaphysics is the path of reason to the Divine.

Historical roots of the natural law
What the natural law is and why it is necessary guide for human action

What is this �natural law?� As Socrates reasoned, it is something above power or force that gives content to the notion of justice. There is such a thing as a natural right. This is a notion, which in turn, suggests that there is a higher law or a natural law by which the positive law of the city is to be measured and judged. Aquinas gives us the formal definition of such a law in the Summa Theologica I-II. He does this via a logical sequence starting with the definition of law in Question 90, presenting a formal definition for the natural law in Question 91, discussing its characteristics in Question 94, going on to present its relationship to human law in Question 95, and considering when such laws are binding in Question 96.

Law is an ordinance of reason for the common good, decreed by authorities in charge of the community. (Summa Theologica, Vol. II, Pt. I-II, Q. 90, Art. 4) {[4] pg 995}

Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to divine providence in a more excellent way, insofar as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others. Wherefore it has a share of the eternal reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end, and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law. Hence, the Psalmist, after saying �offer up the sacrifice of justice,� as though someone asked what the works of justice are, adds: �Many say, �Who shows us good things?�,� in answer to which question he says: �The light of Your countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us�; thus, implying that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which pertains to the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature�s participation of the eternal law. (Summa Theologica, Vol. II, Pt. I-II, Q. 91, Art. 2) {[4] pp 996-997}

A law is a certain dictate of practical reason. Now it is to be observed that the same procedure takes place in the practical and in the speculative reason, for each proceeds from principles to conclusions. Accordingly, we conclude that just as, in the speculative reason, from naturally known indemonstrable principles we draw the conclusions of the various sciences, the knowledge of which is not imparted to us by nature but acquired by the efforts of reason, so too it is from the precepts of the natural law, as from general and indemonstrable principles, that the human reason needs to proceed to certain particular determinations of the laws. These particular determinations, devised by human reason, are called human laws. (SummaTheologica, Vol. II, Pt. I-II, Q. 91, Art. 3) {[4] pp 997-998}

The precepts of the natural law are to the practical reason what the first principles of demonstrations are to the speculative reason because both are self-evident principles. Wherefore the first indemonstrable principle is that the same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time, which is based on the nature of �being� and �not-being,� and on this principle all others are based, as it is stated in Metaphysics IV. Now, as �being� is the first thing that falls under apprehension simply, so �good� is the first thing that falls under the apprehension of the practical reason, which is directed to action, since every agent acts for an end under the aspect of good. Consequently, the first principle in the practical reason is one founded on the notion of good, viz., that good is that which all things seek after. Hence this is the first precept of law, that good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided. All other precepts of the natural law are based upon this, so that whatever the practical naturally apprehends as man�s good (or evil) belongs to the precepts of the natural law as something to be done or avoided.

Since, however, good has the nature of an end, and evil the nature of a contrary, hence it is that all those things to which man has a natural inclination are naturally apprehended by reason as being good, and consequently, as objects of pursuit, and their contraries as evil and objects of avoidance. (Summa Theologica, Vol. II, Pt. I-II, Q. 94, Art. 2) {[4] pp 1009-1010}

As regards the general principles, whether of speculative or practical reason, truth or rectitude is the same for all and is equally known by all. (Summa Theologica, Vol. II, Pt. I-II, Q. 94, Art. 4) {[4] pp 1010-1011}

The natural law dates from the creation of the rational creature. It does not vary according to time but remains unchangeable. (Summa Theologica, Vol. II, Pt. I-II, Q. 94, Art. 5) {[4] pp 1011-1012}

Augustine says, �Thy law is written in the hearts of men, which iniquity itself effaces not.� But the law which is written in men�s hearts is the natural law. Therefore, the natural law cannot be blotted out. (Summa Theologica, Vol. II, Pt. I-II, Q. 94, Art. 6) {[4] pp 1012-1013}

As Augustine says, �that which is not just seems to be no law at all�; wherefore the force of a law depends on the extent of its justice. Now, in human affairs a thing is said to be just from being right according to the rule of reason. But the first rule of reason is the law of nature, as is clear from what has been stated above. Consequently, every human law has just so much of the nature of law as it is derived from the law of nature. But if, in any point, it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law. (Summa Theologica, Vol. II, Pt. I-II, Q. 95, Art. 2) {[4] pp 1014-1015}

Laws framed by man are either just or unjust. If they be just, they have the power of binding in conscience from the eternal law whence they are derived, according to Pr. 8:15: �By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things.� Now laws are said to be just from the end, when, to wit, they are ordained to the common good, and from their author, that is to say, when the law that is made does not exceed the power of the lawgiver, and from their form, when, to with, burdens are laid on the subjects according to an equality of proportion and with a view to the common good.

Augustine says, �A law that is not just, seems to be no law at all.� Where such laws do not bind in conscience. Laws may be unjust through being opposed to the divine good; such are the laws of tyrants inducing to idolatry or to anything else contrary to the divine law, and laws of this kind must nowise be observed because, as stated in Acts 5:29, �we ought to obey God rather than men.� (Summa Theologica, Vol. II, Pt. I-II, Q. 96, Art. 4) {[4] pp 1021-1022}

It is Aquinas�s doctrine of natural law that is recognized as the best formulation of the understanding of a higher law that guides, restrains, and influences the will of a government or a people.
Posted By: louisix Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 12:29 PM
In summary, "error" has no rights if the common good, the understood primary goal of the state from the time of Aristotle's politics, is to be furthered. Catholics, in particular, must understand this in following the charge by Christ to His disciples at the end of Matthew's Gospel, to convert the world to the one true faith. Only by doing so will the natural lead to the supernatural, the latter being the only reason for the Church's existence, i.e., to get souls to Heaven instead of hell!

Let us revisit Pius XI's encyclical Casti Connubii to see what is owed the Church by the state in recognition of Catholicism being the last bastion of Truth in a world firmly in the grip of the "father-of-lies."

The traditional Catholic Church teaching on the importance of Christian Marriage as a sacrament is no better given than in Casti Connubii, On Christian Marriage, Encyclical of Pope Pius XI, December 31, 1930, which spoke to the world, not just the Church, for the sake of its eternal salvation.

How great is the dignity of chaste wedlock, Venerable Brethren, may be judged best from this that Christ Our Lord, Son of the Eternal Father, having assumed the nature of fallen man, not only, with His loving desire of compassing the redemption of our race, ordained it in an especial manner as the principle and foundation of domestic society and therefore of all human intercourse, but also raised it to the rank of a truly and great sacrament of the New Law, restored it to the original purity of its divine institution, and accordingly entrusted all its discipline and care to His spouse the Church. {Para. 1}

In order, however, that amongst men of every nation and every age the desired fruits may be obtained from this renewal of matrimony, it is necessary, first of all, that men's minds be illuminated with the true doctrine of Christ regarding it; and secondly, that Christian spouses, the weakness of their wills strengthened by the internal grace of God, shape all their ways of thinking and of acting in conformity with that pure law of Christ so as to obtain true peace and happiness for themselves and for their families. {Para. 2}

� let it be repeated as an immutable and inviolable fundamental doctrine that matrimony was not instituted or restored by man but by God; not by man were the laws made to strengthen and confirm and elevate it but by God, the Author of nature, and by Christ Our Lord by Whom nature was redeemed, and hence these laws cannot be subject to any human decrees or to any contrary pact even of the spouses themselves. This is the doctrine of Holy Scripture; this is the constant tradition of the Universal Church; this the solemn definition of the sacred Council of Trent, which declares and establishes from the words of Holy Writ itself that God is the Author of the perpetual stability of the marriage bond, its unity and its firmness. {Para. 5}

The following section from Casti Connubii speaks particularly to the sodomite bastardization of marriage in regard to the just punishment deserved by replacing sanctity in accord with the natural and divine laws of God with the hedonism of the devil!

By matrimony, therefore, the souls of the contracting parties are joined and knit together more directly and more intimately than are their bodies, and that not by any passing affection of sense of spirit, but by a deliberate and firm act of the will; and from this union of souls by God's decree, a sacred and inviolable bond arises. Hence the nature of this contract, which is proper and peculiar to it alone, makes it entirely different both from the union of animals entered into by the blind instinct of nature alone in which neither reason nor free will plays a part, and also from the haphazard unions of men, which are far removed from all true and honorable unions of will and enjoy none of the rights of family life. {Para. 7}

From this it is clear that legitimately constituted authority has the right and therefore the duty to restrict, to prevent, and to punish those base unions which are opposed to reason and to nature; but since it is a matter which flows from human nature itself, no less certain is the teaching of Our predecessor, Leo XIII of happy memory: "In choosing a state of life there is no doubt but that it is in the power and discretion of each one to prefer one or the other: either to embrace the counsel of virginity given by Jesus Christ, or to bind himself in the bonds of matrimony. To take away from man the natural and primeval right of marriage, to circumscribe in any way the principal ends of marriage laid down in the beginning by God Himself in the words 'Increase and multiply,' is beyond the power of any human law." {Para. 8}

Casti Connubii makes it very clear that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children. Man does not just reproduce for survival of the species, which is something that any animal is instinctively capable of doing. Rather, man, made in the Image and Likeness of God, procreates to increase the population of Heaven, which was God�s intent for man at creation.

Since, however, We have spoken fully elsewhere on the Christian education of youth, let us sum it all up by quoting once more the words of St. Augustine: "As regards the offspring it is provided that they should be begotten lovingly and educated religiously," - and this is also expressed succinctly in the Code of Canon Law - "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children." {Para. 17}

Nor must we omit to remark, in fine, that since the duty entrusted to parents for the good of their children is of such high dignity and of such great importance, every use of the faculty given by God for the procreation of new life is the right and the privilege of the married state alone, by the law of God and of nature, and must be confined absolutely within the sacred limits of that state. {Para. 18}

It does not get any clearer than the following sections from Casti Connubii as to what man�s priorities are given that the �first blessing of matrimony� is the procreation of children.

The second blessing of matrimony which We said was mentioned by St. Augustine, is the blessing of conjugal honor which consists in the mutual fidelity of the spouses in fulfilling the marriage contract, so that what belongs to one of the parties by reason of this contract sanctioned by divine law, may not be denied to him or permitted to any third person; nor may there be conceded to one of the parties anything which, being contrary to the rights and laws of God and entirely opposed to matrimonial faith, can never be conceded. {Para. 19}

Wherefore, conjugal faith, or honor, demands in the first place the complete unity of matrimony which the Creator Himself laid down in the beginning when He wished it to be not otherwise than between one man and one woman. And although afterwards this primeval law was relaxed to some extent by God, the Supreme Legislator, there is no doubt that the law of the Gospel fully restored that original and perfect unity, and abrogated all dispensations as the words of Christ and the constant teaching and action of the Church show plainly. With reason, therefore, does the Sacred Council of Trent solemnly declare: "Christ Our Lord very clearly taught that in this bond two persons only are to be united and joined together when He said: 'Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh.�" {Para. 20}

Nor did Christ Our Lord wish only to condemn any form of polygamy or polyandry, as they are called, whether successive or simultaneous, and every other external dishonorable act, but, in order that the sacred bonds of marriage may be guarded absolutely inviolate, He forbade also even willful thoughts and desires of such like things: "But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with her in his heart." Which words of Christ Our Lord cannot be annulled even by the consent of one of the partners of marriage for they express a law of God and of nature which no will of man can break or bend. {Para. 21}

Nay, that mutual familiar intercourse between the spouses themselves, if the blessing of conjugal faith is to shine with becoming splendor, must be distinguished by chastity so that husband and wife bear themselves in all things with the law of God and of nature, and endeavor always to follow the will of their most wise and holy Creator with the greatest reverence toward the work of God. {Para. 22}

What the modern Church has forgotten

Now we see something in Casti Connubii that is missing in the modern Church, something that needs to be restored, i.e., the formal recognition that the Church alone must be the primary advisor to the nations of the world in order to preserve the moral order by countering the confusion of the �father-of-lies.� Where but in the Catholic Church, where there is worship of the One Triune God, is there found a consistent moral ethic that is never compromised, and clearly delineated in accord with the teachings of her Founder Who is Perfect Truth? For example, where in the non-Catholic world has there been complete consistent opposition to the contraceptive mentality of the age with all of its attendant derivatives to include sexual promiscuity, abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia to name but a few? The worship of illusory false gods, in particular the Kantian �god in the mirror,� and/or the denial of the True Faith does not lend itself to such moral clarity and confidence, which Catholicism solely enjoys as being infallibly protected by the Holy Ghost in matters of faith and morals. Nowhere is this infallible protection better evidenced than by observing that the Church has been prophetic in regard to the consequences of ignoring her moral teaching, e.g., Casti Connubii.

But not only in regard to temporal goods, Venerable Brethren, is it the concern of the public authority to make proper provision for matrimony and the family, but also in other things which concern the good of souls. just laws must be made for the protection of chastity, for reciprocal conjugal aid, and for similar purposes, and these must be faithfully enforced, because, as history testifies, the prosperity of the State and the temporal happiness of its citizens cannot remain safe and sound where the foundation on which they are established, which is the moral order, is weakened and where the very fountainhead from which the State draws its life, namely, wedlock and the family, is obstructed by the vices of its citizens. {Para. 123}

For the preservation of the moral order neither the laws and sanctions of the temporal power are sufficient, nor is the beauty of virtue and the expounding of its necessity. Religious authority must enter in to enlighten the mind, to direct the will, and to strengthen human frailty by the assistance of divine grace. Such an authority is found nowhere save in the Church instituted by Christ the Lord. Hence We earnestly exhort in the Lord all those who hold the reins of power that they establish and maintain firmly harmony and friendship with this Church of Christ so that through the united activity and energy of both powers the tremendous evils, fruits of those wanton liberties which assail both marriage and the family and are a menace to both Church and State, may be effectively frustrated. {Para. 124}

Governments can assist the Church greatly in the execution of its important office, if, in laying down their ordinances, they take account of what is prescribed by divine and ecclesiastical law, and if penalties are fixed for offenders. For as it is, there are those who think that whatever is permitted by the laws of the State, or at least is not punished by them, is allowed also in the moral order, and, because they neither fear God nor see any reason to fear the laws of man, they act even against their conscience, thus often bringing ruin upon themselves and upon many others. There will be no peril to or lessening of the rights and integrity of the State from its association with the Church. Such suspicion and fear is empty and groundless, as Leo Xlll has already so clearly set forth: "It is generally agreed," he says, "that the Founder of the Church, Jesus Christ, wished the spiritual power to be distinct from the civil, and each to be free and unhampered in doing its own work, not forgetting, however, that it is expedient to both, and in the interest of everybody, that there be a harmonious relationship. . . If the civil power combines in a friendly manner with the spiritual power of the Church, it necessarily follows that both parties will greatly benefit. The dignity of the State will be enhanced, and with religion as its guide, there will never be a rule that is not just; while for the Church there will be at hand a safeguard and defense which will operate to the public good of the faithful." {Para. 125}

The message of Catholic teachings that many reject out-of-hand

A formed conscience in accord with the natural law is the message of the truth of Casti Connubii. The natural law as an extension of the eternal law written on the hearts of mankind demands a clear interpreter with technology changing at a pace so rapid that moral concerns are subordinate to achieving anything theoretically possible in a scientific sense, e.g., the cloning of human beings. If this interpretation is left to each individual or group in society with a vested interested in the aforementioned scientific achievement, totally devoid of any moral concerns, then as a society, the common good will have given way to anarchy. Who or what will be a better moral interpreter of the natural law if not the Church founded by a God Who gave it to mankind, as we are told in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, On the Peace of Christ in His Kingdom, Encyclical of Pope Pius XI, December 23, 1922.

We have already seen and come to the conclusion that the principal cause of the confusion, restlessness, and dangers which are so prominent a characteristic of false peace is the weakening of the binding force of law and lack of respect for authority, effects which logically follow upon denial of the truth that authority comes from God, the Creator and Universal Law-giver. {Para. 39}

The only remedy for such state of affairs is the peace of Christ since the peace of Christ is the peace of God, which could not exist if it did not enjoin respect for law, order, and the rights of authority. In the Holy Scriptures We read: "My children, keep discipline in peace." (Ecclesiasticus xli, 17) "Much peace have they that love the law, O Lord." (Psalms cxviii, 165) "He that feareth the commandment, shall dwell in peace." (Proverbs xiii, 13) Jesus Christ very expressly states: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's." (Matt. xxii, 21) He even recognized that Pilate possessed authority from on High (John xiv, 11) as he acknowledged that the scribes and Pharisees who though unworthy sat in the chair of Moses (Matt. xxiii, 2) were not without a like authority. In Joseph and Mary, Jesus respected the natural authority of parents and was subject to them for the greater part of His life. (Luke ii, 51) He also taught, by the voice of His Apostle, the same important doctrine: "Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God." (Romans xiii, 1; cf. also 1 Peter ii, 13, 18) {Para. 40}

If we stop to reflect for a moment that these ideals and doctrines of Jesus Christ, for example, his teachings on the necessity and value of the spiritual life, on the dignity and sanctity of human life, on the duty of obedience, on the divine basis of human government, on the sacramental character of matrimony and by consequence the sanctity of family life -- if we stop to reflect, let us repeat, that these ideals and doctrines of Christ (which are in fact but a portion of the treasury of truth which He left to mankind) were confided by Him to His Church and to her alone for safekeeping, and that He has promised that His aid will never fail her at any time for she is the infallible teacher of His doctrines in every century and before all nations, there is no one who cannot clearly see what a singularly important role the Catholic Church is able to play, and is even called upon to assume, in providing a remedy for the ills which afflict the world today and in leading mankind toward a universal peace. {Para. 41}

Because the Church is by divine institution the sole depository and interpreter of the ideals and teachings of Christ, she alone possesses in any complete and true sense the power effectively to combat that materialistic philosophy which has already done and, still threatens, such tremendous harm to the home and to the state. The Church alone can introduce into society and maintain therein the prestige of a true, sound spiritualism, the spiritualism of Christianity which both from the point of view of truth and of its practical value is quite superior to any exclusively philosophical theory. The Church is the teacher and an example of world good-will, for she is able to inculcate and develop in mankind the "true spirit of brotherly love" (St. Augustine, De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, i, 30) and by raising the public estimation of the value and dignity of the individual's soul help thereby to lift us even unto God. {Para. 42}

Finally, the Church is able to set both public and private life on the road to righteousness by demanding that everything and all men become obedient to God "Who beholdeth the heart," to His commands, to His laws, to His sanctions. If the teachings of the Church could only penetrate in some such manner as We have described the inner recesses of the consciences of mankind, be they rulers or be they subjects, all eventually would be so apprised of their personal and civic duties and their mutual responsibilities that in a short time "Christ would be all, and in all." (Colossians iii, 11) {Para. 43}

An answer to the confusion of those who seek a geopolitical utopia solely via natural means and institutions is given in the following sections of Ubi Arcano. (Hint, it is not found in the UN, contrary to some prominent voices in the Vatican today).

Since the Church is the safe and sure guide to conscience, for to her safe-keeping alone there has been confided the doctrines and the promise of the assistance of Christ, she is able not only to bring about at the present hour a peace that is truly the peace of Christ, but can, better than any other agency which We know of, contribute greatly to the securing of the same peace for the future, to the making impossible of war in the future. For the Church teaches (she alone has been given by God the mandate and the right to teach with authority) that not only our acts as individuals but also as groups and as nations must conform to the eternal law of God. In fact, it is much more important that the acts of a nation follow God's law, since on the nation rests a much greater responsibility for the consequences of its acts than on the individual. {Para. 44}

When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road. {Para. 45}

There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail. {Para. 46}

It is, therefore, a fact which cannot be questioned that the true peace of Christ can only exist in the Kingdom of Christ -- "the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ." It is no less unquestionable that, in doing all we can to bring about the re-establishment of Christ's kingdom, we will be working most effectively toward a lasting world peace. Pius X in taking as his motto "To restore all things in Christ" was inspired from on High to lay the foundations of that "work of peace" which became the program and principal task of Benedict XV. These two programs of Our Predecessors We desire to unite in one -- the re-establishment of the Kingdom of Christ by peace in Christ -- "the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ." With might and main We shall ever strive to bring about this peace, putting Our trust in God, Who when He called Us to the Chair of Peter, promised that the divine assistance would never fail Us. We ask that all assist and co-operate with Us in this Our mission. Particularly We ask you to aid us, Venerable Brothers, you, His sheep, whom Our leader and Lord, Jesus Christ, has called to feed and to watch over as the most precious portion of His flock, which comprises all mankind. For, it is you whom the "Holy Ghost hath placed to rule the Church of God" (Acts xx, 28), you to whom above all, and principally, God "hath given the ministry of reconciliation, and who for Christ therefore are ambassadors." (II Cor. v, 18, 20) You participate in His teaching power and are "the dispensers of the mysteries of God." (I Cor. iv, 1) You have been called by Him "the salt of the earth," "the light of the world" (Matt. v, 13, 14), fathers and teachers of Christian peoples, "a pattern of the flock from the heart" (I Peter v, 3), and "you shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. v, 19) In fine, you are the links of gold, as it were, by which "the whole body of Christ, which is the Church, is held compacted and fitly joined together" (Ephesians iv, 15, 16), built as it is on the solid rock of Peter. {Para. 49}

The duty of Catholic philosophy is to present to the world arguments from reason that reinforce faith to underscore the truth of the traditional teaching of the Church in regard to the earthly reign of Christ the King leading ultimately to a Kingdom not of this world.
Posted By: louisix Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 12:32 PM
I have just finished reading THE CHURCH CONFRONTS MODERNITY - Catholic Intellectuals & the Progressive Era by Thomas E. Woods Jr., taking the time to highlight in detail this excellent work for future reference in the fight for the heart and soul of the Church being waged by Catholics who know their faith, as opposed to those who are having it subtly stolen from them. Before I was even a third of the way through the book I had gone through a highlighter, which gives an indication of the importance of what Dr. Woods is saying to what is left of the Catholic world, post the ambiguities of Vatican II, in particular, post the efforts of those who would destroy the Church from within.

Anyone familiar with the writings of Woods, in particular, his Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, and The Great Fa�ade - Vatican II And The Regime Of Novelty In The Roman Catholic Church, which he co-authored with Christopher Ferrara, knows that here is an American Catholic who tells it like it is. To be technically correct, in THE CHURCH CONFRONTS MODERNITY, hereafter referred to as CCM, Woods not only tells it like it is, but how it used to be, and, if the Church is going to survive as a viable institution in serving as the world's repository of Perfect Truth, Who is a Someone, not a something for salvations sake, which is the only reason for the Church's existence, how it must be again. Woods is right to persuasively insist that looking back to how Catholic giants in America confronted the modernists in the progressive era in combating the work of the devil is our only hope of escaping the modern catacombs in order to convert the world to the one true faith, per Christ's admonition to His disciples in the last paragraph of the Gospel of Matthew. THE problem, as Woods so clearly points out, is that "how it used to be," in reference to the Church in America, was orders-of-magnitude better than "how it is now" with the prospects for "how it will be" no better, if the lessons from the past are not learned.

The focus for Woods is on the Catholic intellectual critique of modernity during the period immediately before and after the turn of the twentieth century where defenders of the faith were plentiful because they understood what it meant to be Catholic in more than name only. This is to be contrasted with an institutional Catholic Church today that, for all practical purposes, is unrecognizable as Catholic, as a direct result of the dissenters being given carte blanche to destroy it from within with impunity. Woods is talking about a Progressive Era where Catholics knew their faith well enough to use what good they could find in Progressivism for the greater Glory of God, in particular, the Church that He founded upon the Rock that is Peter. Catholics at the beginning of the twentieth century understood that discipline is one of the highest, if not the highest forms of love, which is something parents must come immediately to grips with; else, they cease to be responsible parents. Similarly, the Church under Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Saint Pius X, understood this seminal Catholic Truth, which is a Someone, not a something. This was directly reflected in orthodox catechesis which helped formed the consciences of a generation of Catholic leaders like Thomas Shields, William Kirby, and Edward Pace, who fought the good fight against the likes of James Dewey, and other representatives of Pragmatism as it played out in ethics, education, and nationalism. These were not the unencumbered autonomous consciences of Kant but rather those of an economic and political philosophy rooted in the natural law as articulated by Catholic giants like Thomas Aquinas, consciences which were informed in accord with the infallible teaching Magisterium of Holy Mother Church on faith and morals, consciences which understood that faith and reason are married, not divorced, with faith enabling a reason, which, in turn, reinforced faith.

Woods in The Church Confronts Modernity describes how decidedly nonpluralistic Catholicism responded to the modernist assault on faith and reason, and, moreover, must continue to respond, to an increasingly hostile pluralistic intellectual environment. Catholicism insisted on the uniqueness of the Church and the need for making value judgments based on what it considered a sound philosophy of humanity.

What is especially striking about the Catholic Church during this (progressive) period, especially at a time when reigning philosophical presuppositions tended to be so antagonistic to its own, is its self-confidence. Its apologetics truly believed that it was "the greatest, the grandest, and the most beautiful institution in the world." The Catholic faith was "the one immutable thing in a universe of ceaseless mutations." Catholic writers spoke with great affection of Pope Pius X, who reigned from 1903 to 1914 (and who became the first pope to be canonized since the sixteenth century). Time and again Catholic periodicals pointed with pride to Pius's vigorous and uncompromising stance against modern political and intellectual trends, and indeed many authors considered the Church's willingness to stand alone against modernity as an important testimony to its divine foundation. {[CCM] pg 6}

The year following his election as pope in 1878, Leo XIII issued one of the most important encyclicals of his twenty-five-year pontificate: Aeterni Patris, or On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy. With this document the pope launched what became known as the neo-Scholastic movement, the systematic promotion of the thought of the medieval schoolmen and in particular that of their most illustrious representative, Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Common Doctor of the Church. The tradition of Scholasticism, having fallen largely into desuetude, was to be revived - not as a museum piece or as a reactionary throwback of a romantic medievalism, but as a living philosophy that would both lend an indispensable support to the Catholic faith and provide an alternative to those systems of modern philosophy that denied man's ability to use his reason to attain metaphysical truth. {[CCM] pg 23}

Some examples of what Woods is referring to are given in Lamentabili Sane, The Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the modernists, Encyclical of Pope Pius X, July 3, 1907, and the famous Pascendi Dominici Gregis, On the Doctrine of the Modernists, Encyclical of Pope Pius X, September 8, 1907.

We initially turn to Lamentabili Sane in looking at some of the more blatant modernist errors related to faith and reason that are condemned by the Church.

5. Since the deposit of Faith contains only revealed truths, the Church has no right to pass judgment on the assertions of the human sciences. (condemned)

7. In proscribing errors, the Church cannot demand any internal assent from the faithful by which the judgments she issues are to be embraced. (condemned)

11. Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error. (condemned)

12. If he wishes to apply himself usefully to Biblical studies, the exegete must first put aside all preconceived opinions about the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture and interpret it the same as any other merely human document. (condemned)

19. Heterodox exegetes have expressed the true sense of the Scriptures more faithfully than Catholic exegetes. (condemned)

22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort. (condemned)

23. Opposition may, and actually does, exist between the facts narrated in Sacred Scripture and the Church's dogmas which rest on them. Thus the critic may reject as false facts the Church holds as most certain. (condemned)

24. The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves. (condemned)

25. The assent of faith ultimately rests on a mass of probabilities. (condemned)

56. The Roman Church became the head of all the churches, not through the ordinance of Divine Providence, but merely through political conditions. (condemned)

57. The Church has shown that she is hostile to the progress of the natural and theological sciences. (condemned)

58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him. (condemned)

59. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places. (condemned)

63. The Church shows that she is incapable of effectively maintaining evangelical ethics since she obstinately clings to immutable doctrines which cannot be reconciled with modern progress. (condemned)

64. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted. (condemned)

65. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism. (condemned)

Pascendi Dominici Gregis gives a much more detailed response to the condemned modernist errors.

One of the primary obligations assigned by Christ to the office divinely committed to us of feeding the Lord's flock is that of guarding with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and the gainsaying of knowledge falsely so called. There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body, for owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking "men speaking perverse things," "vain talkers and seducers," "erring and driving into error." It must, however, be confessed that these latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, as far as in them lies, utterly to subvert the very Kingdom of Christ. Wherefore We may no longer keep silence, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be set down to lack of diligence in the discharge of Our office. {Para. 1}

It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: "These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts." On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason"; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth." Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: "Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation." {Para. 28}

If we pass on from the moral to the intellectual causes of Modernism, the first and the chief which presents itself is ignorance. Yes, these very Modernists who seek to be esteemed as Doctors of the Church, who speak so loftily of modern philosophy and show such contempt for scholasticism, have embraced the one with all its false glamour, precisely because their ignorance of the other has left them without the means of being able to recognize confusion of thought and to refute sophistry. Their whole system, containing as it does errors so many and so great, has been born of the union between faith and false philosophy. {Para. 41}

The Modernists pass judgment on the holy Fathers of the Church even as they do upon tradition. With consummate temerity they assure the public that the Fathers, while personally most worthy of all veneration, were entirely ignorant of history and criticism, for which they are only excusable on account of the time in which they lived. Finally, the Modernists try in every way to diminish and weaken the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium itself by sacrilegiously falsifying its origin, character, and rights, and by freely repeating the calumnies of its adversaries. To the entire band of Modernists may be applied those words which Our predecessor sorrowfully wrote: "To bring contempt and odium on the mystic Spouse of Christ, who is the true light, the children of darkness have been wont to cast in her face before the world a stupid calumny, and perverting the meaning and force of things and words, to depict her as the friend of darkness and ignorance, and the enemy of light, science, and progress.'' This being so, Venerable Brethren, there is little reason to wonder that the Modernists vent all their bitterness and hatred on Catholics who zealously fight the battles of the Church. There is no species of insult which they do not heap upon them, but their usual course is to charge them with ignorance or obstinacy. When an adversary rises up against them with an erudition and force that renders them redoubtable, they seek to make a conspiracy of silence around him to nullify the effects of his attack. This policy towards Catholics is the more invidious in that they belaud with admiration which knows no bounds the writers who range themselves on their side, hailing their works, exuding novelty in every page, with a chorus of applause. For them the scholarship of a writer is in direct proportion to the recklessness of his attacks on antiquity, and of his efforts to undermine tradition and the ecclesiastical magisterium. When one of their number falls under the condemnations of the Church the rest of them, to the disgust of good Catholics, gather round him, loudly and publicly applaud him, and hold him up in veneration as almost a martyr for truth. The young, excited and confused by all this clamor of praise and abuse, some of them afraid of being branded as ignorant, others ambitious to rank among the learned, and both classes goaded internally by curiosity and pride, not infrequently surrender and give themselves up to Modernism. {Para. 42}

In successive chapters entitled 1 - The Stage is Set, 2 - The Challenge of Pragmatism, 3- Sociology and the Study of Man, 4- Assimilation and Resistance: Catholics and Progressive Education, 5-Economics and the "Social Question", 6-Against Syncretism, and an Epilogue: Into the Future, Woods presents a blueprint for how Catholicism should be responding to its critics today as a direct function of how it did so in the past on the seminal issues of right and wrong that are not characterized by liberal shades of gray, read confusion. It is made clear that this response is not a function of an evolving Magisterium anymore than our country has an evolving Constitution. What are the worth of dogma and laws rooted in the Law of God if penumbras are found in both the religious and secular arenas in order to make society comfortable with its vices? Thus, what Woods shows is that the educated Catholic response of the past must be the response today, and in the future, to the disciples of the "father-of-lies" given the Church's immutable Teaching Magisterium.

Woods's time capsule into the Church of yesterday is an absolute requirement for the survival of the Church in America, which is something that is not guaranteed by the promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, i.e., the survival of the Church in any particular country is not a certainty. Recall that Mary and John witnessed at Ephesus, which is no longer Catholic. Please note that I made reference to an "educated Catholic response." Today, sadly, given that the dissidents have been allowed to do their work well, it is incumbent for Catholics to educate themselves in the faith by rediscovering what has been traditionally believed by Church, as opposed to the lies masquerading as Catholicism today. This requires effort, but given that eternity is at stake, nothing less will suffice. Woods's book is a welcomed part of that education.

We will briefly look at some of the CCM chapters for examples of unashamed Catholics witnessing to their faith, Catholics who clearly understood the charge by Christ at the end of Matthew's Gospel, to convert the world to the one true faith for eternity's sake. We open CCM to Chapter 1.

Chapter 1 The Stage is Set - During the Progressive Era, however, the Church in America found itself in the midst of an intellectual milieu in which a variety of disparate (though perhaps distantly related) trends in thought were tending to the conclusion that attachment to dogmatic and moral absolutes was inimical to the democratic ethos. � The Social Gospel movement in American Protestantism, while said to be an effort to bring Christian values to bear upon the social problems facing the United States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, was at some level also a rejection of the idea of Christianity as a system whose ultimate basis lay in dogma, creed, and ritual. � Those Enlightenment thinkers who were not altogether hostile to Christianity emphasized the urgency of retreating from aspects of the religion that were purely ritualistic or devotional and of stressing instead the rational and didactic. Immanuel Kant was the standard-bearer of this group. And beyond all this there was, very simply, the unmistakable Progressive instinct for efficiency, centralization, and simple practicality, none of which was thought to be aided by attachment to the outworn dogmas and moral teachings of an authoritarian institution out of step with modernity.

What is especially striking about the Catholic Church during this period, especially at a time when reigning philosophical presuppositions tended to be so antagonistic to its own, is its self-confidence. Its apologists truly believed that it was "the greatest, the grandest, and the most beautiful institution in the world." The Catholic faith was "the one immutable thing in a universe of ceaseless mutations." Catholic writers spoke with great affection of Pope Pius X, who reigned from 1903 to 1914 (and who became the first pope to be canonized since the sixteenth century). Time and again Catholic periodicals pointed with pride to Pius's vigorous and uncompromising stance against modern political and intellectual trends, and indeed many authors considered the Church's willingness to stand alone against modernity as an important testimony to its divine foundation.

Pius is so often remembered simply as the anti-Modernist pope that his positive program - "to restore all things in Christ" - is frequently overlooked. The Jesuit writer John J. Wynne, for example, founded the weekly periodical America in response to the pope's call. America would cover news in the Church and in the world at large for a Catholic audience, always with the good of the Church and country in mind. {[CCM] pp 5-6}

Times have certainly changed. Here was an America magazine that was Catholic. Today's version, with its forums for notorious dissenters like Notre Dame's Richard McBrien, is not. Such has been the devolution of the faith from the Progressive Era to post Vatican II.

We turn to CCM Chapter 2.

Chapter 2 The Challenge of Pragmatism - The whole spirit of Progressive education, with its emphasis on training children in democratic ways of thinking, ran counter to the inculcation in children of knowledge, such as religious dogma, that could not be demonstrated by means of the scientific method.

Indeed, Progressives were united in the conviction that if there was one thing that modern social, economic conditions had to reject, it was dogma of any kind. � Social Gospel theologians, for their part, frankly admitted that they were revolutionizing Christianity or - what was the same thing - at the very least tearing away the dogmatic Roman encrustations that over the centuries had become attached to the primitive Christian faith. What America needed, they insisted, was a religion adapted to modern needs. Thus Washington Gladden could write that religion in the modern era must be less concerned about "getting men to heaven than about fitting them for their proper work on the earth� For any other kind of religion than this I do not think that the world has any longer very much use."

Dewey and the Pragmatists were heir to a distinct if minority tradition within Western philosophy that spurned what it considered to be the fruitless search for pure metaphysical truth in favor of a more practical, action-oriented approach to philosophical thought. � Thus Pragmatists scorned the very idea of eternal or absolute truth and made no pretensions to possessing epistemological certitude. In place of these Dewey offered a more modest "warranted assertability," by which a statement could be held to be true were it efficacious. � Thus (William) James could say that Pragmatism "has no dogmas, and no doctrines save its method."

It hardly needs pointing out that Pragmatism represented a direct challenge to the Catholic world view. � Christians had traditionally used as evidence of the existence of God (as in the argument from design) and circumscribing the boundaries of the intellect - a divine seed implanted in man, said the Scholastics - in its search for truth. Finally, the "pluralistic universe" to which James's and Dewey's emphasis on the priority of experience led seemed to throw moral philosophy into chaos and to contribute to the same kind of moral and intellectual confusion and disorder that had resulted decades before upon the introduction of evolutionary thought into philosophy. � Claims of absolute truth and finality, they claimed, neglected the experiential aspect of truth, whereby what is accepted as true evolves with time and with new experiences. {[CCM] pp 26-28}

The Catholic response to pragmatism was swift and sure, pulling no punches as the responders did not suffer from a contemporary malady that causes Catholics to believe that they have to be "nice to the devil."

This "tissue of semi-hysterical absurdities," as Father Tierney called Pragmatism, far from originating overnight, was the culmination of a progression of religious and philosophical errors."

In a comprehensive series of articles that appeared in Catholic World, the monthly journal of the Paulist Fathers, Father Edmund Shanahan proposed to trace modern Pragmatism all the way back to the Protestant Reformation. Appropriately titled "Completing the Reformation," the series began with a discussion of the philosophical ramifications of the philosophy of Martin Luther. From there Shanahan traced his argument to its startling conclusion: "The attempt now being made to deprive human knowledge of all rational foundation and character is but the continuation and completion of the movement set on foot by the Reformers to derationalize Christian faith."

The reformers, Shanahan explained, misinterpreted the Church's position as being simply one of cold logic, whereby faith was reduced to an assent of the intellect to a series of formalistic syllogisms marching triumphantly to their conclusions. In fact, the Church was arguing simply that faith was reasonable, in that the intellect perceived that the authority proposing matter for belief was itself credible and trustworthy. {[CCM} pg 32}

Clearly, these were not the same Paulists who now offer "renewal" programs in the Church that are nothing more than forums for dissenters like Call to Action, which is basically a "call to apostasy."

A way of seeing this relationship that Shanahan is talking about, as referenced in CCM, between philosophy and theology or reason and faith, is in Aquinas, which casts a tremendous light on this relationship, i.e., Aquinas's notion of the preambles of faith.

At the beginning of the Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas distinguishes between two kinds of truth about God. First, there exist truths about God that can be known to be such on the basis of natural reason alone. What are these? That God exists is one since there are sound and cogent proofs for the existence of God. Other truths include that we can know some of the divine attributes. We can know that God is intelligent, that there cannot be more than one God, that God is powerful, and that He is the first cause. How does Aquinas know these things? Because they have been known by reason alone. Aristotle came to the knowledge of all of these things on the basis of arguments which Aquinas accepts as sound. It is a descriptive historical remark, a truism, for Aquinas, and not just some proposal as a possibility on his part, that knowledge of God can be known through reason.

There is a twofold mode of truth in what we profess about God. Some truths about God exceed all the ability of the human reason. Such is the truth that God is triune. But there are some truths which the natural reason also is able to reach. Such are that God exists, that He is one, and the like. In fact, such truths about God have been proved demonstratively by the philosophers, guided by the light of the natural reason. (Summa Contra Gentiles, Book I, Ch. 3, Para. 2) {pg 63}

There exist other truths about God which can only be known by accepting revelation, e.g., there are three persons in God, the forgiveness of sins, and Jesus is both human and divine. We assent to these truths via the grace of faith even though we do not understand them. What Aquinas calls natural truths about God, which are knowable by reason, are also parts of revelation. Any believer holds, as an article of faith, that God exists, that He is One, Omniscient, and is the First Cause.

That there are certain truths about God that totally surpass man's ability appears with the greatest evidence. Since, indeed, the principle of all knowledge that the reason perceives about some thing is the understanding of the very substance of that being (for according to Aristotle "what a thing is" is the principle of demonstration), it is necessary that the way in which we understand the substance of a thing determines the way in which we know what belongs to it. Hence, if the human intellect comprehends the substance of some thing, for example, that of a stone or of a triangle, no intelligible characteristic belonging to that thing surpasses the grasp of the human reason. But this does not happen to us in the case of God. For the human intellect is not able to reach a comprehension of the divine substance through its natural power. For, according to its manner of knowing in the present life, the intellect depends on the sense for the origin of knowledge; and so those things that do not fall under the senses cannot be grasped by the human intellect except in so far as the knowledge of them is gathered from sensible things. Now, sensible things cannot lead the human intellect to the point of seeing in them the nature of the divine substance; for sensible things are effects that fall short of the power of their cause. Yet, beginning with sensible things, our intellect is led to the point of knowing about God that He exists, and other such characteristics that must be attributed to the First Principle. There are, consequently, some intelligible truths about God that are open to human reason; but there are others that absolutely surpass its power. (Summa Contra Gentiles, Book I, Ch. 3, Para. 3) {pp 63-64}

What Aquinas notices is this. Some of the things that have been proposed for our acceptance on the basis of faith, some of the things that have been revealed by God, are identical with things that philosophers have come to know about God. So he takes this little subset of truths out of revelation, and gives us the preambles of faith, which means that they were known prior to faith. Thus, we can see what the range of natural reason is even in our sinful condition. In talking about the pagan Romans, Saint Paul says that they are without excuse for doing these things because they can, through reason alone, come to the knowledge of God, i.e., through the things that are made, they can come to knowledge of the invisible things of God.

Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it to them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made: his eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. (Romans, 1:19:20)

Accordingly, as Woods recognizes in CCM, the Church has taken this verse as a charter for claims that it is possible for human beings, independent of divine revelation, to come to some knowledge of God. This, in turn, provides Aquinas with a powerful argument for the reasonableness of the Faith. For if some of the things that have been revealed, the preambles of faith, can be known to be true, it is reasonable to accept the mysteries that we cannot understand in this life as true. If we accept and live this argument, then our ultimate reward will be the Beatific Vision where faith and hope will pass away, no longer being necessary, leaving only charity. Aquinas, in the Summa Contra Gentiles, lays the foundation for reason reinforcing faith with an important explanation regarding reason's limitations in reference to the Majesty of God Almighty while showing the marriage, not divorce, of reason and faith.

In Chapter 4 of CCM we see the caution of making man the ultimate arbiter of life and death in complete ignorance that man's laws are always subsidiary to God's. Recently, the tragic consequence of this lie was the murder of a disabled Catholic woman by the Florida Court system with the de facto approval of the executive and legislative branches of both the state and federal government, which took no action to save her. Today, oaths sworn to protect the citizenry from all enemies foreign and domestic are meaningless as the primary responsibility of the state, to further the common good, is summarily trashed.

For some, perhaps, many of its exponents, Progressive education was the logical outcome of a belief in the immanence of authority; that is, that the ultimate source of authority, indeed of the very moral law, rested not in some transcendent Being but in man himself. William H. Kilpatrick was particularly emphatic on this point. "The right of parents or other grown-ups to determine what children shall think must be essentially revised," he wrote.

In the field of morality, while Dewey did not advocate the hasty overthrow of inherited beliefs, he insisted that a moral system could no more be considered absolute and unchanging than could a scientific paradigm that was forced to give way in light of new developments and discoveries. {[CCM] pg 89}

The popes themselves had drawn the battle lines clearly during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, thundering against the evacuation of religious content from education and sternly rebuking those parents foolish enough to subject their children to the perils of agnosticism and indifferentism that modern public schools were thought inevitably to encourage. Pope Pius IX condemned that statement "Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth, unconnected with the Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life." "Full of danger," declared Pope Leo XIII, "is that educational system in which there is either a false religion, or, as is usual in the schools termed 'mixed,' no religion at all." Furthermore, the pontiff went on, it is not enough that certain hours should be set aside for religious instruction; the "whole system should be redolent of Christian piety."

Catholic prelates and intellectuals in the United States issued the same warnings. An impressive number of Catholic writers saw something diabolical in the ultimate aims of the new education. It was, as they saw it, part of an ongoing assault on Catholicism whose ultimate origin dated back at least several centuries. "The enemies of religion," explained Paul Blakely, "understand the importance of the receptive, impressionable years of childhood far better than many a Catholic parent."

Can the Catholic parent who freely subjects his child to schools ruled by this base spirit, escape before the judgment seat of God, the condemnation of those who "scandalize these little ones that believe in me"? {[CCM pp 92-93}

The principals of education that Catholics defended were really quite simple. Edward Pace spelled out six basic ones in the Catholic Encyclopedia. First, intellectual education and moral and religious education must not be separated. The second built on the first: religion should not be a mere adjunct to education in other subjects but should be the focal point of the entire curriculum. Third, no real moral instruction was possible if divorced from religious education. Fourth, the welfare of the state demanded an education that united intellectual, moral, and religious elements, for it was only by steeping the child in such principles that he could be habituated "to decide, to act, to oppose a movement or to further it, not with a view to personal gain nor simply in deference to public opinion, but in accordance with the standards of right that are fixed by the law of God." The Catholic philosophy of education was thus "the most effectual preparation for citizenship." Fifth, advances in educational methods, far from rendering moral and religious training less necessary, accentuate it all the more; by the same token, the Church "welcomes whatever the sciences may contribute toward rendering the work of the school more efficient." And finally, Catholic parents have the grave duty to ensure that their children receive a good Catholic education, in order that both the intellectual and the moral dimensions of the child be properly cultivated. As Catholic University of America rector Father Thomas J. Shanahan put it, the Catholic teacher saw in the child "not only mental capacities that are to be unfolded, but a life that is to be shaped and a soul that is to be saved." The difference between the two approaches lay chiefly in the fact that the Catholic school taught a "clear and solid philosophy of life" - the very kind of all-encompassing outlook on the world, the very essence of the closed and abstract systematization that Dewey's philosophy, and Pragmatism in general, explicitly rejected. Another writer compared the Catholic and non-Catholic systems of education to two vessels, the latter of which was "without compass or rudder." This, then, was where Catholic educators took their stand. {[CCM] pg 95}

Woods finally comments on the state of affairs today in his Epilogue.

The triumphalist Church of the Progressive Era, eager to convert America to Catholicism, appears to be in full-fledged retreat, with many bishops apparently even embarrassed by the zeal of their preconciliar predecessors. Catholics would always have to be on guard against the kind of religious indifferentism that a pluralistic religious system inevitably encouraged. They were, moreover, one of the only groups in the United States who offered a serious, systematic response to the intellectual innovations of the Progressive Era. While their secular counterparts looked confidently to the future, Catholic intellectuals, feeling uneasy about what they saw ahead, urged their countrymen to be mindful of the wisdom of the past. "Why our scholars should shriek 'On, on!' when 'Back, back!' would be so plainly the more sensible cry," one Catholic proposed, "the great fault of the day - immoderate pride of progress - answers." No doubt they received the grudging admiration of some of their anti-Catholic countrymen for the apparent obstinacy of the positions they adopted. There was still a price to pay for resisting the spirit of the age, and insisting in the midst of an agnostic intellectual milieu that man at his best could come to know a truth outside himself, and by following that truth could both sanctify his soul and regenerate the world around him. But it was this strategy that sustained American Catholicism in a hostile environment, and that kept it mindful of its unique mission, in the words of Pius X's personal moot, "to restore all things in Christ." {[CCM] pp 175-176}

In the Bread of Life discourse in Chapter 6 of the Gospel of John, after Jesus's "hard teaching," many of His disciples left Him. He then asked the following question to the twelve.

Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed, and have known that Thou art Christ, the Son of God. (John 6: 68-70)

To whom shall the world go if not to Jesus Christ through the Church that He founded upon the Rock that is Peter?

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in Heaven. (Matthew 16:18-19)

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)

The basic message of CCM is that it should be the mission of Catholic philosophy to get the world to see that eternal truth through the light of right reason as a preamble to the faith for eternity's sake. This is the answer to the combined assault on faith and reason. But it is an answer that can only be given in light of the pure unadulterated presentation of the true faith, not a bastardization of it by the dissidents who would destroy the Church from within. For too long this group has gotten away with ecclesial murder with impunity via their treating the teachings of Holy Mother Church on faith and morals, which are infallible due to the protection of the Holy Ghost, as dead-on-arrival before the ink is dry - their modus operandi being interminable dialogue ad nauseam. How can an accurate rendition of Catholic philosophy ala Augustine, Aquinas, and Pascal be given when the core faith that enables it is unrecognizable as Catholic? It is no accident that those not influenced by modernist errors were able with such clarity and confidence to articulate a consistent Catholic philosophy and ethics. Augustine and Aquinas did not suffer the dissent permeating the Church today in their respective interpretations of Plato and Aristotle. It was not a watered-down Catholicism that enabled Pascal to shoot the "Christian arrows" into the hearts of the "pagan philosophers." And it most certainly is not going to be a "lukewarm faith" of the "Church of Laodicea" that will allow for joining the battle for our immortal souls by Catholic philosophers in more than name only, such as those described by Woods.

This brings me to the following point. It is becoming increasingly evident that the main reason that Catholics no longer know their faith is that the prime catechetical tool for teaching it to them, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, has been watered down such that many of the immutable truths of the faith are no longer a part of that sacred liturgy. Woods concurs in his Epilogue. Lex credendi, lex orandi, is more than just a pithy phrase. It is a foundational axiom for survival of the faith.

To the confusion and restlessness that seemed to be the product of relativism, the Church offered a philosophical defense of absolute values. To a world undergoing radical and seemingly ceaseless change, the Church responded with the piety and reverence of the traditional Latin Mass, which in its dignity and stately reserve, and in its reservation of sacred tasks to the priest alone, served to remind man that some things were not to be touched by him. Above all, the Church insisted on the importance, uniqueness, and purpose that lay behind human life, confident that her message could cover the spiritual nakedness that she believed modernity had inflicted upon the masses. {[CCM pg 172}

In the aforementioned CCM chapters that have not been formerly addressed here Woods continues to give the reader a glimpse of a time where Catholics knew their faith, and were not afraid to publicly defend it. He goes into the problems with the ambiguities of Vatican II that have given us a Church rife with confusion. He talks of the famous seminal social encyclical of Leo XIII Rerum Novarum, which Woods refers to as "a thoroughly Thomistic document," with particular emphasis that here was a pope who had no intention of compromising or altering traditional Catholic teaching as evidenced by his encyclicals Immortale Dei and Libertas. Woods raises huge red flags as to the dangers of a "creedless" faith where Christianity is recast "as a primarily ethical system concerned exclusively with men's relation to each other. And indeed a common feature of Social Gospel theology was a disdain for creeds and theological formulas."

Woods in CCM wrote about a time when Catholics understood that the devil exists, constantly prowling the world for the ruin of souls exposing the lie of the Social Gospel's "earthly utopia." The Catholics at the turn of the twentieth century taught by popes named Leo and Pius knew that the supernatural, a "Kingdom not of this world", is the priority. This should be the primary message of Catholic philosophy concerned with proclaiming the Truth, Who is a Someone, not a something. The Catholics of the Progressive Era understood this. They did not suffer from having their faith subtly stolen from them.
Posted By: louisix Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 01:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by antonius:
I fail to see how sodomy, one of the
[b]Sins that Cry to Heaven for Vengeance

is "of minor consequence on our children's
lives...."

antonius
(who HAS met DocBrian) [/b]
Well said,Antonius!
Posted By: Carson Daniel Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 01:44 PM
stLouisx,

I love it! I love it! I love it! Damn the torpedoes! biggrin

Dan L
Posted By: byzanTN Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 01:57 PM
I actually have seen a gay pride parade in Knoxville. I don't know why they are called "gay," since they seemed like pretty unhappy folks to me. Did you also know that all of them wear khaki shorts? biggrin
Posted By: Our Lady's slave Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 02:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by byzanTN:
I actually have seen a gay pride parade in Knoxville. I don't know why they are called "gay," since they seemed like pretty unhappy folks to me. Did you also know that all of them wear khaki shorts? biggrin
And why the African type drumming not to mention the whistle blowing ? -- AAAAAAAAARGH my poor ears.

Have to say I've not really noticed the khaki shorts over here , but then we don't really have the weather for it :p
Posted By: Carson Daniel Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 02:06 PM
Khaki shorts! Would that they all wore them or something more than leather thongs. Yeh, free speech! Holy expressions of promiscuity, yeh, right! I come here to enjoy and participate in holy discussions about living a holy life. For the most part that is what we do. I understand that "Town Hall" holds a great deal of leeway. Yet, a defense of public ludeness is not what I expect to find. Yet some on this thread seem intent on doing just that. 'taint funny, McGee!

Dan L
Posted By: byzanTN Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 02:10 PM
Leather thongs would get you quickly arrested in Knoxville. The local judiciary is not very tolerant on issues of public indecency. Free speech is respected, but it has limits.
Posted By: Gaudior Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 03:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Dan Lauffer:
Khaki shorts! Would that they all wore them or something more than leather thongs. Yeh, free speech! Holy expressions of promiscuity, yeh, right! I come here to enjoy and participate in holy discussions about living a holy life. For the most part that is what we do. I understand that "Town Hall" holds a great deal of leeway. Yet, a defense of public ludeness is not what I expect to find. Yet some on this thread seem intent on doing just that. 'taint funny, McGee!

Dan L
Please pardon me, Dan...but I think what I was reading in djs's posts was not in any way meant to condone homosexuality, which is as stated, and abomination. Rather, what was being pointed out is that regardless of our personal beliefs, we live in America, and there is a constitutional right for peaceable freedom of assembly. Now, you and I may certainly state that many of these "pride" parades are not, in fact, peaceable. We may also feel that parades are not part of "peaceable assembly". However, until such a time as the Constitution changes, all we can really do is to write letters to those responsible for granting parade permits, with documentation of the ills and lack of peaceableness that could legitimately result in the denial of a parade permit to them next year. Of course, this means attending the parade ourselves, with camera in hand...and, I, for one, am not willing to do any such thing, for the sole reason that I am disgusted beyond belief by them.

But, as long as it is argued that parades are a form of peaceable Freedom of Assembly, one cannot prevent them without proving that they are not peaceable, with evidence. All I understood from djs's statements (and those of incognitus) is that this is, in fact, a RIGHT. Freedom of Speech is vital, and a right which no Church ought to attempt to chisel away, because the way society is trending, we will need it, in order to prevent the government telling us we must only teach parts of our religion that the government agrees with.

Sadly, we ARE coming to that. When we do, it will be helpful to be able to have a parade of Christians for The Word of Christ, Not The Word of Governments.

Gaudior, disgusted by modern "morals"
Posted By: iconophile Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 03:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Administrator:
The mistreatment of returning Vietnam veterans is not a myth. Sadly, the press was uniformly against the Vietnam War and pretty much ignored the mistreatment of the returning veterans. It didn�t happen everywhere, but there were plenty of examples of acts of spitting and throwing things at returning military. It reached its peak at roughly the same time the anti-war protests reached their peak. There was a small outburst of support for the troops when they were all brought home, but for the most part the veterans were then ignored. It is true that some anti-war protesters organized various activities to welcome them home. This was, however, the exception rather than the rule.

Anyone seeking first hand testimony of the mistreatment of Vietnam veterans needs only to spend a few hours in a waiting room of any VA hospital to find it.
Documentation, please? Most of the accusations were anecdotal but they were made many years after the alleged events. Can you offer contemporary accounts? Even if the media was opposed to the war, as it eventually was, one would expect contemporary accounts in, say, the VFW magazine, or the American Legion, or any of the pro-war press [US News and World Report never wavered in its support of the war].
As for the main topic, all I can say is give me a break. and St Louis has too much time on his hands. smile
-Daniel
Posted By: Carson Daniel Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 05:15 PM
If one supports gay pride parades one supports what happens in gay rights parades. What goes on in gay rights parades are self conscious acts of ludeness. I do not find support for that in the Consitution or public ludeness, acts of feigned sexual intercourse, and the like would have been specifically included in the Constitution. Why should anyone think that public ludeness is protected by the right to assemble. Assemble with clothes on. Do the march. But wear clothes and do pretend to be performing sex acts while marching. Moreover, how is the lude march protected by free speach?

Dan L
Posted By: djs Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 05:22 PM
Antonius (and St. LouisIX)

Quote
I fail to see how sodomy, one of the
Sins that Cry to Heaven for Vengeance
is "of minor consequence on our children's
lives...."
And you also fail to quote accurately. My statement was not an absolute claim, but a comparative one.
Posted By: djs Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 05:30 PM
Quote
If one supports gay pride parades one supports what happens in gay rights parades.
That notion is already falsified in the writing of me and others on this thread. What makes you cling to clearly false ideas?

Quote
What goes on in gay rights parades are self conscious acts of ludeness.
As mentioned first by incognitus and later by me, there are remedies in law for disorderly conduct. They need to be applied. A permit for a parade does not entail license for lewdness, violence, public drunkeness, etc.
Posted By: Administrator Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 05:30 PM
Daniel,

Are you not willing to visit a VA waiting room to speak with Vietnam veterans? They can tell you their story in a far more compelling way than I can.

A quick Google search retuned a whole lot of information. One of the first was a book edited by Bob Greene titled: �Homecoming: When the Soldiers Returned from Vietnam� [amazon.com] on Amazon.com�s website.

Here are the two Editorial Reviews:

From Publishers Weekly
Chicago Tribune staffer Greene composed several of his syndicated columns around responses he received from Vietnam vets after he asked whether any of them had been spat upon. Unfortunately, the enormous impact of the columns is lost in their expansion to book form. Some servicemen were spat upon on their return, but more suffered verbal abuse or icy indifference. Many contributors point out that they did what their country asked them to do, and they were stunned by the cruelty, even savagery, of some of the anti-war protesters, many of whom proclaimed belief in love and peace. Some are still not reconciled to the treatment they received, while others welcome the change in the attitude toward them as a chance "to wipe a little spit off our hearts." Copyright 1988 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal
"Were you ever spat upon when you returned home to the United States?" asked syndicated columnist Greene of the Vietnam veterans among his readership. He received over 1000 letters in reply, many recounting specific details of just such a painfully remembered incident. Evidently this recollection of "hippies" (as they are often called in the letters) spitting on combat veterans has become one of the war's most unpleasant, enduring images. Conversely, other letters describe acts of generosity toward servicemen, from the typical free beers at the bar to a free show. But the over 200 letters excerpted here do more than confirm popular notions. They bring back the incidents of 20 years ago vividly, but not always with bitterness. And they reveal healing solidarity among veterans in response to what for many was not a happy homecoming. Recommended. Richard W. Grefrath, Univ. of Nevada Lib., Reno. Copyright 1989 Reed Business Information, Inc.

I�d be happy to post more links if you need them, but I highly recommend visiting a VA hospital and speaking first hand with the veterans themselves. I have no doubt that there are accounts in VFW magazine, or the American Legion magazine, or other veterans� publications. I do doubt that all the editions from the 1970s and 1980s when the wounds were fresh are all online and searchable.

As I noted in my previous post, mistreatment of returning Vietnam veterans didn�t happen everywhere, but there were plenty of examples of acts of spitting and throwing things at returning military.

Admin biggrin
Posted By: Carson Daniel Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 05:36 PM
And Bob Greene is certainly not a conservative dupe. Sadly, he is no longer a commentator but I followed his career as he blossomed into one of the best.

Dan L
Posted By: incognitus Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 05:38 PM
I've no immediate access to a VA hospital, but I look forward with considerable interest to reading the two books the Administrator has recommended.

I've never claimed to be a Thomist, so I've not attempted to wade through all the Thomist quotes and analyses offered.

As to parading in public in large numbers in the nude, I thought that was the Dukhobors. Have I been misinformed?

Incognitus
Posted By: djs Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 05:39 PM
Has anyone read the Bob Greene book? If so, what is the spit-count? From the reviews there were some thousand respondents, two hundred of which made the book. "Some servicemen were spat upon on their return, but more suffered verbal abuse or icy indifference..." Evidently spitting was extremely atypical, but it has been cultivated as an "enduring image".
Posted By: Administrator Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 06:14 PM
I haven�t read the book, but from the write-up it seems that he asked the question of Vietnam veterans about whether they had been spit upon because it was being dismissed as a myth. If Greene approached the issue with fairness and balance one could expect that the 200 selections he made from the thousands of letters were a reasonable and responsible reflection of the total. I have no reason to doubt Greene at this point. Nor do I have reason to conclude that the letters he received exhausted the supply of veterans who were mistreated.

My point in posting it was to respond to Daniel�s claim that such mistreatment �never happened�. It did happen. It was not normative (typical) but neither was it �extremely atypical� (very rare).
Posted By: DocBrian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 06:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by byzanTN:
I actually have seen a gay pride parade in Knoxville. I don't know why they are called "gay," since they seemed like pretty unhappy folks to me. Did you also know that all of them wear khaki shorts? biggrin
I went to a pro-abortion march in Washington DC last year to be among the prayerful counterprotestors. many of the pro-abortion marchers were lesbians and gays. And they were lewd. Vicious. They verbally attacked the young girls that were with us. They tried to block and destroy our signs. Ploice had to be stationed every ten feet to protect us from them. We were spat at. Women took off their clothes in front of us, men kissed each other and similated gay sex. And this was not even a "gay pride" parade!

Here is an account I wrote:

Quote
We took a busload of about 35 from our area, and got there Friday night. We stayed at the hotel in Arlington with Randall Terry's Operation Witness group.

Saturday morning, we peacefully protested at the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in DC, then attended talks by Randal Terry that afternoon at the hotel.

At 5:00pm, Fr. John Nesbella (from my diocese, mentioned here, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36109), who organized our bus, said mass in our hotel ballroom (beautiful, reverent mass!!!), with about 75 attending. Then we set up an Adoration Chapel in a hotel room we paid for just for this purpose. We had exposition from 7:00pm til midnite, with approx 60 attending throughout those hours. There were generally 6 to 9 individuals in our hotel room Chapel at any given time, in half hour shifts, praying for the success of Sunday's Operation Witness. It was like a Eucharistic retreat. Father thought of everything...mass kit, monstrance, prayer books for adoration, bullhorn, crucifix, incense, Holy water, everything.

On Sunday, we arrived at Freedom Plaza with Randall Terry's group, Operation Witness. Our busload then moved to about 50 feet from the start of the March of Death, across the street from the White House museum/tour center on Pennsylvania Ave.

Fr. Nesbella brought a 3 1/2 foot crucifix, and a bullhorn, and I stood behind him with a 4 x 8 foot sign of an 8 week old baby in utero, and we prayed the Rosary and Litany of Life and Divine Mercy chaplet repeatedly for the duration of the march.

Many media photographers shot pictures of Fr. Nesbella with his crucifix and bullhorn, but I haven't found any online. I was interviewed by the BBC World Service for their English radio news edition.

I've never seen such a mass of angry and hateful freaks and kooks and perverts in my life. As they passed, they were drawn towards Fr. Nesbella and the crucifix. Several girls stopped and removed their tops in front of our Rosary group, with only small pro-abort stickers as "pasties", and gay couples paused in front of us to kiss and grope each other. Others hissed and screamed and spit. Father John simply held forward his hand and made the sign of the cross over them or towards them, at which almost all of them moved on.

The DC police in our area were all professional and friendly with us, with one of them even comforting a 13 year old girl from our group holding her own handmade sign, when several lesbians screamed at her they wished her mother had aborted her and she broke into tears. Several pro-aborts complained to the police about our presence and signs, but Randall Terry had reserved the sidewalks on both sides of Pennsylvania Ave for our protest, so we were there with full rights. Apparently the pro-aborts hadn't thought of this, and it really enraged them.

What a weekend.

Brian
Posted By: DocBrian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 06:59 PM
Quote
"Augustine says (De adult. conjug.) that 'of all these', namely the sins belonging to lust, 'THAT WHICH IS AGAINST NATURE IS THE WORST.'

"I answer that, in every genus, worst of all is the corruption of the principle on which the rest depend. Now the principles of reason are those things that are according to nature, because reason presupposes things as determined by nature, before disposing of other things according as it is fitting. This may be observed both in speculative and in practical matters. Wherefor just as in speculative matters the most grievous and shameful error is that which is about things the knowledge of which is naturally bestowed on man, so in matters of action it is most grave and shameful to act against things as determined by nature. Therefore, since by the UNNATURAL VICES man TRANSGRESSES that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter THIS SIN IS GRAVEST OF ALL. After it comes incest, which is contrary to the natural respect which we owe persons related to us.

"Just as the ordering of right reason proceeds from man, so the order of nature is from God Himself: wherefore in sins contrary to nature, whereby the very order of nature is violated, an INJURY IS DONE TO GOD, THE AUTHOR OF NATURE. Hence, Augustine says (Conf. iii. 8): 'Those foul offenses that are against nature should be everywhere and at all times DETESTED and PUNISHED, such as were those of the people of Sodom, which should all nations commit, they should all stand guilty of the same crime, by the law of God, which hath not so made men that they should so abuse one another. For even that very intercourse which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature, of which He is the author, is POLLUTED BY THE PERVERSITY OF LUST.'

"Vices against nature are also against God, and are so much more grievous than the depravity of sacrilege, as the order impressed on human nature is prior to and more firm than any subsequently established order.

"The nature of the species is more intimately united to each individual, than any other individual is. Wherefore sins against the specific nature are more grievous.

"Wherefore among sins against nature, the most grievous is the sin of bestiality, because use of the due species is not observed. After this comes the sin of Sodomy, because use of the right sex is not observed." [Summa Theologica, Vol IV, Pt. II-II, Q.154 Art. 12]

Thus spoke Saint Thomas Aquinas. [/QB]
Great new Avatar, StLouis! It is most appropriate when fighting the Culture of Death wink
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 07:08 PM
Dear Friends,

So far I'd characterize this thread as being about "Vietnam war veterans - nothing to spit at."

Alex
Posted By: Carson Daniel Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 07:42 PM
I'm exposed again as a poor grammarian and a poor speller. But neither excuses adults paradng around and being "LEWD". Nor does my poor grammar give them the right to display sexual activities to my children or before me.
I don't know what can be done about it in a secular society but one cannot on the one hand defend Muslim dismay over our lewdness and at the same time defend that same lewd behavior.

Dan L
Posted By: djs Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 07:46 PM
The reviews of Greene's book make it clear that Greene has evidence that it did happen. But the writing, on face value, is consistent with "extremely rare".
Posted By: djs Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 07:48 PM
Dan,

I agree, and I don't think that anyone has posted any disagreement that there should some norms of public decency and that such norms should be enforced.
Posted By: Carson Daniel Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 07:52 PM
djs,

So far then we agree. Have you ever seen a gay pride march? Have you ever seen even a glimpse of one on the television?

I had the sad experience of seeing one near Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago and glimpses of same on the television. I have never seen a gay pride parade that wasn't completely lewd. I have never seen any police action against the lewdness.

Dan L
Posted By: djs Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 08:00 PM
Quote
So far then we agree. Have you ever seen a gay pride march? Have you ever seen even a glimpse of one on the television?
Dan, I already spoke to this. I have never been to such a parade, and have only seen presumably sanitized glimpses on TV. Now standards of decency vary from place to place. It may be that what will get you arrested in Knoxville will not in Chicago. And in SF, the local 10km race, Bay-to-Breakers, typically has a streaking contingent.

But the lack of enforcement? I don't know whether there is from a lack of complaint, diffidnce by the police, or that complaints have been thrown out of court. And I agree that there is too much sexualized acting out in front of children.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 08:11 PM
Dear Professor Dan,

Well, our Catholic Premier attended one such gay pride day - he made a lewd joke about wearing pink underwear for the event . . .

However, the parade does bring in a few millions of tourist dollars to Toronto . . .

Something about "dollar votes . . ."

Alex
Posted By: Carson Daniel Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 08:31 PM
Alex,

Indeed. Dollar politics. That's why Disney World dares to put on a Gay Pride day and why Mayor Daley supports the 2006 Tails on Fire...er, Gay Olympics. Yes, I've seen the pictures on their website advertizing this damnable event...Leap Frog, indeed.

Dan L
Posted By: Administrator Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 08:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by djs:
The reviews of Greene's book make it clear that Greene has evidence that it did happen. But the writing, on face value, is consistent with "extremely rare".
djs,

Please consider that the editorial writers use of the words �some�, �more� and �many� with regard to the numbers of letters from veterans who experienced mistreatment does not agree with your �consistent with �extremely rare�". Most people think the words �some� means an �unspecified number� and �many� as a �large indefinite number�. I have no doubt that if there had been only one or two out of the more than a thousand letters accounting mistreatment the author (or at least the reviewers) would have indicted such.

Methinks your understanding of the terms �some�, �more� and �many� is extremely atypical!

As I noted earlier, mistreatment of returning veterans was not normative. But neither was it extremely rare.

Admin biggrin
Posted By: incognitus Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 09:40 PM
"Father thought of everything...mass kit, monstrance, prayer books for adoration, bullhorn, crucifix, incense, Holy water, everything."

Can I be the only person who is startled by the presence of a bullhorn on that list?

By the way, talk of Liturgy in a Washington hotel room - I'm still recovering from the time, more than 30 years ago, that I was at a Divine Liturgy (for the Liturgical Week) in a Washington hotel in an ad hoc chapel set up for that week. Since it was very early, I was still sleepy, but I was jolted bolt awake to hear the priest intone the petition: "For this holy hotel . . ." No, I am NOT making that up!

Incognitus

Incognitus
Posted By: Alice Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 10:00 PM
Quote
"For this holy hotel . . ."
...Let us pray to the Lord?

Hey why not! biggrin

Alice
Posted By: Our Lady's slave Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 10:43 PM
Quote
Originally posted by incognitus:
"Father thought of everything...mass kit, monstrance, prayer books for adoration, bullhorn, crucifix, incense, Holy water, everything."

Can I be the only person who is startled by the presence of a bullhorn on that list?

Incognitus
Nope - I also thought it was included in a very strange position in the list too. It probably would not have stuck out as clearly if it had been at the end - but it did make me try and envisage Mass being celebrated with the Priest holding onto a bullhorn and that is truly mind boggling

Anhelyna
Posted By: iconophile Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/26/05 11:33 PM
What the Administrator relates is consistent with my contention that the accounts are anecdotal and long after the alleged incidents. Note that Greene's book counts a full range of negative things, including some that may have existed mostly in the minds of veterans returning from what had become an unpopular war, to more serious allegations of spitting and verbal abuse. I have no doubt that some allegations were false, given human nature. I am not saying that this never happened, only that contemporary accounts do not apparently exist. As the prowar folks were then, as now, not above appealing to "the boys" and the need to be behind them to squelch dissent, why during the war are there no accounts in promilitary journals, the prowar press, etc.?
Again, documentation, from the time of the supposed incidents, please.
-Daniel, still sceptical
Posted By: ebed melech Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/27/05 12:04 AM
I think distinctions have to be made between individual homosexuals and those involved in the "Gay Pride" movement.

Do I believe that homosexual activity is the worst sin a person can commit? Absolutely not. To me, it is a sin of passion that springs from a disordered sense of attraction to the same sex. As with others who struggle with certain sins of the flesh, those who suffer with this temptation are in need of our compassion, honesty and friendship, not resounding condemnation. "God will condemn the sins of Wall Street long before he condemns the sins of prostitutes and murderers.", so said the Servant of God, Catherine Dougherty. Sins of the passions are in a different category than sins that involve the premeditated exploitation of the innocent. (I will address the "Gay Pride" movement below. It is of a different category altogether.)

I also think that labeling these individuals "sodomites" is not particularly helpful - in fact I think it is in its own way depersonalizing and in no way endears anyone (whether homosexual or not) to a particular point of view. I would rather win the hearts and minds of those who struggle with this issue, than to throw out labels. (If you were ministering to those who struggled with alcoholism, would you see it as pastorally wise to refer to them all as "drunks"?) I do not believe I am too far off in saying that there are some on this forum - lurkers or posters - who may struggle with this issue, even though they may not agree that it is either a sin or an "issue" at all. I would rather treat them with the same respect I would hope to receive were I struggling with some difficulty, addiction or sin in my own life. And homosexuality is a huge struggle for many people.

You can disagree with people and still treat them with respect. For instance, I have worked with and for individuals who are homosexual, and realized through those experiences that I could maintain friendships and healthy, respectful and professional relationships with people with whom I disagreed, even on such a fundamental moral issue as homosexuality. (One of my mentors in my field of leadership development is a lesbian. I asked her to be one of my mentors because she has tremendous expertise in this field and we have a good working relationship.)

With that said, the "Gay Movement" to me is another issue altogether. This movement essentially seeks to enact a social shift in values, morals and structures by openly challenging or flagrantly mocking the sensibilities and traditions of those who hold to a Judeo-Christian perspective on human sexuality. Additionally, this movement also seeks to harness the influence of the media and the powers of the courts (primarily) and public education to impose the desires of a minority on the whole of society ("gay marriage" is a great example). The "Gay Movement" has an agenda to actively recruit others, including children, into the fold. This to me should be actively and vigorously opposed.

With that said, it is important to point out that not every person who is homosexual is part of this movement - although many are.

My two or three cents -

Gordo
Posted By: louisix Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/27/05 12:30 PM
I agree that a distinction has to be made with those struggling with homosexual tendencies and the hard core who embrace them, and demand that society do the same under force of law. It is the latter group that gets my attention because I've witnessed their success first hand in getting the former to believe the heinous lie that there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts.

We, as Catholics, are in the business of uncompromsingly getting souls to leave, not live, homosexual lifestyles. And the Catholic Church has never taught that error is accorded equal rights with the truth. It has taught that the state has a right to suppress error because the state receives all of its authority from God, and as such, should be a part of His redemptive plan to get souls to Heaven instead of hell by promoting the common good with the natural leading ultimately to the supernatural.

"To render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" does not mean that Caesar deserves a "free pass" from Catholics when it comes to promoting error contrary to the common good. Even the pagan Aristotle understood this as promoting the common good was his primary criteria for the definition of a good regime. If Catholics aren't going to tell this Truth, who is?

We do a disservice to all when we do not tell it like it is. There is nothing "gay" about being inclined to homosexual acts. To describe same as "gay" is a bastardization of a formerly very happy adjective. There is nothing happy about being inclined to aberrant behavior that has been proven to be physically, psychologically, socially, and especially, spiritually ruinous.

As Catholics we are not called to be "nice" to the devil, which is the trap that many fall into when they shy from speaking the Truth Who is a Someone, not a something. Jesus Christ was not shy about such things. He talked more about the consequences of grave sin than any other New Testament Figure, in particular, the fires of hell! The approved apparition of Our Lady of Fatima to the three visionaries showed hell and all of its torments - this to the youngest of children. God would not have allowed this if He did not want to make a point about the consequences of grave sin. And we are talking grave sin here, per Sacred Scripture, a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance.

We must remember that Locke�s vagueness about "Common Good" has consequences. This has always been a Catholic concern, e.g., Leo XIII's encyclical on Americanism

Let us examine the problem.


The Enlightenment view of the person and of the state differed radically from what had gone before in the Christian tradition and the common law. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau postulated a mythical state of nature in which autonomous, isolated individuals were milling around and, for various reasons, agreed to form the state. Hobbes thought people were hostile and needed the state, or Leviathan, to keep them from killing each other. The individual surrendered total power to the state, reserving only his right to life and his right not to incriminate himself. Locke�s state of nature was more pleasant, but men needed a common judge to settle disputes. And so they formed the state to protect their rights, but in that state the majority would rule. Rousseau, on the other hand, thought men formed the state to carry out the general will which is the unlimited will, not of the majority, but of the man in charge, the sovereign. [See Rice, The Winning Side, Questions On Living The Culture Of Life.] We will focus on Locke�s moderation of Hobbes�s view of man and society.



In the traditional Christian view, the state derives its authority from God (although the people may from time to time decide who exercises that authority) and the state is subject to the law of God including the natural law. In the Enlightenment view, the state derives its authority horizontally, from the people. It is the people, rather than the law of God, which defines in what way, if any, the power of the state will be limited. And, if the people give rights, the people can take them away. Per Rice, 19th century utilitarianism added to this mix the idea, as seen in Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill and others, that the purpose of the law and society is to achieve the greatest good of the greatest number. This good is the Hobbesian maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain. There is not knowable objective morality and no common good beyond the sum of individual goods. The family is an aggregation of individuals rather than a society in itself. The person comes to be regarded as merely "economic man." The Enlightenment philosophy has dominated the 20th century in different forms. It devalues the role of mediating institutions, such as the family and social groups, between the individual and the state. It tends to deteriorate into either and individualist capitalism or a totalitarian collectivism, which, of late, has become synonymous with radical liberalism. Enlightenment law is wholly an exercise of will, while Aquinas affirmed that the essence of law is reason. Enlightenment jurisprudence will be utilitarian and positivist, with no inherent limits on what the state can do. The Enlightenment project, which dominates American culture, has three decisive characteristics, secularism, relativism, and individualism.



Whereas Aristotle, Aquinas, and others affirmed that man is social by nature, Enlightenment thinkers postulated a mythical "state of nature" populated by autonomous individuals who were not social but "sociable." Those individuals formed the state according to the social contract. The purpose, according to Hobbes, was to achieve security; according to Locke, it was for the protection of rights; for Rousseau, it was to implement the "general will." The origin of the state was therefore not in nature and the divine plan but in the social contract, with rights coming not from God but from man and ultimately the state. "The Declaration of the Rights of Man at the end of the 18th century," wrote Hannah Arendt, "was a turning point in history. It meant nothing more nor less than that from then on Man, and not God�s command or the customs of history, should be the source of Law." [See Rice, 50 Questions On The Natural Law, What It Is And Why We Need It.]



Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, responds. "The theories of the social contract . . . were elaborated at the end of the 17th century (cf. Hobbes); that which would bring harmony among men was a law recognized by reason and commanding respect by an enlightened prince who incarnates the general will. Here, too, when the common reference to values and ultimately to God is lost, society will then appear merely as an ensemble of individuals placed side by side, and the contract which ties them together will necessarily be perceived as an accord among those who have the power to impose their will on others . . . By a dialectic within modernity, one passes from the affirmation of the rights of freedom, detached from any objective reference to a common truth, to the destruction of the very foundations of this freedom. The �enlightened despot� of the social contract theorists became the tyrannical state, in fact totalitarian, which disposes of the life of its weakest members, from an unborn baby to an elderly person, in the name of a public usefulness which is really only the interest of a few." [See Ratzinger, "The Problem of Threats to Human Life," 36 The Pope Speaks, 334-35 (1991).]



According to Hobbes, men are naturally free, and all seek exclusively their own interests. Hence, men lived at first in a state of perpetual war. Then, as a practical expedient, they compacted to form society, to which, as represented by its rulers, unlimited power over the individual members was confided. This sovereign body Hobbes called the Leviathan, the monster of limitless strength and power. As a logical inference from his rejection of divine authority in the constitution and government of states, Hobbes rejected the distinction between the temporal and spiritual power and denied the independent rights of the Church; for "a man cannot obey two masters, and a house divided against itself cannot stand." Thus, whatever worship or religion exists in a State must be completely subject to the civil power and no dogma can be appealed to against a law of the state.



In Locke�s theory the liberty which men had before the supposed original social contract remains with them and is inalienable, "for no one can ever by subjected to authority without his own consent." But as this "universal" consent can scarcely ever be had, the only remedy against anarchy is that the majority must include the rest. The result is that it is a law both of nature and of reason that the act of the majority is the act of the whole.



The principles of Hobbes and Locke were more fully elaborated by the 18th century founders of the French liberal school and those of the German Aufklarung. Of the latter, Emmanuel Kant has had the widest influence. In Kant�s view, man, as a moral being, is "a law to himself and an end to himself, a cause but not an effect." Hence, the civil union whose object is to secure liberty for all must presuppose an implied contract as a necessary foundation of its authority. [See Cahil, The Framework Of A Christian State.]



Let�s look at a more detailed comparison of the philosophies of Hobbes and Locke as described by John Hittinger in "Three Philosophies of Human Rights,"

In Search Of A National Morality, edited by William Bentley Ball. Per Hittinger, human freedom became the fundamental moral fact, not virtue or divine command. The development of this notion wound its way through late medieval nominalism and became a major theme in the work of Hobbes, especially his Leviathan, which is usually marked as the turning point from the ancient natural right or natural law to the modern account of natural rights.



Hobbes challenged the fundamental presuppositions of the Thomistic synthesis of biblical theology and Aristotelian philosophy � such as the sociability of man and the possibility of a common good, the existence of a highest good (summum bonum) in virtue and contemplation, and the natural law derived from such human teleology. (Telos, as such, didn�t exist for the modern philosophers.) Beginning with a state of nature as a state of war, Hobbes saw the futility of seeing a good higher than self-preservation. His philosophy is based upon a view of human nature as selfish and contentious; he denied that there exists any higher good other than survival. Consequently, he derived the natural law from a more fundamental right of self-preservation.



Hobbes defined the "right of nature" as "the liberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature" [Leviathan]. He clearly distinguished right from law. "Right consisteth in liberty to do, or forbeare; whereas Law, determineth, and bindeth to one of them; so the Law, and Right, differ as much, as Obligation, and Liberty." For Hobbes, right, i.e., liberty, clearly takes precedent over law, i.e., obligation. The fundamental right or liberty of the self is unbounded or unlimited by anything; by the fundamental right of preservation, each man has a right to everything, and anything done in the pursuit of preservation is without blame. The intolerable conflicts between individuals, however, amount to a state of war. It is reasonable, therefore, to limit one�s claim to things for the sake of self-protection. Morality exists by way of the social contract, and is a rational deduction of moral rules from the right of self-preservation [Leviathan].

Hobbes�s defense of individual rights required the existence of an absolute power in society to keep all potential wrongdoers in such a state of awe that they would obey the law. Hobbes�s account was shocking in many ways, not the least of which was its implicit anti-theistic philosophy, that it was frequently decried and banned. The direct contrast between Hobbes and the biblical and philosophical accounts of moral and political order would be the easiest approach to take to the philosophical questions about rights.



Locke transformed the Hobbesian philosophy into a more acceptable and balanced philosophy of natural rights. It is in this form that many Americans came to know about rights. But Locke�s philosophy contains a fundamental ambiguity, i.e., the tension over the autonomy of the person and the workmanship of God. Homeschoolers see this constantly in the state telling them what "rights" they have in the education of their children to the total ignorance of the fact that these "rights" don�t come from the state, but rather from God as was pointed out in Pontifical Council for the Family�s document entitled "The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality."



Locke wanted to find a solution to the problem of politics that would restore peace to a country divided by religious wars. The tolerance of religious belief required, in his mind, the lowering of the goal and mission of the temporal order, away from the inculcation of virtue, and the defense of the faith to the protection of the temporal welfare of its citizens � rights to life, liberty, and property. [See Locke, Letter Concerning Toleration.] By removing the matter of religious contention from civil concerns Locke hoped to quell the disturbances inflicted upon Europe because of intolerance. Hobbes, by contrast, removed contentious matters by making the sovereign absolute over the determination of the beliefs of citizens. It was Locke who overcame the inconsistencies in this account and sought to place structural and formal limits upon the sovereign political power and to bind the sovereign to the respect of rights to life, liberty, and property. The division of powers, taxation with representation, and limited prerogatives of the state power balanced by a "right to revolution" are all part of Locke�s system. For Hobbes, rights are fundamental moral claims against others; Locke adds to this the claim of the individual against the state, at least when a "long train of abuses" is perceived by a majority and rouses it to act. Per Hittinger, Locke�s more moderate and reasonable account of human rights has appealed to generations of political statesmen and thinkers. However, the seed of radical autonomy as the basis for human rights blooms fully in subsequent philosophers in the natural rights tradition. In the late 20th century the fruits of this radical autonomy is seen in the insanity of Planned Parenthood vs. Casey where the autonomous unencumbered rights of the individual are elevated to a supernatural plane governed by the "god in the mirror" as each man can define his own universe with its own unique laws and rights to the total exclusion of his fellow men. This begs the obvious question, just what do you do when these myriad universes collide as they invariably will? The obvious answer of "anarchy prevailing" evidently didn�t occur to the majority of our illustrious Supreme Court justices.



Like Hobbes, Locke derived the principles of limited government from a hypothetical state of nature [Locke, Two Treatises Of Government]. This original state of nature is said to be a state of "perfect freedom." By freedom Locke meant no more than an absence of restraint. Locke mentioned the bounds of a natural law in the same passage with perfect freedom. This is to distinguish "liberty" from "license." The natural law initially guides men in the state of nature to refrain from harm: "The State of Nature has a Law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one; and Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions." The restraint demanded by natural law derives from an additional characteristic of the state of nature: in the state of nature men are equal, in addition to being free [Ibid]. Locke made clear that equality means equal jurisdiction, or the absence of subordination and subjection. The basis for this mutual respect and recognition is the fundamental problem, since it is the basis for natural law.



Per Hittinger, the key difficulty in interpreting the philosophy of Locke pertains to the foundation of natural rights and the rationale for mutual restraint. Locke gives a twofold rationale and foundation. On the one hand, he spoke of man as God�s workmanship and from this axiom derived the right to life, liberty, and property as essential to the divine moral order; on other occasions he simply appeals to the primacy of self-preservation and unfolds from radical autonomy the list of rights and the self-interested basis for mutual respect ala Hobbes.



In the first model, the basis for equal respect is divine workmanship and the order of creation. Locke argued that all creatures are equal under God and occupy the same rank or status as "creature" [Ibid]. Thus, no one can assume to take the position of God and rule over others. This argument from the order of creation reflects a pre-modern understanding of equality. Men are neither beasts nor gods but occupy equally a ground midway between. [See Jaffa, "Equality as a Conservative Principle," How to Think about the American Revolution.] It is neither appropriate to act as a god nor to treat others as beasts or inferior creatures. Locke explicitly used this pre-modern image. In light of this order of creation, man can make no claim to absolute dominion over his fellow creatures. Mutual respect depends upon the recognition of one�s status as a creature, along with others, before the Creator, i.e., a human being cannot claim the type of superiority that would authorize the destruction or arbitrary use of another human being, and rights protect this status.



The problem is that Locke said that the grasp of "natural law� didn�t depend on divine revelation, nor did it depend on knowledge of God�s promulgated law and sanctions. This content can be appreciated independently of the workmanship model, per Hittinger. For to deny the mutuality of equal right is to propel oneself into a state of war with others. And by such a declaration one has "exposed his Life to the others Power to be taken away by him." To put oneself in such an insecure state is most unreasonable and dangerous. One is open to being treated like a noxious beast [Locke, Two Treatises]. It is more safe, more reasonable, to acknowledge the equality of rights. Thus, mere self-interest would counsel mutuality and restraint. Locke referred to the law of nature as simply the law of reason and common equity: the law of nature is the reasonable restraint of common equity that will establish mutual security. It is discovered through the person�s own desire for safety and security. The basis for restraint is fear of harm and self-interest. According to this model of rights, selfish interest, or comfortable preservation, is the basis for one�s claims. Enlightened self-interest leads one to recognize the equal right of others to their life, liberty, and property [Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding].



Hittinger describes the legacy of Locke as "ambivalent." The advocate of limited government and an apparent friend of the theistic tradition, Locke nevertheless underwrote a model of radical human autonomy in which freedom dominates the moral order. Today, this radical freedom is confused with license on a daily basis with the most dreadful of consequences where hedonism rules all aspects of society having only the Church as the last bastion of truth in a world gone mad. Locke�s philosophy of human rights was derived from a subjectivist account of the good; it lowers the goal of the state to a supposedly neutral position; it imposes a minimal obligation of nonharm; and ultimately it does encourage self-interest in the best tradition of Hobbes. This lowest common denominator minimalist obligations approach embodied in civil law becomes the extent of morality; the wide sphere of private life must come to occupy the bulk of human energies. With Locke, such freedom was aimed at unlimited acquisition of property and the self found its affirmation in labor and the "work ethic." But such terms as equal freedom and mutual respect came to be transformed under the inspiration of Rousseau and Kant to mean much more than civic liberty and protection of private property. In contemporary American jurisprudence they have come to promote the existence of what has been referred to as the "erotic self" [Bradley, "The Constitution and the Erotic Self," First Things, 16 (Oct. 1991): 28-32].



Hittinger points out that David A.J. Richards, Professor of Law at New York State University and Director of N.Y.U.�s Program for the Study of Law, Philosophy, and Social Theory, in one of his publications entitled Sex, Drugs, Death and the Law, follows the logic of the right to privacy to the point of decriminalizing all consensual sex acts, including prostitution, as well as drug use and euthanasia. Richards stressed the radical departure in ethics and politics characteristic of the modern theory of rights elaborated by Locke. He sought to purge American thought and culture of its religious influence; this included what Richards called its Calvinistic public morality and also natural law principles derived from Catholic morality and tradition. The Bible or Thomistic natural law must be considered degrading because they attempt to guide or otherwise restrict the creative freedom of individual persons, presumably even the freedom to not only destroy themselves, but society in general.



The right of conscience, uninformed conscience to be sure, is the primary right and the paradigm for all others. Expanded to include any conscientious belief or actions derived therefrom, no matter how radical, no matter what the consequences, so too other rights are similarly expanded and developed in the light of the principle of autonomy and respect for persons. "I�m OK, you�re OK, even though you�re killing yourself physically and spiritually and, by your example, invite as many as possible to follow you to perdition. Pornography is extolled as the higher option against the repressed Catholic and puritan public morality. Sexuality is the core value for Richards because through it, "we express and realize a wholeness of emotion, intellect and self image guided by the just play of the self-determining powers of a free person. As a good liberal he wished to demonstrate the constitutional legitimacy of the right to privacy, its rightful application in such cases involving contraceptive use in marriage, nonmarital contraceptive use, pornography in the home, and abortion services. In addition he criticized the Supreme Court for its failures to apply privacy rights to consensual homosexual acts. The tired old refrain that homosexuals ought to be afforded the same rights to privacy, family, adoption and so on as heterosexuals in order to forward the "great work of collective democratic decency that is the Constitution of the United States" surfaced. No matter that the Constitution allows for no rights to aberrant self-destructive behavior, much less demands that society accept same.



In the work of the lunatics like David Richards, the seed of radical autonomy planted by Hobbes and Locke for the sake of acquisition of property and comfortable self-preservation matured to become the fruit of a full moral subjectivism and the clear abandonment of and attack upon any shred of classical natural law and virtue.



Hittinger�s conclusion to this challenge of the correct use of rights discourse is rooted in its necessity for the very protection of the claims of religion and religious activity in a secular state. Rights language helps to explain the advocacy for the vulnerable members of society that Christian conscience demands. Thus, to influence public policy in a salutary way, rights discourse is inevitable. But the basis for and purpose of human rights discourse must be clearly understood if we are to avoid the confusion and equivocations of the present day. We must engage in a serious reading of modern philosophers such as Hobbes and Locke; in addition the contemporary developments of Rawls, Dworkin and Richards must be squarely faced; finally, Christian thinkers like Maritain and John Paul II have opened up horizons for a sound philosophy of human rights. [See Schall, The Church, The State And Society In The Thoughts Of John Paul II.]



Hittinger tells us that the use of rights discourse is fraught with difficulties, not the least of which is sheer equivocation when engaged in discourse with the dominant liberal culture. The philosophy of human rights underlying such accounts � the radical autonomy of the human person � must be challenged and redefined. A sound philosophy of rights must make it clear that freedom is not an absolute, that rights are imbedded in an objective moral order that is accessible by reason (the natural law of Aquinas, not that of Hobbes or Locke), and revelation (divine law), and finally that rights are correlated with duties to the community, to others, for the common good, and ultimately to God.



Political power in Locke�s commonwealth clearly resides in the will of the majority. Locke believes that reason will persuade most men to pursue a course of enlightened self-interest. They will be motivated by "the common good," a conception that remains extremely vague in Locke�s Treatises. The possibility that the majority might turn tyrannous is gingerly avoided. But of course no one has an answer for those cases where a whole people seem to have gone collectively insane such as typified by the United States of America since Roe v. Wade and, in particular, under the President and her husband where the principle of "common good" is nonexistent. This comes as no surprise given Locke�s radical move to redefine virtue as nothing more than irrational fashions, not attuned to the customs of the times, the mere opinions of what man has about what is acceptable or not in society. Ethics is not ordered by duty or perfection but by self-advantage and self-interest, a breeding ground for moral relativism. The greatest praise in Locke�s increasingly materialistic world goes to the inventor, not those doing spiritual and corporal works of mercy. Human power is elevated with God put in the background. No need to worry about the supernatural since technology will save man from the grave. Faith is superfluous leaving only a purely secular ethic with faith only retained to appeal to a broader audience.



One might ask a simple question. If avoidance of death is our highest end, the summum bonum of materialism, of secular humanism, why should anyone sacrifice; why be a soldier or policeman? Locke tries to answer this difficult question by wrapping his social contract in faith, but his arguments, as discussed in this paper, are shallow for Locke�s faith, as for so many of the modern philosophers, is a function of a "god made in their image" not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and certainly not the God who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
Posted By: louisix Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/27/05 12:39 PM
The obsession with rights talk forgets that rights without duties are no rights at all


The Declaration of Independence begins with the following creedal statement in regard to the concept of rights:



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.



Who could argue with the pronouncement of such a seminal truth on the individual rights possessed by man, in particular, the recognition that these rights come from the Almighty and, accordingly, are politically sacrosanct. Certainly a country founded upon such a self-evident axiomatic principle has laid the foundation for the securing of these rights within the political sphere. Which begs the question, �What happened to induce a foreigner, a man who experienced first hand the suppression of such rights in the concentration camps of his native country, a man who should have admired the �American Dream� secured by these rights, to issue a warning in the form of advice that the West is too concerned with �rights� and should be more concerned with �duties�? The man referred to here is Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn who suffered political persecution in the Soviet gulags. What prompted Solzhenitsyn to issue that warning will be subsequently addressed.



The world today seems obsessed with �rights talk.� Certainly, that is the case in the United States of America at the dawn of the new millennium where the �right to take one�s own life�, the �right to kill the unborn�, and the �right to be subsidized for living promiscuous lifestyles to include performing unnatural sex acts�, are all forced under the umbrella of �life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness� with no one bothering to notice that the umbrella has been blown inside out by a tornadic wind of a natural fallacy regarding these claims. Simply put, with the concept of rights comes a concomitant concept of duty if the common good of society is to be the goal of a political regime that is respected instead of despised. You do not have rights to enjoy without a duty to those whom you have a responsibility toward in insuring that the common good is never lost sight of as a final political goal.



The most important virtue for the ancients was justice, which is the proper ordering of the self and the community in an objective sense to the common good. It is objective insofar as it is a matter of the rational determination of the equality or adjustment made between two people or groups. The term �right� did not designate a subjective claim to something for them as it does for the moderns, but rather an objective relationship between people. For Aquinas right is said to be the �object� of justice. [See ST II-II, Q. 57, a. 1.] Justice seeks to attain what is right. For Aristotle, Justice is the political good as we see in the Politics Book III, Chapter XII.



In all arts and sciences the end in view is some good. In the most sovereign of all the arts and sciences � and this is the art and science of politics � the end in view is the greatest good and the good which is most pursued. The good in the sphere of politics is justice; and justice consists in what tends to promote the common interest.



Justice is one of the four cardinal virtues. Thus, its importance is undeniable. Sacred Scripture records, in particular, that certain sins against justice cry out to Heaven for vengeance. These include willful murder, the sin of Sodom, oppression of the poor, and defrauding laborers of their just wages. Because of their malice in that they are all sins against society, they seem to call for punishment by a special act of Divine Justice. [See Gen. 4:10, Gen. 19:13, Ex. 22:22-23, and Deut. 24:15.] It is interesting to note how moderns look at each of these �sins�. The latter contain far more weight for them than the former. We rightfully see them making constant calls for concern in regard to oppression of the poor, and for just wages. But somehow the former are totally ignored in that these same �compassionate� moderns have no trouble whatsoever with killing innocents in their mothers� wombs, and promoting any and all forms of sexual hedonism to include the most unnatural of acts as alternative lifestyles in an affirmative action civil rights sense to the total disregard of any �common good� concepts. The irony that without people there are no peace and social justice issues escapes them. Unfortunately, it also escapes conferences of Catholic bishops who do exactly the same thing by subtly telling the faithful in documents purporting to give a �consistent moral ethic� that killing babies is on the same level as peace and social justice issues. This is done using buzz phrases like �seamless garment� and �common ground� � the net effect of which is to make Catholics comfortable with voting for pro-abort politicians. What a scandal this is to any definition of justice understood in the Christian sense!



Aquinas defines justice as �the perpetual and constant will to render to each one his right.� [See ST II-II, Q. 58, a. 1.] Justice is always toward another. So we start to see why a Solzhenitsyn would criticize modern man for always taking his own rights as his primary consideration and neglecting to speak about his duty in regard to the effect of his rights claims toward his fellow man. The modern first considers his own subjective claim or want, thereby neglecting what he owes to the community or another, which is his duty.



The moral and political landscape of America today is dominated by the discourse of rights. What started as a careful delineation of political prerogatives and protections as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution has devolved into the chaos of a free-for-all of personal and collective claims and counter-claims. Serious concerns regarding life and death issues have been grouped with frivolous matters involving the legitimization of any felt need, regardless of how insane, with no concern whatsoever for societal common good. Frivolous rights claims are frequently used to justify any course of action that an individual has chosen; at least if accompanied with the proviso that it does not harm anyone. What we see is a completely subjectivist situation ethic that has enveloped rights discourse causing confusion and disorder. It�s Kantian �I�m OK, you�re OK� with the moderns being able to define their own rights universes as they see fit with no concern to the inevitable collision with their neighbors� in the absence of universal, absolute, moral norms that are immutable. One can legitimately ask, at this point, �Am I really OK with societal acceptance of your vices?� Or more to the point, �Are you really OK?� Is killing babies in their mothers� wombs, promoting the filth of homosexual behavior, and allowing people to kill themselves at their whim when they get tired of living, really conducive to a healthy, well-ordered society? Is this type of activity tending toward societal common good? The answer should be easy to anyone still capable of rational thought? The fact that it isn�t in America speaks volumes to the extent that this country has been morally dumbed-down to such a level that wrong is indistinguishable from right. When the president of a major university has difficulty defining �what wrong is� in relation to his university�s promotion of aberrant sexual behavior at taxpayer expense, as was the case with the President of Penn State during a recent House hearing in Harrisburg when he was asked if it was wrong for his university to sanction the most unimaginable sexual pornographic filth, then you know that you have major problems. THE problem, of course, is the absence of �duty� in relation to �rights� claims.



It is to be recognized that there is a distinct difference between genuine rights claims rooted in a natural rights or natural law foundation, and those that aren�t. The former is needed, for example, to protect the claims of religion from unwarranted state intrusion, to protect vulnerable members of society, and to influence public policy for the common good. The latter is a function of rights discourse based on assumptions about human nature and the moral order that run contrary to the very things that are to be protected � assumptions involving unbounded freedom, unlimited free speech, or an individualist conception of the political order where each man possesses a universe of rights unto himself, defined solely for his convenience with no thought to the consequences for his neighbor or society as a whole. This is the caution that Solzhenitsyn was alerting Americans to � specifically, the confusion of authentic freedom, doing what you ought with a duty to your fellow man, with license, doing what you want selfishly and to heck with your fellow man. Solzhenitsyn was onto something. He saw that America was constructing its own politically correct gulags that allowed for no opposition. He saw that America was making itself slaves to its own appetites in the skewed name of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with no thought at all to violations of nature�s law and an obedience owed to its Author for the sake of the common good. He saw no difference with his gulags and those of a modern hypocritical America that had forgotten the real meaning of its founding documents, or what at least, should have been their real meaning, not in a Lockean sense where Locke tried to make Hobbes�s Leviathan palatable, but rather in a sense of a pressing need for a sound philosophy of human rights rooted in nature and nature�s Author.



Such a sound philosophy of human rights has as its core the realization that rights possess a strict correlative duty, and are not dominions over things to use as one pleases. It rejects completely any premise that human freedom is the fundamental moral fact, not virtue, or divine command. It does not lower the goal and mission of the temporal order away from the inculcation of virtue and the defense of the faith to the sole protection of the temporal welfare of its citizens. It does not put a premium on natural self-preservation at the expense of the supernatural. It allows for no confusion in this regard. It is not ambivalent in that it gives the appearances of a theistic tradition while underwriting a model of radical human autonomy in which unlimited freedom dominates the moral order. It does not lower the goal of the state to a merely neutral position, imposing a minimal obligation of non-harm, thereby ultimately encouraging self-interest � the legacy of Locke. In short, per Jacques Maritain, it is theocentric as opposed to anthropocentric where rights are rooted in the natural law and its Author instead of man�s will and freedom � the latter allowing for escaping every objective measure, and denying every limitation imposed upon the claims of the ego, a concern of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
Posted By: DocBrian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/27/05 12:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by incognitus:
[QB] "Father thought of everything...mass kit, monstrance, prayer books for adoration, bullhorn, crucifix, incense, Holy water, everything."

Can I be the only person who is startled by the presence of a bullhorn on that list?
He brought the bullhorn to lead the faithful in the Rosary during the march on Sunday, knowing that it would be a noisy event and that the 35 people with him would not be able to hear him otherwise.

It was not used for anything but the public recitation of the prayers during the pro-abortion march and at the abortion clinics.
Posted By: louisix Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/27/05 01:03 PM
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13evl.htm

ON THE EVILS OF SOCIETY
INSCRUTABILI DEI CONSILIO

Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII promulgated on April 21, 1878.


6. Furthermore, that kind of civilization which conflicts with the doctrines and laws of holy Church is nothing but a worthless imitation and meaningless name. Of this those peoples on whom the Gospel light has never shown afford ample proof, since in their mode of life a shadowy semblance only of civilization is discoverable, while its true and solid blessings have never been possessed. Undoubtedly, that cannot by any means be accounted the perfection of civilized life which sets all legitimate authority boldly at defiance; nor can that be regarded as liberty which, shamefully and by the vilest means, spreading false principles, and freely indulging the sensual gratification of lustful desires, claims impunity for all crime and misdemeanor, and thwarts the goodly influence of the worthiest citizens of whatsoever class. Delusive, perverse, and misleading as are these principles, they cannot possibly have any inherent power to perfect the human race and fill it with blessing, for "sin maketh nations miserable."[3] Such principles, as a matter of course, must hurry nations, corrupted in mind and heart, into every kind of infamy, weaken all right order, and thus, sooner or later, bring the standing and peace of the State to the very brink of ruin.
Posted By: louisix Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/27/05 01:06 PM
I recently attended the first meeting of a Byzantine Catholic Mission to be established in State College, PA. Please pray for the intercession of Saint Basil, for whom it will be named, for its success! Thank you, and God bless!
Posted By: louisix Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/27/05 01:59 PM
In regard to the PC evolution of sexual perversion to sexual deviance to sexual preference to sexual orientation by militant homosexual activists, it must be remembered that the truth is that we're talking about perverse sexual acts. Anything else is a concession using the language of the father-of-lies, which is why when addressing the militant homosexual movement the word sodomite is in order. We cannot shirk here because we're dealing with individuals who demand to be made comfortable with their vices under force of law. We're not talking about just leave us alone anymore. Rather, we're talking about you better accept our aberrant behavior or else! That is not the kind of world that I want to leave to my children and grandchildren.

Father Harvey, the director for COURAGE, said that one of the biggest mistakes that he ever made was to title one of his books, The Homosexual Person, which does not exist. It could not because that would mean that inclinations to unnatural acts define who you are as a person, which is a lie.

The Church has an obligation to speak out on these matters, telling it like it is. It does not matter if the Church receives exemptions from the state as to toeing the line in regard to the militant sodomite agenda. The Church is called to witness to the world for salvation's sake.

Please see the following from then Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect for the CDF.

-----------------------

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 1992

Some Considerations Concerning the Catholic Response

to Legislative Proposals on the

Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons

3. "As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one�s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood" (no. 7).

4. In reference to the homosexual movement, the Letter states: "One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination" (no. 9).

5. "There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups� concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved" (no. 9).

6. "She (the Church) is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society�s understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy" (no. 9).

7. ... when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one as any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase" (no. 10).

10. "Sexual orientation" does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non- discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. "Letter," no. 3).

11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the consignment of children to adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or coaches, and in military recruitment.

13. Including "homosexual orientation" among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so- called affirmative action, the filling of quotas in hiring practices. This is all the more mistaken since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. no. 10) which therefore should not form the judicial basis for claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection of homosexuality. A person�s homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.

15. Since in assessing proposed legislation uppermost concern should be given to the responsibility to defend and promote family life (cf. no. 17), most careful attention should be paid to the single provisions of proposed measures. How would they effect [sic] adoption or foster care? Would they protect homosexual acts, public or private? Do they confer equivalent family status on homosexual unions, for example, in respect to public housing or by entitling the homosexual partner to the privileges of employment which might include "family" participation in the health benefits given to employees (cf. no. 9)?

16. Finally, since a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for Church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to Church organizations and institutions. The Church has the responsibility to promote the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws (cf. no. 17).

--------------

It has been widely touted by homosexual advocates that the American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations no longer include homosexuality on their disorder lists. The former group no longer includes pedophilia, sadism and masochism as disorders, depending upon which tortured version of the Diagnostic and Statistics manual is currently being referenced, and is now constructing the profile of the "psychologically normal" pedophile, sadist, and masochist in the same manner as they did for the homosexual. In the context of a school setting, is the American Psychiatric Association telling parents that there is no problem with their children being exposed to publicly avowed pedophiliacs, sadists, and masochists? After all, these "former disorders" come under the heading of sexual orientation.

Evidently, the answer is yes since these "orientations" are no longer considered "disorders" by the APA. Similarly, parents are expected to accept, with no questions asked, heterosexuals with homosexual tendencies who are proud of it via public pronouncements, moreover who believe it to be a cause for celebration or pride by the districts de facto legitimization of it as a cause for nondiscrimination. This is nonsense! Parents have a right as do school districts to be discriminating in who they allow their children to be exposed to for one basic reason, the school acts in place of the parent by law with the understanding that the parents are the PRIMARY educators of their children. The school supports parents in this regard. If parents cease to be discriminating and, by default, school districts which are subordinate to the parents role, they act irresponsibly. This becomes a more egregious offense when the state deems activities acceptable that have been traditionally regarded as "intrinsically disordered" as held by many faiths binding to believers. There is much talk about "separation of Church and State" when it comes to those who would erase any references to God in the founding documents of this country. But the silence is deafening when the state takes it upon themselves to ram an "amoral belief system" down the throats of a tax-paying public to the total exclusion of any considerations whatsoever of those who, for reasons of conscience, cannot abide by same. What about their rights?

"Sexual orientation" the term most commonly used to denote someone�s patterns of attraction suggests a more or less permanent condition, present from birth, something that directs a person�s thoughts and actions. This term is problematic in the extreme given the fact that there has been absolutely no conclusive evidence to date that anything resembling a gay-gene exists. Even if it did, would that detract from the fact that the action performed is abnormal? Similar arguments have been applied to alcoholics and serial killers.

The confusion, says clinical psychologist Joseph Nicolosi, arises because much of the discussion is driven by social activism rather than hard science. Nicolosi is co-founder of the 1000 member National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). "Developmental disorder" was the term most commonly applied to the homosexual condition until 1973. An increasing number of mental-health professionals including NARTH favor recovery of this understanding of homosexuality as an illness.

Making sexual orientation a cause for nondiscrimination says that orientation to objectively disordered behavior is acceptable. Nicolosi says "homosexuality is not a natural alternative lifestyle; rather 1) it is a developmental disorder, 2) its causes and predictors are very well documented, 3) it is treatable in adulthood, 4) it is highly associated with self-defeating and self destructive behaviors, pathology, and maladaptation, and 5) the four previous points have been politically buried or denied."

Nicolosi points out that all the major studies reported in the early 1990s were conducted by gay researchers or by activists who promoted the gay agenda. "It�s amazing that the same people who accept these studies will dismiss organizations like NARTH for supposed bias," he said.

Thus the scientific bases for what some researchers call "constitutional homosexuality" was weakened. The most widely accepted research still points toward environmental factors such as the role of parents, an early seduction or peer rejection.

In 1973 the board of trustees of the American Psychiatric Association closely followed by the American Psychological Association voted no longer to classify homosexuality as a disorder, but as a normal variant of sexual expression.

The decision was confirmed, by a 6-to-4 margin, in a vote of APA membership, hardly a ringing endorsement. Four years later, a survey found that 69 percent of APA members still considered homosexuality "pathological." Nicolosi says, however, that this is a diagnosis that dares not speak its name.

"Though many mental-health professionals see homosexuality as a disorder," he said, "few are willing to say so publicly. It�s not politically correct, and they would be harassed, called bigoted and homophobic, and charged with inciting hatred." But, said Nicolosi, the popular impressions remain, and they have repercussions. "The most important concept promoted by gay activists is the idea that there are certain people for whom homosexuality is normal and natural," Nicolosi said, "and that these are homosexual persons."

The human person can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her so-called sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. The American Psychiatric Association ignores a basic incontrovertible fact of natural law - the primary tenet being that one tends toward what is good and avoids what is bad. Almost everyone would agree that the meaning of life has something to do with the pursuit of happiness regardless whether that be imperfect happiness in an Aristotelian sense restricted to the here and now or a more permanent supernatural happiness held by believers. How can something be normal and natural if it is self-destructive as is the case for homosexual lifestyles? Reference the inordinate number of deaths and disease in the homosexual community relative to the total population per statistics from the Center for Disease control.

We live in a world of intimidation, demagoguery, and spin-doctors where irrationalism insures that education is replaced with indoctrination. We see proponents of homosexual lifestyles demonizing all who dare get in the way of enforced acceptance of sexual perversion as a civil right. They scream that it�s not fair when our legislators go against their agenda confident in the fact that our representatives serve solely at their pleasure. They accuse the very people who care about them the most by telling them the truth of being insensitive overlooking the fact that there is something called a "common good" for society which carries precedence over "individual good." They confuse freedom, doing what you ought, with license, doing what you want.
Posted By: DocBrian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/27/05 02:15 PM
Quote
I also think that labeling these individuals "sodomites" is not particularly helpful - in fact I think it is in its own way depersonalizing and in no way endears anyone (whether homosexual or not) to a particular point of view. I would rather win the hearts and minds of those who struggle with this issue, than to throw out labels. (If you were ministering to those who struggled with alcoholism, would you see it as pastorally wise to refer to them all as "drunks"?) I do not believe I am too far off in saying that there are some on this forum - lurkers or posters - who may struggle with this issue, even though they may not agree that it is either a sin or an "issue" at all. I would rather treat them with the same respect I would hope to receive were I struggling with some difficulty, addiction or sin in my own life. And homosexuality is a huge struggle for many people.
From "Recovering the Art of Christian Polemics"

http://www.tesm.edu/pubs/writings/articlee4ad
Quote
This is all, to a traditional Christian mind, obvious. But as soon as you try it, you will find yourself criticized, even in conservative Christian circles. You will find yourself called unkind, arrogant, and uncharitable; or divisive, troublemaking, and an impediment to mission; or harsh and strident; or simple-minded. You will be accused of sins against the person (the first set of charges), sins against the community (the second), sins against manners (the third), and sins against reason (the fourth).

You will hear this not only from the sentimental and the wooly-minded, who dislike polemics on principle, but from people who agree that Christians must write against error though they themselves shrink from the actual battle. This type will tell you that while Wilson is indeed an enemy of the Faith, you should have waited before writing against him (waited for what is almost never made clear), or treated his errors in a less combative way, or stressed the good work he is doing rather than the bad, or tried harder to find some common ground.

You may be told that you attract more flies with honey than vinegar. I have been told this more than once, by men who thought they were being profound or wise, or something. They did not make the distinction, basic and essential to pastoral judgment, between someone who must be corrected and someone who must be rebuked.

They assume that all such discourse must be aimed at the conversion of the heretic, and that the only way to convert him is to speak nicely to him. They have no good reason, in Scripture or in the example of the Fathers, for this idea.

Your critic may well be right in this or that case, but I have noticed that despite his theoretical approval for polemics you never find him writing polemically, except against the easiest of targets.
Posted By: DocBrian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/27/05 06:00 PM
Quote
With that said, the "Gay Movement" to me is another issue altogether. This movement essentially seeks to enact a social shift in values, morals and structures by openly challenging or flagrantly mocking the sensibilities and traditions of those who hold to a Judeo-Christian perspective on human sexuality. Additionally, this movement also seeks to harness the influence of the media and the powers of the courts (primarily) and public education to impose the desires of a minority on the whole of society ("gay marriage" is a great example). The "Gay Movement" has an agenda to actively recruit others, including children, into the fold. This to me should be actively and vigorously opposed.

With that said, it is important to point out that not every person who is homosexual is part of this movement - although many are.

My two or three cents -

Gordo [/QB]
This is an important distinction, Gordo. Thank you for pointing it out.

We as Christians need to be very careful how we employ terminology.

The best terminology we can use for those afflicted with "same sex attraction" is the scientifically, psychologically, and theologically correct term "Same Sex Attraction Disorder." (SSAD) And there are many individuals who, though afflicted with SSAD, live a life of chastity and virtue.

This term recognizes that same sex attraction is indeed intrinsically disordered. It refuses to accept the false notion that a same sex attraction disorder defines the personhood of the individual. For this reason, calling someone afflicted with SSAD a "homosexual" is an insult to their intrinsic value as a human being made in the image and likeness of God. It is a lie. No man is defined by a character defect or psychological disorder.

Someone who labels themself a "gay" has not only accepted the mis-appelation of the term "homosexual" but has made a public statement that they are not only afflicted with SSAD but are also self-identifying as a "homosexual" -- and furthermore as a "homosexual" who is sexually active with those of the same sex. It is universally accepted now that someone who refers to themself as "gay" is not living a chaste life fighting their SSAD but is living an actively homosexual sex life.

Since there is nothing "gay" about being involved in sodomy, and the mortal sin and physical degradations that always accompany it, Christians must REFUSE to use the term "gay."

For those afflicted with SSAD and who insist on telling the world about it by the self-appelation of the term "gay," the proper terminology for them is a "sodomite."

They are militant in their SSAD, they are militant in the fact they engage in sodomy, they desire to destroy any public criticism of their behavior, and they desire to make illegal and culturally unacceptable any Christian witness against the depravity of their agenda and lifestyle.

Therefore, using the terms related to sodomy regarding these militants is not only appropriate but necessary.

Otherwise, we must not use the word "prostitute," and instead call them "sex industry workers."

We must not use the term "incest" but instead employ some other politically correct euphemism like "interfamilial love relationships."

We must not call it "pederasty" or "pedophilia" but instead call it "intergenerational love relationships."

We must not call it bestiality but "interspecies love."

Where will it end?

I reject the notion that employing the term "sodomite" in its proper context is in any way wrong or uncharitable. It does the sinner no good to employ their preferred euphemisms so that you are in effect confirming them in their self deception and self destruction. By using THEIR preferred terms, you fail in speaking the Truth in season and out of season.

Quote
If you were ministering to those who struggled with alcoholism, would you see it as pastorally wise to refer to them all as "drunks"?
No, but even the alcoholic must admit to himself that he is an alcoholic before he is able to change.

Calling them a sodomite is no different than calling an alcoholic an alcoholic.

Calling a sodomite "gay" is no better than calling an alcoholic a "drunk."

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Euphemisms that deny reality are lies.
Posted By: incognitus Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/27/05 06:03 PM
Dear Doc Brian - thanks for the link to the David Mills piece; I enjoyed reading it and it would repay a serious analysis - which is not to say I agree with every word, but it's well-thought-out and well worth reading.

Incognitus
Posted By: John K Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/28/05 01:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by djs:
Quote
Gay pride parades are licentious
It is fair to say that at the St. Patrick's day parade in Boston, when I lived in the area, there was considerable licentiousness - mainly in public drunkeness and disorderliness. It was, in fact, a disgrace to many, many people in Irish community. It would be a stretch, however, to say that that parade or any parade "is" licentious. But, as incognitus already mentioned, there are remedies that already exist against unlawful behavior.

Quote
No Catholic who understands the Faith can in good conscience "support" a gay pride parade.
I am not sure about your words, exactly. Especially when the key word in in quotes. I support the right of all people in this country to assemble to speak, and to parade. I do this independent of agenda, and with no implication of support for any unlawful behavior.

And what of the Mardi Gras/Carnivale parades of New Orleans and many other cities (who are jumping on board with them)? There's drunkeness, licentiousness, nudity, lewdity, and most of it is by those who are of OSAO (Opposite Sex Attraction Ordered). And they're much better attended than gay pride parades could ever hope to be. When the start of Lent comes, are these people in church?
Posted By: Carson Daniel Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/28/05 01:43 AM
I've never gone to Mardi Gras and don't ever intend to do so. It is perverse as well. That ought to be stopped. Licentiousness is evil wherever it is found.

Dan L
Posted By: djs Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/28/05 04:41 AM
I found the Mills article interesting too.

ISTM that the trick is to know what you are doing, which is not so easy.

In some situations it may be best to pray alone, in others to exhort the individual in private, in others to speak out forcefully in public. Sometimes like the father praying patiently for his prodigal son; sometimes like Christ who first dismissed the mob in shame and secured the safety of the adulteress, before privately calling her to repentence; and sometimes like Christ with the Pharisees. Sometimes the good shepherd, but dusting off sandals at others.

Correctly sizing up the situation is not easy for mere mortals; it should be approached with appropriate humility. If - hypothetically - you are applying the Pharisee treatment to the adultress of scripture, then, from the very example of Christ, you are objectively getting it wrong, and these words of Wells apply:

Quote
The early Christians did not seem to have a place for what we would call "honest mistakes" or "legitimate differences of opinion" ... They saw that those in error were really in danger ... They would not try to jolly them along ... No, they were rebuked ...
And if in that case:

Quote
You will find yourself called unkind, arrogant, and uncharitable; or divisive, troublemaking, and an impediment to mission; or harsh and strident; or simple-minded. ... accused of sins against the person ...
then such words to you are good Christian polemics. It would be base euphemism to say otherwise.

What is the right approach? It is hard to predict. But after the fact, one could do some assement. How many people have been brought to Christ, versus turned away, by a Christian publically calling them a abomination or sodomite?

A final point. Mills writes about the Pharisee-treatment for ostensible Christians who are getting wrong, and moreover preaching it wrong. He is not writing about evangelizing non-Christians. That might give a hint about the right approach.
Posted By: incognitus Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/28/05 06:21 AM
So now Mardi Gras is on the Index of Prohibited Parades? I've never gone to New Orleans for Mardi Gras and probably never will, but Mardi Gras has been around a lot longer than gay pride parades and the city fathers of New Orleans are unlikely to appreciate efforts by Mrs Grundy and the Bluestockings to abolish it. Come to think of it, the Puritans tried to abolish Christmas.

Me, I think pecan pralines (made in New Orleans for Mardi Gras) are delicious and I shall think of you fondly (but not THAT fondly) the next time I eat some.

What's your stand on popcorn? Agin that too?

Incognitus
Posted By: DocBrian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/29/05 06:54 PM
Quote
How many people have been brought to Christ, versus turned away, by a Christian publically calling them a ... sodomite?
I don't personally use the word, "abomination." So that is a moot point.

To call them "gay" is to buy into their lie that there is anything whatsoever "gay" about physically dangerous and gravely immoral sexual behavior. So a Christian, in good conscience, must not use that term.

To call them "homosexual" is a violation of their worth as an individual made in the image and likeness of God who cannot, by nature, be indentifird by a moral and psychological disorder. So a Christian, in good conscience, must not use that term.


All that is left is to refer to individuals as "afflicted with Same Sex Attraction Disorder."

But this makes no distinction between the individual afflicted with Same Sex Attraction Disorder who is living a chaste life and fighting that disorder, and the individual afflicted with Same Sex Attraction Disorder who is living the self-destructive and mortally sinful lie of the sodomite lyfestyle.

So given the terminology available, the only two options available are "SSAD" and "sodomite."

I won't apologize for that, and neither will I stand by as (hopefully) misguided folks try to claim that the term "sodomite" is unnaceptable or an epithet.
Posted By: incognitus Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/29/05 07:54 PM
Most people of my acquaintance, of various races, colors, religious convictions if any, sexual preferences and so forth are agreed that it is impertinent for someone else to determine to foist some definition of his own choosing on other human beings (the obvious exception is the generally accepted one that parents name their children).

That said, and while I remain thoroughly of the view that epithets (which are best defined by those on the receiving end - one would not take the Ku Klux Klan seriously if they were to claim that they use a certain word for African Americans because it is scientifically neutral, nor are most Catholics willing to take C.S. Lewis's excuse for calling us "papists" only be cause that way he did not have to choose between "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic"), if one must indulge one's emotions in such ways, I prefer verbal assaults to egg-throwing and other forms of violence.

Incognitus
Posted By: DocBrian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/29/05 07:59 PM
Quote
Originally posted by incognitus:
[QB] Most people of my acquaintance, of various races, colors, religious convictions if any, sexual preferences and so forth
Most Christians of my acquantance know that the qualities of ones races, colors, religious convictions and so forth are in no way comparable to "sexual preferences," i.e., gay or lesbian, and that attempts to slyly insert such a claim are part and parcel of the homosexual agenda ityself.

And the term "sodomite" is not an epithet, except to those living in sodomy.
Posted By: Mike C. Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/29/05 09:48 PM
Ingonitus:

No, I was just wondering if you had a job, owned a car and a house.

I served in the Air Force during Viet Nam, and I don't have those things. You are looking for amnesty for your protests during the Viet Nam war. As far as I'm concerned you already have your amnesty.
Posted By: incognitus Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/29/05 10:27 PM
Dear Mike,
No, I am not looking for an amnesty from anybody for anything; to the best of my knowledge no public authorities anywhere are looking for me. But I'm curious to know what eventually developed along the line of an amnesty.

Since you have given an understandable reason for inquiring, no, I do not own a house or car. I'm sorry to learn that you don't either, and I offer my poor prayers that you may succeed in having them. As to myself, it's not that I'm non-acquistive or lacking in ambition; it's just that what money I can get my hands on is likelier to go into books than anything else.

If for any reason you are still hurt by the views and activities of those who protested the Vietnam War, I can't offer you very much apart from the assurance that I and my friends and associates were quite honestly sincere in our opposition to that war, and that I do not question your own honesty and sincerity. At this late date, it is perhaps best that we agree to disagree.

Wars can be funny things. I had occasion to visit Germany a couple of times (my dad fought in the US Army in World War II and I have NO use for Nazis) and after seeing the affluence of Germany, I have a question: if they lost the war, who won? Thirty years later, or whatever it is, it seems fairly clear that the US "lost" the Vietnam War, but not at all clear who, if anybody, won.

You've set me thinking - forgive me; rambling thoughts are among my vices. I remember that on the day that the Vietnam War finally ended I had already been back in grad school for a year or so, after some time away from academia. Anyway, I was on my way to class when the news came over the radio that the war was at last over. The strange part of it for me personally is that at that moment, I just had no emotional reaction at all. Too long a sacrifice can make a stone of the heart.

But to stop rambling and get back to the present: neither one of us is personally in need of an amnesty. What each of us needs is to allow ourselves to accept the passage of time, and the realization that we truly can be at peace with one another without asking each other to repudiate his thoughts and activities of thirty or thirty-five years ago.

For the sake of Christ, forgive me.

Incognitus
Posted By: djs Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/29/05 11:35 PM
Quote
How many people have been brought to Christ, versus turned away, by a Christian publically calling them a ... sodomite?
Doc, From your response - completely unresponsive to the question - I gather that you lack interst in actual assesment of the efficacy of your approach.

That's a clanging bell, not a polemicist.
Posted By: DocBrian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/30/05 05:54 PM
Quote
Originally posted by djs:
Quote
How many people have been brought to Christ, versus turned away, by a Christian publically calling them a ... sodomite?
Doc, From your response - completely unresponsive to the question - I gather that you lack interst in actual assesment of the efficacy of your approach.

That's a clanging bell, not a polemicist.
Actually, it is BECAUSE of the efficacy of this approach, i.e., refusing to buy into the euphemistic lies and presenting the Truth, that the gay agenda promoters don't like it.

The single most effective method of turning people away from supporting "legal" abortions is the use of life-like ultrasounds juxtaposed with the images of aborted babies.

Likewise the single most effective method of fighting and turning back the homosexual juggernaut it to reveal the reality of sodomy, its effects on the body, and its supporters ultimate agenda.

There is a difference between fighting the Culture Wars to turn back the tide of deviancy engulfing our country, and evangelizing and trying to save sodomites.

Both need done, desperately. Some are called to one and not the other fight.

If you don't like my approach, don't read my posts. But when it comes to efficacy, your approach confirms homosexuals in their deviancy, mine does not, and only God will judge which one is just or charitable or effective.
Posted By: djs Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/30/05 06:12 PM
Quote
If you don't like my approach, don't read my posts. But when it comes to efficacy, your approach confirms homosexuals in their deviancy, mine does not, and only God will judge which one is just or charitable or effective.
I will read and comment on what I please, subject to the rules of the forum implemented by the administrators.

If you would read Mills with some introspection you might better understand the posts that disagree with yours, and understand that that disagreement cannot simply be dismissed as dissent or a betrayal of orthodox - as you characterize it elsewhere.

You still are evasive on my specific question on efficacy: How many individuals have been brought to Christ, versus turned away, by a Christian publicly calling them a ... sodomite?

Yes, God will judge. That reminder usually evokes some circumspection in Catholics. Some fear and trembling about getting it right. You seem immune to that - as evidenced most dramtically in your facile, simplistic judgment of BC's.
https://www.byzcath.org/bboard/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002405;p=1#000009
Where does this presumption come from?
Posted By: DocBrian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/30/05 07:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by djs:
Quote
If you don't like my approach, don't read my posts. But when it comes to efficacy, your approach confirms homosexuals in their deviancy, mine does not, and only God will judge which one is just or charitable or effective.
I will read and comment on what I please, subject to the rules of the forum implemented by the administrators.

If you would read Mills with some introspection you might better understand the posts that disagree with yours, and understand that that disagreement cannot simply be dismissed as dissent or a betrayal of orthodox - as you characterize it elsewhere.

You still are evasive on my specific question on efficacy: How many individuals have been brought to Christ, versus turned away, by a Christian publicly calling them a ... sodomite?

Yes, God will judge. That reminder usually evokes some circumspection in Catholics. Some fear and trembling about getting it right. You seem immune to that - as evidenced most dramtically in your facile, simplistic judgment of BC's.
https://www.byzcath.org/bboard/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002405;p=1#000009
Where does this presumption come from?
Obviously, Dan Lauffer and others here see through your guise. You two are apologists for and advocates of the homosexual agenda.

You use their propagandistic language and talking points, and instead of responding to the substance of other peoples' posts, you engage in ad hominem attack.

And you do so knowing that the moderators don't have the strength of conviction to filially correct you.

You are masters of the gay rights play book.

I don't accept that, and I point out its damnable hypocrisy anywhere I run across it.

Again, if you don't like what I have to say, ignore my posts.

But knock off the ad hominem attacks.
Quote
Originally posted by djs:
[QB] [QUOTE]
How many individuals have been brought to Christ, versus turned away, by a Christian publicly calling them a ... sodomite?
There are far more souls in danger of perdition from Catholics failing to fight the homosexual agenda than there are souls open to repenting and believing and leaving the sodomist lifestyle.

Therefore, my time is better spent fighting your agenda.

While others have made it their mission and apostolate to evangelize sodomites to bring them out of their mortally sinful and physically morbid lifestyles, God has called others to fight the homosexual agenda juggernaut.

So you make a false dichotomy.

One group can evangelize sodomites while others try to fight back the sodomites' obvious agenda and propaganda, to protect the culture at large and prevent the sodomists from recruiting more unsuspecting souls into their deviant lifestyle.
Posted By: djs Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/30/05 07:55 PM
Quote
Obviously, Dan Lauffer and others here see through your guise. You two are apologists for and advocates of the homosexual agenda.
You use their propagandistic language and talking points, and instead of responding to the substance of other peoples' posts...
You are masters of the gay rights play book.
I point out its damnable hypocrisy ...
Quote
knock off the ad hominem attacks.
biggrin biggrin biggrin

More seriously, I object to your libeling of the moderators, who have in fact have had occasion to correct me and have not been shy about it. I also object to the idea that I am unresponsive. When you have asked questions I have responded.

Quote
So you make a false dichotomy
I think there is some merit in this point. I had previously posted on three approaches that one might take on this matter. And I agree some may be called to one or another of the approaches (and I note that you did respond to Lawrence's call to prayer). You might like to consider such a diversity of charism for others too, btw. Nevertheless the question still stands: is your labeling approach a net plus or minus in the overall battle. What makes you so sure that it's a plus; what makes you so sure that this situation is not one that calls for the manner of Christ with the adulteress? I think this is a fair question.

ps I have read some of your articles, for example the one on diseases among homosexuals - that was really very good, I thought. But, do I recall correctly that the term you used was homosexual not sodomite?
Posted By: incognitus Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/30/05 08:05 PM
Interesting � in a response to djs (with a reference to �you two� which appears to refer to me as well) Doc Brian exhorts us to �knock off the ad hominem attacks�.

He also, in the same post, writes that �the moderators don't have the strength of conviction to filially correct you.� If that isn�t an ad hominem attack on the moderators, I don�t know what would be. And as for the suggestion that the moderators should �filially correct� djs and/or myself, I don�t know whether any of the moderators are members of djs�s family, but none of them are children of mine, so any correction they might care to offer me would be fraternal, not filial.

Doc Brian, still in the same post, writes that �You two are apologists for and advocates of the homosexual agenda.� Once again, this is clearly an ad hominem attack. I am an apologist for and advocate of basic social civility, as articulated very well by Father John Courtney Murray.

Doc Brian continues �You use their propagandistic language and talking points�. If so � and I don�t believe it to be so � that is no more than coincidence unless, of course, people who advocate whatever the �homosexual agenda� may be also advocate civility, in which case they deserve commendation. Civility is a good thing.

There�s more, but I will give only one last quote from Doc Brian �You are masters of the gay rights play book.� I am not only not a master of such a book, I am unaware of its existence and I doubt that Doc Brian could supply a bibliographic reference for a book with such a title.

Finally Doc Brian invites us not to read his posts if we don�t like them. As a recently deceased (requiescat in pace) defender of the Tridentine Mass aptly remarked, people who of set purpose only read things that they already know that they agree with need not trouble themselves to read anything at all.

Incognitus
Posted By: incognitus Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/30/05 09:27 PM
ATTENTION MIKE C.

Dear Mike,
If I'm being a nuisance, please forgive me. I just saw a 45 minute film which called you strongly to my thoughts - it's a National Geographic film, made in 2001, but I'd not seen it until tonight. Title is something like "The Secret War". Anyway, it's about two photographers, one from each side - the American was Tim Page, and the North Vietnamese was something like Dong Tin. Anyway, each of them had worked - separately, of course - during the Vietnam War taking photographs; it appears that Tim Page was also able to take some motion pictures. National Geographic had the bright idea to bring the two together on a return visit to what was then South Vietnam.

I remembered some of the pictures from all those years ago, and the pictures are still harrowing. But what was of great interest was the overwhelming welcome the two men received - much to their own surprise - in the places that they visited. They brought along lots of photographs and displayed them; in many cases it turned out that a picture was the last picture, or even the only picture, of someone who had been killed. As you can imagine, this meant having lots of reproductions of the pictures made quickly so that copies could be given to the relatives and friends of the deceased.

Each of them recounted some of his experiences during the war. Tim Page was very nearly killed and in fact lost a quarter of his brain when he inadvertently stepped on a mine. Dong Tin was the only photographer from either side who made it into Quang Tri for the spring 1972 siege of the citadel, so he had no bed of roses. That they could even speak to each other, let alone become friends, seems miraculous.

Thought you might want to know of this. If you've not seen the film and would like to, probably this can be arranged with National Geographic.

Incognitus
Posted By: DocBrian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/31/05 04:41 PM
Quote
As a recently deceased (requiescat in pace) defender of the Tridentine Mass aptly remarked, people who of set purpose only read things that they already know that they agree with need not trouble themselves to read anything at all.

Incognitus [/QB]
So Catholics should pollute their minds with lies, all in the name of fairness and civility? That quite some Gospel you preach.

From Recovering the Art of Christian Polemics

Quote
St. John and St. Polycarp spoke the way they did because every word matters when you are talking about Jesus. One word is true, and another word, which may be a very similar word, is false. The right word leads to Jesus, the wrong word leads away from Him. Jesus is of one being with the Father, not of like being. He is the Son of the Father, not a son of the Father. He is begotten, not made.

Therefore those who say the wrong words, and keep saying them after the authorities have corrected them, proclaim a Jesus who does not exist, and thereby endanger the souls of men who want to meet Him. The Jesuses they present almost always look a lot like the real Jesus, especially to those who do not know Him very well.

And they are usually very good spokesmen for the Jesus they've invented. Men of this sort are almost always compelling teachers, who offer a Jesus designed to be what many of their hearers expect or want. The successful heretic knows how to design his product to sell in the religious market, and many people will like his Jesus a lot more than the real one.

People who are so good at offering the world a fake Jesus must be rebuked and corrected by those, pastors and writers particularly, who have the gifts to do so. They will sometimes have to speak a hard word, in the mode of St. John or St. Polycarp. They will sometimes have to explain that Smith is wrong and that Jones is a false teacher and that Wilson is an enemy of the Faith.

This is a way they minister to those placed within their care. The writer is his readers' shepherd for as long as they read his work, whether or not he wants to be. Both pastor and writer speak mainly to lead their sheep to water and grass, but they will also speak to guard them from the wolves, to make sure that the sheep live long enough to reach the water and the grass. They know that many of their sheep will not recognize a wolf on sight, and left on their own might invite the wolf home to dinner, only to find, too late, that they are the main course.

Because the pastor or writer wants his sheep to get to the water and grass whole and unharmed, he must teach them about wolves, and point out as many wolves as he can. It is the job God has given him to do. It comes with the gifts God has given him.
Posted By: djs Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/31/05 07:21 PM
Quote
As a recently deceased (requiescat in pace) defender of the Tridentine Mass aptly remarked, people who of set purpose only read things that they already know that they agree with need not trouble themselves to read anything at all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Catholics should pollute their minds with lies... That quite some Gospel you preach.
Not much is really necessary to read.

But in this age, when so much information and even more disinformation is available, it is not a bad idea to take a broad look at what is going on.

And that's not a bad agenda. Develop skill in reasoning and diligence in comprehensive collection of provable facts. This will lead to truth, which never, as JPII said, contradicts Truth.

The idea of blocking out ostensible facts and arguments in circulation is risky. Eventually they seep in. And if one is unprepared to deal with them - then there will be trouble.
Posted By: incognitus Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/31/05 07:42 PM
When Doc Brian announced his imminent departure, I knew it was too good to be true.

Doc Brian - there is nobody who can force you to read anything you don't want to read. You may be as antiliterate as you like. I can no more force you to read the analysis offered by Father John Courney Muray than I can force to you watch Inherit the Wind. But there are MANY people who will object strenuously to the notion that you have some divine mission to determine what others are allowed to read.

Your remarkably one-track crusade causes me to suspect that something is terrifying you. I have no idea what that may be, nor do I care to speculate on the subject. Fanatics, ultimately, are boring.

Incognitus
Posted By: DocBrian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/31/05 08:31 PM
Quote
Your remarkably one-track crusade causes me to suspect that something is terrifying you. I have no idea what that may be, nor do I care to speculate on the subject. Fanatics, ultimately, are boring.
As I said, you revel in ad hominem.

You make sure you get in the last word, now, ok?
Posted By: incognitus Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 07/31/05 10:48 PM
Has anyone a recipe for Imperial Torte?

Dear Scandinavian - please come back!

Incognitus
Posted By: louisix Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 08/01/05 07:48 PM
I recall that Jesus Christ had no problem describing those promoting Mortal Sin as to what they really were in the New Testament, in particular, where they would end up with final impenitence, the unforgiveable sin against the Holy Ghost. See the Gospel of Matthew, in particular, chapters 10,11,12,13,18, and 25.

Matthew 18:6 stands out in regard to causing the scandal of "little ones." This is of particular relevance to the main topic of this thread since there has been a call by pro-sodomite activists in the J. of Homosexsuality to promote something called "intergenerational intimacy," better known by its real name, which is the sexual abuse of children. In fact, in this same journal parents were told by these activists that they "should welcome the loving pedophile into their homes."

It is traditional Catholic teaching that it is the One True Triune God Who created the world. This is formalized in the Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X by observing that "whatever one Person (of the Trinity) does with regard to creatures is done by the other two Persons in one and the selfsame act. Thus, Jesus Christ, as Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, along with the Holy Ghost, were present during the events of Genesis 19, where there was no reluctance whatsoever to call the unnatural sin responsible for the destruction of the Cities of the Plain what it was. See New Testament Jude for more references to Christ along these lines.
Posted By: louisix Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 08/01/05 08:50 PM
Accordingly, why should Catholics be reluctant to follow the example of Jesus Christ, as Second Person of the Blessed Trinity existing eternally, in describing a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance as to what it really is, in particular, where, barring repentence, it will ultimately lead?

Axiom - "Mercy without justice is meaningless!"

The "good and gentle" Jesus understands this perfectly as Second Person of the One True Triune God eternally. Moreover, it is showing abudant mercy to correct error leading to grave sin as soon as it rears its ugly head, as opposed to the absurdity pawned off by the dissenters in the modern Church who would have us believe that such error will correct itself. Sed contra! History proves otherwise.

To anesthetize unnatural behavior by not calling it what it is, was, and will always be, is to use the language of the devil! Those struggling with inclinations to unnatural acts are not served by being anesthetized as to the severity of the intrinsic evil which has them by the jugular.

Love begins by telling the Truth, Who is a Someone, not a something. Christ Himself did not shirk from doing so, and He did not worry about who was offended in the process. His concern was the supernatural, not the natural.
Posted By: Gaudior Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 08/01/05 09:44 PM
Dear incognitus,

I would ask that someone with your splendid ability to conceal your identity pop 'round to Vienna in an attempt to ferret out the secret recipe.

Gaudior, who thinks the only think better than chocolate is chocolate with marzipan...
Posted By: incognitus Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 08/01/05 10:05 PM
Dear Gaudior,
I have no particular reason to believe that the recipe is a secret - most Viennese pastries are available (that is, the recipes are available) in cookbooks somewhere. But in the case of the Imperial Torte I would gladly settle for the address in Vienna from which this can be ordered.

Incognitus
Posted By: DocBrian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 08/02/05 08:16 PM
Its good to see that these annoying series of threads on the inconsequential issue of the loss of Christians' rights to defend the gospel message about morality have moved on to a far more appropriate and evangelicly pressing subject, pastries.

:rolleyes:
Posted By: Our Lady's slave Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 08/02/05 08:24 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DocBrian:
Its good to see that these annoying series of threads on the inconsequential issue of the loss of Christians' rights to defend the gospel message about morality have moved on to a far more appropriate and evangelicly pressing subject, pastries.

:rolleyes:
TSK TSK - same reply to 2 threads - that could count as spamming
Posted By: DocBrian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 08/02/05 08:48 PM
Quote
TSK TSK - same reply to 2 threads - that could count as spamming [/QB]
Of course, those repeatedly hijacking threads with Imperial Torte comments aren't spamming, right?
Posted By: Gaudior Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 08/02/05 08:52 PM
Dear Doc Brian,

Not at all...people WANT to know about Imperial Torte...

But, Anhelyna, he posted his clever wee response of a few threads, not just two.

Gaudior, who thinks that he should simply learn to discuss chocolate like a gentleman...
Posted By: Our Lady's slave Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 08/02/05 08:55 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DocBrian:
Quote
TSK TSK - same reply to 2 threads - that could count as spamming
Of course, those repeatedly hijacking threads with Imperial Torte comments aren't spamming, right? [/QB]
Well now if I really said what I would like to - I could well be accused of spamming -- so I won't.

This really is exceedingly petty and verging on infantile
Posted By: DocBrian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 08/02/05 09:43 PM
Shall we charitably return to the subject of this thread?

I'll post these comments by Pope john Paul II, which I have repeated in my own comments on this thread.

I humbly ask your forgiveness for my angry posts, the reason for which I have just privately emailed several of your Moderators and Administrator, and I will take a several week vacation from this Forum, which should please most everyone biggrin

Sunday, 9 July, 2000, 13:08 GMT 14:08 UK

Pope condemns gay rights march

Gays dressed as priests outside the Coliseum

Pope John Paul has delivered a powerful condemnation of the gay rights march held in Rome on Saturday, describing it as an offence to Christian values.

Addressing thousands of pilgrims in St Peter's Square, he said the Roman Catholic Church could not keep quiet about the truth. He said it regarded homosexual acts to be against natural law.

I must express sadness for ... the offence to Christian values of a city that is so dear to the heart of Catholics

Correspondents say his remarks will anger gay activists. They were hoping the Gay Pride march, attended by an estimated 70,000 people, would help improve relations with the Church.

But before the march - held as part of World Pride Week - the Vatican tried to get it banned.

The Pope re-affirmed the Church's position that it would not compromise in its opposition to homosexuality.

"In the name of the Church of Rome, I must express sadness for the affront to the great jubilee of the year 2000 and the offence to Christian values of a city t that is so dear to the heart of Catholics of the whole world," he said.

He went on to deliver a catechism lesson to the crowd, stressing the Church's belief that homosexual acts are against nature and are therefore intrinsically evil.

During his address, the Pope read from an entry on homosexuality in the Catholic Church's catechism, which calls it "objectively disordered". Many in the crowd applauded his words.

At the same time, the Pope acknowledged that a considerable number of people had deeply rooted homosexual tendencies, and said they should be treated with respect, compassion and delicacy.

All types of unjust discrimination towards such people must be avoided , he added.

Saturday's march from the Coliseum and the Circus Maximus - two of Rome's most famous ancient sites - was one of the biggest to take place in Rome for decades.

Jubilant

The mood was jubilant, as gays and their supporters from around the world joined in tooting whistles and carrying banners proclaiming gay pride.

Some marchers carried placards denouncing the Catholic Church.


Imma Battaglia (rght) fought hard to have the event staged
"1943: The Vatican says nothing about the deportation of Gays and Jews," one placard read. "2000: The Vatican speaks out against Gay Pride."

Among the marchers was a soberly dressed provincial priest marching in solidarity.

"I'm not the Pope, but I'm here!" the Reverend Vitaliano Della Sala said.

Many families joined in the parade - the first occasion on which gay rights has been openly presented to Italians as a legitimate human rights issue.

Prominent Italian left-wing and radical politicians were also there for the event, which took place amid heavy police security after threats by neo-Fascists to disrupt the proceedings.

Criticism

The Vatican had earlier criticised the Italian government and the Rome city authorities for allowing the parade.

Italy's prime minister Guiliano Amato ordered the country's minister for equal rights to cancel her ministry's official sponsorship of World Pride.

World Pride Week has dramatically brought gay rights issues out of the closet in Italy.

Activist Imma Battaglia, who led the battle for the parade permit, said: "No one will be able to stop us ever again. We'll continue the fight for freedom, equality and respect."
Posted By: Gaudior Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 08/02/05 09:48 PM
No one on this Forum has condoned the behaviour of active homosexuals...PLEASE let's just LEAVE it alone, unless you are willing to give thought to contructive methods of dealing with this "in-your-face" homosexuality without violating the laws of the land?

Gaudior, hoping you will do some thinking while you are gone.
Posted By: DocBrian Re: Those violent gays, eyh? - 08/02/05 09:58 PM
Quote
unless you are willing to give thought to contructive methods of dealing with this "in-your-face" homosexuality
Pope John Paul II gave you your marching orders in this regard (see especially the bold areas):

Quote
he said the Roman Catholic Church could not keep quiet about the truth.

before the march - held as part of World Pride Week - the Vatican tried to get it banned .

The Pope re-affirmed the Church's position that it would not compromise in its opposition to homosexuality.
Obviously, the Church says we must not compromise, that this IS an issue far more important than pastries, and that the contructive methods of dealing with this "in-your-face" homosexuality is to fight it openly, publicly, and without compromise.

Fortunately, during my upcoming vacation, I will be blessed with the opportunity of attending the Maronite Divine Liturgy.

I will pray for you all, that you grasp the very obvious message the Pope was sending with his remarks above, and that in the future, those following his contructive methods of dealing with this "in-your-face" homosexuality be treated with far more charity here, and those posting comments diametrically opposed to his comments here, as they have on this thread, be as sternly and publicly corrected by the moderators with filial kindness, as they have so kindly corrected me here.
© The Byzantine Forum