Phil said: I agree with that to the extent that no serious moral principles are being compromised. A hallmark of Catholic and conservative policy is that such are to be accountable to principles, [b]and not simply the will of the people.

Well, that's probably the biggest flaw in my argument. A democracy could (and did) vote for slavery, but that wouldn't make it right. But the one principle I�m kind of relying on is a Goldwaterian conservative "government has no right sticking its nose in the bedrooms of consenting adults".

At any rate, it may well be that homosexuals are more helped by a principled argument than by pointing to the will of the people; signs are that the latter do not want it and almost always vote it down when given an opportunity to register their voices.

Which is why, as Limbaugh would say, the left usually runs to the courts. They couldn't get much of their agenda passed if put to a vote.

Concerning the link "On The Disease-Ridden Homosexual Lifestyle": I think that's why I'm fairly confident about advocating a straight lifestyle while being accepting of those who are genuinely gay (or profess to be genuinely gay). And this also means I am for the advocacy and availability (and political correctness) of resources meant to "straighten" those who wish to escape the gay lifestyle, aren't quite sure of their sexuality, or for just putting out this information as a competing alternative. Message to gays: To promote heterosexuality does not necessarily mean intolerance toward gays. Note to brother conservatives: See previous note.

JB, this is already an open/shut case with the Catholic hierarchy for the reasons you cited above, mostly V.S. and its ultimate reliance on objective moral criteria rooting in an essentialistic approach. [snippety snip by jb] The approach, we would say, is consequentialistic, but that doesn't mean it's not valid.

I was just trying to get you to say this

If you were at all familiar with my moral discourses elsewhere, especially re: artificial contraception, you would know how sympathetic I am to probabilism and proportionalism, not to mention consequentialistic and existential perspectives.

So while I categorically reject any essentialistic interpretation of the natural law that views adverse health consequences as a form of punishment for deviant behavior, I do very much agree that a consequentialistic approach is valid. It is somewhat ironic, isn't it, that so much of Humanae Vitae addressed Paul VI's slippery slope analysis as well as other consequentialistic "predictions"? Furthermore, even an unbending natural law interpretation would not preclude any number of pastoral responses. What those might be, however, I do not know. Whatever they are, I very much endorse a consequentialistic analysis.

So, let me try to get you to say something else. Do you object to homosexual acts based strictly on their nonprocreative aspect? Or could you see that criterion being more broadly conceived, spiritually over against merely physicalistically? Or could you see a proportional good possibly emerging from the unitive and covenantal aspect of such unions? What about a consequentialistic analysis that would suggest that sanctioning, somehow, such unions might militate against the promiscuous lifestyles and the very consequences those articles were identifying? For that matter, what about birth control? Do you agree with the natural law interpretation and the essentialistic analysis of the Magisterium, seeking only a pastoral solution on par with the sanctioning of NFP? Or do you see some essentialistic room to maneuver, for instance, by more broadly conceiving the procreative criterion, such as a) being entailed over the totality of the relationship? b) having spiritual as well as biologistic, physicalistic dimensions? For you see, I see these issues regarding ABC as having some bearing on (logical consequences for) homosexual unions, depending on how one approaches ABC.

Or, feel free to defer and demur, because these are not as simple and straightforward, necessarily, as I have set forth, the potential fallacies being both slippery slope and false dichotomizing.

I appreciate and understand where you were coming from with your question. I just thought it had additional evocative potential and, further, didn't want any other observer to co-opt it in terms of punishment from God theory.

pax,
jb

Phil's link: Why Homosexuals Tend To Be Sexually Exploitative

That's quite a scathing review of homosexuality. I have to admit that I'm not sure if one can extrapolate from San Francisco to the rest of the gay population, while realizing that a great many social norms might be popularized in SF (or simply reality is unabashedly on exhibit here). I've got a "I know a gay couple" story, and while I don't know them all that well, they same to be as boring and mundane as a regular heterosexual couple (no offense, all you wild and crazy heterosexual couples out there). I'm not entirely sure if the gay culture is radicalized because of being on the fringe or is so wantonly promiscuous because of the very nature of homosexuality. (Or, as I've heard it explained, testosterone males are naturally inclined to be promiscuous. Make them sexuality attracted to each other, and without the moderating influence of females, you get bedlam.)

Phil said: My question about whether some deviation from moral principles is implied by social disorder is more rhetorical than not. It seems to me, however, that there is a connection, and perhaps the best way to get at that sometimes is through examining consequences . . . the assumption being, here, that living in harmony with moral principles brings about harmony and goodness.

I wonder if society's attitudes and views on certain subjects (such as homosexuality) don't change the consequences. Can I proffer that it was once considered immoral (at the very least, scandalous) for a white person and a black person to marry? The consequences for such a union were often social misery and isolation. But attitudes change; specifically in this case, that race should not be a factor in determining human rights or social standing. Now, of course, there are those who wish to extend this argument to sexual orientation (or sexual choice). I agree that there are some very unhealthy homosexual practices. The same can be said of heterosexuals. I�m not for throwing away the idea of monogamy (thus marriage should still be just between two people); nor am I for throwing away the idea of sexual responsibility and sex in terms of being more than just a physical experience. We know the misery that can come from viewing sex as no more than gymnastics. But is this attitude toward sex inherent in homosexuality? If so, that's a major strike against the acceptance of homosexuality. But even if so, there are still those who are gay and who wish to lead a "normal" monogamous lifestyle and to just be left alone. Can we in good conscience not make room for them while still railing against sexual acts of all kinds that lead to misery? I would say, at the very least, there is common ground in the idea of monogamous and committed homosexual arrangements, civil or otherwise.

If the larger principle is the well being of adults, and if we accept that some people are born gay, like it or not, then eventually I suspect we'll move past the revulsion many of us feel about the idea of homosexuality and concentrate more on laws and customs that best support moral behavior regardless of sexual orientation � and that will include the promotion of a heterosexual lifestyle while acknowledging the reality and right of gay people to exist as gay people. Granted, that's a big "if" and a big leap. And it's just as important, if not more so, for the gay movement to drop it's "queer" torch of extremism and not view any attempt to moderate sexual misconduct as an attack on homosexuality. For if homosexuality is to be associated with nothing more than an "anything goes" style of sexual freedom then it is doomed to always be looked down on � and rightly so � as an enemy of well-ordered and healthy society.

no offense, all you wild and crazy heterosexual couples out there

No problem, here.

I suspect Phil was not offended either

I wonder if society's attitudes and views on certain subjects (such as homosexuality) don't change the consequences. Can I proffer that it was once considered immoral (at the very least, scandalous) for a white person and a black person to marry? The consequences for such a union were often social misery and isolation. But attitudes change

This may be an obtuse angle (one of my charisms and not at all a veiled reference to the Kama Sutra), but I have often wondered how many abortions were motivated by the societal and religious stigmas attached to out of wedlock pregnancies, you know the sanctimonious and merciless attitudes portrayed in the Scarlet Letter (poor Demi Moore)? rather than by other of life's exigencies? IOW, overly harsh and overly critical and often cruel, sanctimonious attitudes may, themselves, have indirectly killed no too few fetuses.

From "On The Disease-Ridden Homosexual Lifestyle "

quote:

Liberals and their media love to restrict the rights of consenting adults who smoke (because smoking can be harmful), who drink alcohol (for obvious reasons), who own guns (because accidents and murders happen), who believe homosexual activity is immoral and penalizeable (because liberals mistakenly think that there is a right to aberrations like homosexual behavior and also think that any "speech" that reflects negatively on homosexuals----like the information you are reading on this website----should be considered "hate speech"), etc., etc. Liberals love to patronizingly restrict our freedoms ("for our own good").

However, liberals apparently believe it's perfectly okay for people to spread sexual diseases all over this country. Why, we can't restrict the rights of people who spread STDs! That's oppression and fascism! Liberals are such hypocrites.

Incidentally, spending on AIDS research is excessive, totally out-of-whack, unconscionably unfair--and homosexuals are so selfish they don't care. In the year 2000 we spent around $180 million on prostate cancer research versus around $7 billion on AIDS research, but the number of men who are stricken with prostate cancer each year in the U.S.A. is several times the number of people annually stricken with AIDS!! And in the year 2000 we spent only around $425 million on breast cancer research versus the $7 billion on AIDS research, even though the number of women who are stricken with breast cancer each year is again several times the number of people annually stricken with AIDS in this country!! It's pretty clear that homosexuals care little about those who die of prostate and breast cancers and other diseases that are relatively underfunded compared to AIDS. Where is their humanity and sense of fairness?

Another point that needs making: homosexuals have done much damage to this country. For example, thousands of innocent hemophiliacs died of AIDS in years past because HIV-positive homosexuals infected the blood supply. And for another example, we are spending millions and millions of taxpayer dollars on anti-AIDS drugs for homosexuals who voluntarily engaged in unsafe sex. Because of these outrages homosexuals collectively owe America an apology and reparations for the damages.

To sum up, for various reasons (homosexual acts are physiologically unnatural, homosexuals are inclined to be notably promiscuous), the "homosexual lifestyle" tends to be a very unhealthy one--unhealthy both to individuals and to the society that indirectly pays for or suffers the consequences. To encourage anyone to engage in homosexual activity is clearly irresponsible and depraved.

Holy cow! Hot potato. Did this guy go to the Brad Nelson school of political rhetoric? But I have to admit, I can't find a significant hole in this guy's arguments.

JB said: �but I have often wondered how many abortions were motivated by the societal and religious stigmas attached to out of wedlock pregnancies, you know the sanctimonious and merciless attitudes portrayed in the Scarlet Letter (poor Demi Moore)? rather than by other of life's exigencies? IOW, overly harsh and overly critical and often cruel, sanctimonious attitudes may, themselves, have indirectly killed no too few fetuses.

That's a difficult issue. The other side of this coin is: How much misery has been caused by pregnancies, aborted or otherwise, perhaps combined with drugs or alcohol, because of a lack of stigma and shame associated with callous and irresponsible behavior?

I think the bottom line is, particularly since I don't expect society to suddenly become sane, that if people are going to have liberty than they must also own the corresponding responsibility and pains that go along with them. That is, take all the freedom you want. Just don't ask me to pay for you when your excesses cause you harm. You want to live a promiscuous lifestyle? Fine. But don't make me pay for it with higher medical costs when you get AIDS. This cost ME some of my liberty. You want to have kids out of wedlock. Fine. But don't ask ME to have to pay to clean up your mess. The issue become a little more difficult when kids are involved, thus we come back to our original question, which seems to be a paradox, JB. If people know that they can act irresponsibly and that the rest of society will clean up their messes, do we cause even more misery? And when is tough love too tough?

In The Squeaky Wheel Gets the Grease , Michael Fumento writes:

quote:

That spending is disparately focused on AIDS is no longer disputed, and was documented earlier this year in "Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs," a report by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), a branch of the highly reputed, non-governmental National Academy of Sciences. A better title for the report might have been "The Squeaky Wheel Gets the Grease."

The squeaking began with AIDS activists, who pursued a two-pronged strategy. First, they claimed that anyone who denied them the research money they demanded was a homophobe. Second, they insisted that AIDS was not just a gay disease but "an equal opportunity destroyer." That these two positions are somewhat contradictory seemed to bother no one, and the strategy won firm backing from the federal health bureaucracy, including Reagan's Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who talked of a "heterosexual AIDS explosion," and Clinton's Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala, who told Congress in 1993 that we might not have "any Americans left unless we're prepared to confront the crisis of AIDS."

quote:

The effects on research spending were inevitable. Following a trend established in the late 1980's, last year's National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget allocated about $70,000 for each AIDS death in 1997. Cancer received less than $5,000 and heart disease less than $2,000.

Breast cancer activists openly copied the AIDS campaign, replacing the word "homophobe" with "misogynist," and the red ribbon with a pink one. While breast cancer activists couldn't pretend that all - men and women alike - were at equal risk of getting the disease, they started the myth that research spending was almost entirely male-oriented. To prove this they compared research allocations for women's diseases to the overall medical research budget. Had they compared female disease funding to male disease funding, they would have shown female disease research coming out well ahead.

Like their AIDS counterparts, breast cancer activists also grossly inflated a woman's odds of getting the disease; and as with AIDS, the media again responded eagerly. In 1992, for example, the press referred to a breast cancer epidemic thirty-five times as often as to a prostate cancer epidemic, even though the latter was killing almost as many people, and spreading much more quickly. (Prostate cancer in 1996 killed 41,400 Americans, near breast cancer's toll of 44,560 and more than AIDS's 38,780.)

The squeaking began with AIDS activists, who pursued a two-pronged strategy. First, they claimed that anyone who denied them the research money they demanded was a homophobe. Second, they insisted that AIDS was not just a gay disease but "an equal opportunity destroyer." That these two positions are somewhat contradictory seemed to bother no one, and the strategy won firm backing from the federal health bureaucracy, including Reagan's Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who talked of a "heterosexual AIDS explosion," and Clinton's Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala, who told Congress in 1993 that we might not have "any Americans left unless we're prepared to confront the crisis of AIDS."

I would imagine that viral and immune system research have many cross-over benefits to other areas of medical research. Still, you have to tip your hat to the effectiveness of the AIDS activists. Granted, they didn't have to create the politically correct "I'm a victim" infrastructure from scratch. They just used it to its maximum effectiveness.

The whole power of political correctness, if you ask me, is the power of intimidation; but, specifically, the power of intimidation at the individual level. No one wants to be perceived as insensitive, uncaring, and least of all, as a racist or multi-phobe of some kind. But people have been lobbying Congress for one thing or another for years. Presumably they've gotten very good at it since we hear so many people decrying "special interests." But you don't generally see seasoned Congressmen so easily intimidated. Chalk it up to the success of years of indoctrination, squeaky wheeling, threatening, and intimidating with a trail of real-life bloody carcasses and sabotaged careers sitting on the side of the road, much like the impaled corpses that reputedly lined the road to Vlad's castle in Transylvanian. Crude, but effective.

There are at least two levels of discussion going on here, one which attempts a critique from the standpoint of Catholic moral theology, and the other a more secular approach, with reference to democratic principles. Let's see where we are with respect to them:

Catholic moral theology: the vote is nay, regardless of approach. The essentialist, natural law emphasis cannot accept homoxexual unions because biological procreativity cannot ever be realized in the sex acts of homosexuals. The more biblical, covenantal approach knows nothing about condoning homosexual unions; wherever God's intent for marriage is stated, it is always about male and female, with such complementarity reflecting something of God's relationship with Israel, then later the Church. An existentialistic approach can bring a dimension of pastoral sympathy, but given the negations from the essentialistic and covenantal, cannot sufficiently overcome them to produce a satisfying moral norm. So we continue to live with the tensions, perhaps acceeding to the realities of the existing situation by not condemning civil unions, all the while opposing the idea that homosexual unions are on a par with heterosexual marriages. Needless to say, here, we condemn all hate crimes and advocate for equal rights for homosexuals where appropriate.

Ignoring Catholic moral theology (which is generally the case ), the discussion in society seems to turn on how we understand marriage, whether we believe homosexuality is really natural or a kind of pathology, whether condoning such marriages would produce more negative consequences or less, whether we think the Constitution says or should say anything about this, and so forth. Psychological, consequentialistic, and constitutional considerations predominate, with strong arguments on both sides of the issue. If put to public vote, homosexuals lose in most states, maybe all. If their constitutional rights trump public opinion, then the courts will decide. Constitutional clarifications among the states and even perhaps at the federal level are underway to help take the matter out of the hands of the courts, and that usually means public opinion will prevail. But who knows what the public will really decide?

Most likely what will happen is that, at the civil level, a compromise will be reached (as is usually the case) with homosexual unions being recognized and the rights of partners in such unions clarified; the term "marriage" will be reserved for heterosexual couples, where the rights of partners have long been clarified. I think most Catholic moralists could live with this, even though most will also continue to hold that homosexuality is at deviance from moral norms, the degree of sinfulness depending on culpability (and no one wants to pronounce on that one!). Fundamentalist and evangelical Christians will always condemn it and will oppose even the idea of homosexual civil unions. Other mainline Protestant traditions, who tend to operate more from an existentialist approach to morality (by and large), will continue to struggle with questions of marrying and ordaining homosexuals, and most likely, they will end up adopting positions that are negligibly different from what the secular culture allows--as is generally the case.

So JB asks where I stand? With the Catholic moralists, of course , as indeed I must if I really believe that the Spirit guides the Church. My sympathies are more with the covenantal and existential streams of reflection on this and other issues pertaining to human sexuality. In terms of civil society and the discussions there, I am much attuned to the consequentialistic and constitutional considerations. I don't really know what's the right thing to do there or what I would vote for if I were a congressman. I suppose my leanings are to allow for a civil union that confers some kind of legal recognition with attendant rights to homosexual couples; that's an accession from the existential stream of Catholic tradition. My heart being more in the covenantal stream, however, I do not see how homosexual unions can be completely affirmed by that approach, and so would favor not considering them to be reflective of covenantal and Sacramental dynamics as I do heterosexual relationships. I am open to being persuaded that I am wrong on this point, however.

Phil, your response to my inquiry was as generous as it was depthful, very clear, too.

Let me introduce another dynamism.

Our church believes both in a sensus fidelium (the sense of the faithful) and, not unrelated, also that the natural law is available to human reason without taking cognizance of revelation. So, even what is taking place in secular society can matter in our understanding.

You wrote: An existentialistic approach can bring a dimension of pastoral sympathy, but given the negations from the essentialistic and covenantal, cannot sufficiently overcome them to produce a satisfying moral norm.

It may be that the degree of pastoral sympathy that is invited by an existential approach will, on one hand, be augmented by a certain, gradual softening by society on this issue, and, on the other hand, will be tempered by the consequentialistic analyses that speak to very difficult issues and very real problems that we have touched upon earlier in this thread.

There are days when I really believe that proportionalism is correct and that consequentialistic approaches are correct and that the only reason certain deontological moral conclusions are viewed as absolute is not because there is no such thing as premoral or ontic evil but rather because there are certain combinations of acts, intentions and morally relevant and specifying circumstances that, rigorously defined and carefully premised, admit to virtually no exceptions. To this extent, deontological and essentialistic analyses may be nothing more than unconsciously competent teleological/consequentialist and existential analyses. They have been incorporated into moral norms and social mores for tens of thousands of years with little or no debate because there is little left to debate sometimes, which is to say that the consequentialist case has long been closed.

When there are shifts, such as what Brad mentioned regarding interracial marriages, there is a sort of reflexive, recursive feedback loop that gets set up and which changes the consequences, necessarily changing the consequentialistic analysis. For instance, the disease issue may one day go away due to medical advances and vaccines and cures and that would change the calculus. One problem that seems intractable though is the amount of confusion that can get introduced into a child's mind during very formative periods of their young lives.

As for sanctioning or blessing civil unions, we make a distinction between sacraments and sacramentals, the latter not sharing in the dignity and privilege of the former. I wonder if we would ever reach the point where such civil unions could be blessed on the order and according to the principles of sacramentalia , not at all, as you say, placing them on par with marriage.

Secular society may see this as a semantical game, and to secular society it is, if civil unions end up receiving all of the economic and social benefits of married couples. However, the church would see this as a meaningful distinction to maintain. Even then, I see no way for the Church to depart from its essentialistic and covenantal approaches to condone homosexual activity without revising its essentialistic interpretation of the natural law. It may be, however, that I do see a way to revise that interpretation that would track on the same revisions I advocate for other sexual norms.

Thus, I think our positions might be contrasted as follows:

Do you object to homosexual acts based strictly on their nonprocreative aspect?

I think I would have to say no. Same thing goes for masturbation.

Or could you see that criterion being more broadly conceived, spiritually over against merely physicalistically?

I would say yes.

Or could you see a proportional good possibly emerging from the unitive and covenantal aspect of such unions?

I think there may be some good on the order of what could be blessed as a sacramental but there is no correspondence to the covenantal aspect as entailed by the sacrament.

What about a consequentialistic analysis that would suggest that sanctioning, somehow, such unions might militate against the promiscuous lifestyles and the very consequences those articles were identifying?

This may indeed play into the secular civil union debate.

For that matter, what about birth control? Do you agree with the natural law interpretation and the essentialistic analysis of the Magisterium, seeking only a pastoral solution on par with the sanctioning of NFP?

I seek both a natural law reinterpretation as well as more compassionate pastoral solutions.

Or do you see some essentialistic room to maneuver, for instance, by more broadly conceiving the procreative criterion, such as a) being entailed over the totality of the relationship?

That is my biggest argument in favor of artificial contraception (and would not affect the teaching on homosexuality).

b) having spiritual as well as biologistic, physicalistic dimensions?

More broadly conceiving the procreative aspect is another argument that is less straight forward but with which I am in sympathy (and could affect the teaching on homosexuality).

So JB asks where I stand? With the Catholic moralists

Which ones?

Thanks, Phil.

pax,
jb

JB asks: Which ones?

Heh! Is that a trick question?

The ones in union with Rome, of course (take that ye spies from "The Wanderer and C.U.F.F." ).

- - -

I think I'm happy to leave the recent exchange "as-is." Quite a lot there to ponder.

(Check out the links on the Shroud thread on this forum; I've just recussitated it.)

I think I'm happy to leave the recent exchange "as-is." Quite a lot there to ponder.

Don't stop now. We haven't even begun to scratch the surface of "transgender*" rights.

[*For the uninitiated, "transgender" has nothing to do with which sex prefers to drive Pontiacs.]

I think our considerations were inkeeping with the comprehensive treatment of this topic here:
"Homosexuality" Human Sexuality: New Directions in Catholic Thought. A Study Commissioned by the Catholic Theological Society of America, Search Press London, pp 186 - 218.

As regarding Catholic moral theologians and Heh! Is that a trick question?

Here are a few:

Thomas Aquinas
Alphonsus Liguori
Bernard Haring
Philip S Kaufman, OSB
Richard McCormick, SJ
James Keenan
Charles Curran
Germain Grisez
Paul Quay, S.J.
Paul Ramsey
John Finnis
Albert Ple
Herbert McCabe
Janet Smith
Robert and Mary Joyce
John Kippley
William E. May
John Paul II
Cardinal Josef Ratzinger
Louis Janssens
Joseph Fuchs
Peter Knauer
Dietrich von Hildebrand
William Van der Marck
Daniel Maguire
Mortimer Adler
Cornelius Van der Poel
Bruno Schuller
Franz Scholz
Klaus Demmer
Bruno Sch�ller
Michael Crowe
R. A. Armstrong

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

Now, I already happen to know how much you like Aquinas, Alphonsus, Adler and Arraj and am quite content to let matters rest there without going on through the rest of the alphabet! As the discussion gets more and more speculative, my own perspective remains a tad more inchoate than I'd like to admit, but I am grateful for the charisms exercised by all of the above-listed representatives of the church, even those who fundamentally disagree with one another and/or the ordinary magisterium.

I, too, reserve the right to learn and be taught and change my mind and am very earnest in my ongoing pursuit of an upright and mature conscience as formed with due deference to the church's teaching office.

The ice on this issue gets very thin for me and I am content to hang up my skates on this thread before the spring thaw.

pax,
jb

Right, JB, but between Janet Smith and Charles Curran, for example, there is little agreement; you noted this diversity in your comments.

What I meant when stating that my own position was with the "Catholic moralists" was in reference to the Church's "official position," which, as you know, has been stated in many places. Even though I might not personally find some of the essentialistic reasoning persuasive or helpful, I do believe the conclusions reached are consonant with what a covenantal approach affirms. I also believe that this official position is the most congruent integration of the various streams of moral deliberation mentioned above. Finally, I would add that the Church's approach isn't so hard-line as to ignore the pastoral concerns raised by homosexuality and the struggles of homosexuals to find their place in society.

----

You asked some very good questions above about sexual morality and the Church's teaching, suggesting a broader topic than what we've been exploring on this thread. Why not start a new thread on this forum if you'd like to pursue that. I'm feeling pretty much "done" for now with the homosexuality issue, except in responding to news reports in the months ahead.

Even though I might not personally find some of the essentialistic reasoning persuasive or helpful, I do believe the conclusions reached are consonant with what a covenantal approach affirms.

That's a good point. When in doubt, I am confident that following the official teaching is a safe moral path. Whether there are more liberties to be had on a somewhat broader moral path may be very much an open question for some, a closed question for others. When in serious doubt, the narrower path is the safest. The more serious the issue at hand, the less probabilistic one's approach should become, which, of course, opens up that other can of worms regarding the lack of parvity in sexual matters in official teachings. Nonetheless, I agree that the pastoral responses on all of these issues has been commendable, especially with regard to instructions to confessors, being careful not to rashly impute culpability and mindful of the primacy of conscience, which presumes a conscience well-formed in deference to magisterial teachings. Dissent, of course, is another can of worms --- how its done and when it is legitimate.

pax,
jb

OOPS - posted this in the wrong forum.

One thread-parting shot re: artificial contraception: W/o leading down any slippery slope or logical trail to sanctioning homosexual behavior, more broadly conceiving the temporal aspect of the procreative dimension, such that it can be attained within the totality of the relationship even if not within each act, seems to be a compassionate pastoral response even if the magisterium leaves intact its basic essentialistic analysis of the natural law. In fact, if you ask me (and I realize no one did), this is the compassionate pastoral response the church took in approving natural family planning, which, imo, in the above regard concerning the temporal aspect of the procreative dimension, logically leads to the accomodation of nonabortifacient forms of artificial contraception, assuming one's terms have been properly defined (because the basic premises and logic are ergo the same for NFP and ABC).

I went on about this ad nauseum elsewhere for a couple of years and do not wish to engage the same conversation here, but you guys may wish to give this some thought. BTW, this has relevance to religion and politics inasmuch as some courts have ordered Catholic charitable organizations to provide Rx service for birth control.

pax,
jb

This article (click on this link) by Most Reverend Austin B. Vaughan, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of New York on the Sacrament of Penance can give both insiders and outsiders a thoughtful perspective on evolution in Catholic thought and behavior, some good and some not so good, perhaps.

pax,
jb

On the lighter side (sort of); received from a list I'm on. A bone for the consequentialists.

----------


A Scene at City Hall in San Francisco


"Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."

"Names?"

"Tim and Jim Jones."

"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."

"Yes, we're brothers."

"Brothers? You can't get married."

"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"

"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"

"Incest?" No, we are not gay."

"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"

"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides,
we don't have any other prospects."

"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been
denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get
married to a woman."

"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But
just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to
marry Jim."

"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just
because we are not gay?"

"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."

"Hi. We are here to get married."

"Names?"

"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."

"Who wants to marry whom?"

"We all want to marry each other."

"But there are four of you!"

"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane
loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me.
All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our
sexual preferences in a marital relationship."

"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."

"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"

"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's
just for couples."

"Since when are you standing on tradition?"

"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."

"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more
the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution
guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"

"All right, all right. Next."

"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."

"In what names?"

"David Deets."

"And the other man?"

"That's all. I want to marry myself."

"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"

"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry
the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."

"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"

A Scene at City Hall in San Francisco

Great story. There's some cutting and pasting and emailing going on even as I speak.

I think this scene from Monty Python's �The Life of Brian� fit here:

REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man--
STAN: Or woman.
REG: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off.
STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN: I want to be one.
REG: What?
STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
REG: What?!
LORETTA: It's my right as a man.
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the fetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?
LORETTA: [crying]
JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG: What's the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: It�s symbolic of his struggle against reality.

The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to:

"Pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles. With many forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that 'God's Word' and His standards will be honored by our government."

Any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action.

So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying a definition of marriage based entirely upon Biblical principles:

Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)

Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13- 21)

Marriage between a believer and a nonbeliever shall be forbidden.(Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the Constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be
construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does
not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut.
25:5-10)

JB, you're a funny guy. I certainly could be persuaded if:

Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)

Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

I'm not sure of the author of that. It was sent to me without attribution (by someone who could well have been the author).