Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

It is not possible to sin “accidentally.” Sin involves the act of the will or a conscious choice of accepting or rejecting a temptation. As a human person, there is a natural tendency to be attracted to one another, and there is no sinfulness in a natural response of the body. Once we have thoughts, what do we do with them? It is only natural after all, but how far can we take it without committing a sin?

 As God’s children, we are called to rise above our basic instincts. That means, when those thoughts pop into our heads, we let them go. We look past this person’s sexual attractiveness, to see him or her as a beloved image and likeness of God. The sin of lust occurs when, instead, we deliberately grab onto those thoughts and say, “I like this, and I want to think about that some more.” At that point, we are using that person to get sexual pleasure for ourselves. When we deliberately consent to those thoughts, when we start adding to the fantasy, we sin against chastity. A way to remember this is that, “It isn’t the first look that gets you into trouble. It’s the second.” Our emotional life, unfortunately, can also contribute to uninvited sexual fantasies. Father Benedict Groeschel, in his excellent book The Courage to Be Chaste, says that these fantasies often reflect the need for tenderness, reinforcement, intimacy and spiritual love. When we’re not getting those, we tend to be more vulnerable to sexual fantasy.

This causes many sensitive people to struggle with guilt. They think they’re bad people just because certain sexual thoughts enter into their brains. They think that chastity means that their sex drive should go away. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those involuntary thoughts are not in themselves sinful, but are an invitation to sinfulness. But we don’t sin unless we accept the invitation. We may be barraged by uninvited sexual thoughts all day long, but as long as we don’t voluntarily consent to them, there is no sin. (Consent, according to Father Groeschel, means having the presence of mind to say, “This is sinful, but I’m going to think about it anyway.”) Of course, those thoughts don’t always go away so easily. They linger in the mind, taunting us, and violently forcing sexual thought out of our minds wouldn’t be terribly healthy even if it did work. Burying thought like that tends to keep them alive in the subconscious, where they can cause all kinds of mischief. So what do we do?

We don’t give in and focus our attention on the thoughts, but neither do we fear them and try to drive them away. We simply acknowledge them as a part of being human, and then turn our attention elsewhere. We distract ourselves. (Father Groeschel points out that very few people are tempted during a fire alarm.) We ignore the thoughts, even as they clamor for our attention. Eventually, they go away.

It’s also important to keep our lives in order. If loneliness or need for intimacy is fueling our overactive imaginations, we need change our lives, to satisfy those needs” in the right way. Basically, it’s not easy to ignore thoughts that promise us such pleasure. We need God’s help. Chastity without prayer is impossible. All moral virtue involves turning away from short-term pleasure for the sake of long-term happiness. And that takes strength that we don’t have on our own. Achieving internal chastity is not an easy task. For many, it is a lifelong struggle, fought day in and day out. Father Benedict Groeschel offers encouragement, saying, “Every temptation resisted is a great act of worship of God. To put up with temptation and not seek the easy way out is a powerful acknowledgment of the sovereignty of God … Even if one falls later on, he has accomplished an act of obedient worship that will not be erased” (The Courage to Be Chaste, p. 90). Remember, we’re not in this alone!!

Catholic Herald

According to a new report, British broadcasting giant the BBC is woefully inadequate when it comes to gay and lesbian representation. The findings, by the British gay-rights group Stonewall, suggest that LGBT people were “almost invisible” on the channels BBC1 and BBC2, reports the national Press Association.

In the 168 hours of television the group monitored, only 38 minutes were DEVOTED (love that one!) to gay people. Of that amount of time, 32 minutes were considered to be derogatory or offensive, leaving only six minutes of positive portrayals.

The group also criticized various BBC presenters for their anti-gay remarks, including Anne Robinson of The Weakest Link, who it said  often makes fun of her contestants by using gay innuendos.

“The BBC rarely challenges homophobia and consistently allows its presenters to perpetuate negative attitudes towards lesbians and gay men and gay sexuality,” the report said, adding that gay men and lesbians contribute some £190 million a year to the network in licensing fees.

The BBC said the report only considered a narrow sample of programming between 7 and 10 p.m. each day, and had it looked at a longer time frame across all of its outlets, it would have come to a different conclusion. “We believe the researchers would have found a great deal of richness and diversity in our output across television, radio and online throughout the eight weeks they examined.”

Source

“Teenagers want all secondary schools to have compulsory classes with specialized teachers who can openly discuss sex and relationships, a survey released yesterday shows.” Well, of course they do, they also want an unlimited allowance, a new car, fake ID, to stay out as late as they want, no home work, junk food for every meal, etc….. Since when do kids have a “right” to decide their own school curriculum? Why stop with just sex education content? Let them “call” for no math, science or English with 5Â classes of study hall and free time.

The results were compiled from a petition, signed by more than 2,000 teenagers and delivered to Downing Street yesterday, demanding that all schools make sex and relationships education (SRE) mandatory. Celia Duncan, the editor of Cosmo Girl magazine, which was behind the petition, said one-third of the teenagers thought their SRE was “absolute rubbish” and 81% thought SRE in their school could be improved. I have a question for Celia and her interest with girls and their lesbian experiences? No, I’m not making an accusation that she is a lesbian, but I thought this whole thing was about  teen pregnancy prevention and “safe sex”?

The content of Cosmo Girl, where the average age of readers  is around 14, includes mutual masturbation, bisexuality and oral sex. An example of advice given to a teen who was uncomfortable with a boyfriend who was groping her was told,  “try to relax and have fun getting to know each others’ bodies.” Don’t be too hard on Cosmo Girl, they pride themselves on not allowing any sexual slang!!!

Source articles: Guardian  Prison Planet

Zenit ran an article recently, interviewing a psychologist from the Institute for the Psychological Sciences (IPS). William Nordling discusses some important factors which a Catholic really needs to consider in deciding about professional psychological help. This actually applies well beyond just marital counseling, the focus of the interview.

He identifies at least three critical areas in which a secular psychologist falls short: world view, anthropology, and his understanding of marriage. As far as world view goes, secular professionals generally will treat the individual, rather than seeing the individual as also a person in relationship with others:

A Catholic psychology acknowledges the importance of the interiority of the individual and the reality of psychopathology, but also gives significant attention to the relational nature of the person and how the client can grow in virtue and flourish. So the Catholic psychologist does not just see an individual, but sees an individual in the context of vocation as a spouse and as a parent. In addition, the focus of a Catholic psychology is not just to alleviate symptoms or psychopathology but assist the client in flourishing as an individual, as a spouse, and as a parent. To a broader extent, it focuses on the relationship to society, and ultimately the relationship to God.

In terms of anthropology, many psychologists take a reductionist view of the human person, reducing him to a biological entity. With such an erroneous anthropology one should be surprised if the heuristic method of treatment comes anywhere close to helping someone in their particular circumstances. Can you imagine a computer technician trying to fix your computer understanding the hardware pretty well, but having only a trial and error method for diagnosing and resolving problems that might be beyond hardware issues? A therapist having only a partial picture of his subject should not instill confidence in the patient.

This leads to other problems, such as failure to recognize disorders that are in fact disorders (e.g. same-sex attraction disorder). When it comes to marriage, the secular world view does not understand it in terms of its vocational and sacramental nature. While the therapist may have strategies to improve communication, Nordling suggests that he would see this improved communication as an end rather than a means. Christian anthropology indicates that self-sacrificing gifts of self are the ways to healthy self-fulfillment and sacramental efficacy can heal spiritual wounds. Only a solid Catholic therapist would have this complete understanding of the person and marriage, and be able to identify problems which distort the authentic meaning of marriage (a secular psychologist would have a hard time even coming up with a definition of marriage, much less know how to diagnose marital problems beyond the inability to communicate).

For more insights and strategies for healthy marriages, I recommend reading the whole article.

Nineteen Quebec priests Sunday openly displayed their disobedience by denouncing the Vatican’s opposition to same-sex marriage and it’s refusal to allow gay men into the priesthood. In an open letter published Sunday in La Presse, the priests demonstrated their prideful will and misguided compassion and challenged the authority of the Church. In the letter published under the headline “Enough is enough,” the priests charge that by considering homosexuality a “disorder,” the church is contributing to homophobia. To conveniently change a verb into a noun is one thing, but to use media as their voice of dissent, they have again publicly assaulted the body of Christ. A comment from a priest hinted at their gesture of betrayal by saying, “We’re a family, You go to your family and talk about these things first.”

Source

Sex educators whose only answer to sex education is the promotion of condoms and birth control pills to children claim to keep values out of their classrooms and be “value-neutral. There almost seems to be a prideful gleam in their eyes as they admit they have no foundation of truth or even a system of beliefs which guide them in their everyday lives.

Our culture’s love affair with apathy, relativism, hopelessness and the profane is like an adulterous love affair with failure. There is no sense of responsibility or concern for the future lives of growing children. Sexuality is presented as an activity or form of entertainment that should be experienced for the pleasure, but need not be attached to love, commitment and responsibility.

“The latest episode of focusing on failure can be plainly seen on the trash that is the required reading in so many English classes. Out of the hundreds of thousands of books available for educating freshman, books such as Girl, Interrupted are the novels of choice. The choice is defended under the title of being real.  These memoirs of author Suzanna Kaysen’s hospitalization in a mental institution at age 18 contain graphic descriptions of sexual acts and suicide. ” Is this the best picture of the real  we can offer to kids in English class. Who’s reality is this? Maybe the school districts in this country get major discounts for books written by feminists and others who are so distorted in their sense of real reality.

When the concerned parents of these children demand answers and a change in the message of what real is and should be, are they scolded and then ridiculed for pushing their values on a school system where values should never exist?

Values? Is there anything we do or say or think about sex that doesn’t involve making a values choice? Values-neutral? Who are they kidding? Values-neutral? Impossible! There is an inherent responsibility for passing on worthwhile values to our children, guiding adolescents in their responsible sexual and social values.

Believe it or not, everyone has values, even teachers! Their values may be moral or immoral, but they are still values. Many times, while screaming, ” separation between church and state“, their values, like a tape worm on an intestine, feed off words like “reality”, “freedom”, and “choice”. The awesome gift of sex and it’s supernatural power can bring such immense joy and harmony when it is given it’s due respect and order, but can totally mess up the minds and hearts of those who abuse it. It’s tragic that this gift is desecrated the “value-free” educators of the world, then forced fed to our unsuspecting young.

Article

I like reading Elizabeth Lev’s occasional columns in Zenit.  They’re usually good news stories, or nice little tutorials on culture or art that a recovering utilitarian like myself can always profit from.  In addition, she has a very compelling writing style (though coming from me that may not necessarily be a compliment?). 

In her latest bit, she provides an excellent story about a former Fundamentalist from South Carolina who converted to Catholicism and was recently ordained out of the Roman Seminary, a rarity for Americans. 

She throws in another discussion about a new gateway and some history behind the walls and gates of Vatican City. 

Very encouraging and educational; go read…

 

The Curt Jester did an excellent satire on A New Rite of Exorcism and alluded to a line in Saint Faustina’s diary, where she wrote, “Satan can even clothe himself in a cloak of humility, but he does not know how to wear the cloak of obedience” (Diary, par. 939). I have never heard this and it kind of blew me away. That the Devil would concede his evil nature and imitate good, all for the bigger prize of a successful ruining of a soul, but pride being the root of all evil, makes the submission to authority too large a burden, even for him to bear.  There seems to be monumental surge in rebellion against the Church from every direction imaginable. Why are there so many who claim to be Catholic, but they deceive and create the illusion that sets up Jesus against His own Church?

Love, tolerence, caring, inclusion, peace, social justice, charity, etc…., all beautiful words  uttered by proponents of homosexuality, same sex marriage, abortion and contraception , but when was the last time the word that was so central in the teachings of Christ was mentioned?  The very nature of the pseudo-catholic organizations are rebellious against authority of His church. To love Jesus is to love the Church. Though the individuals may be well meaning and compassionate people, the dreadful effects of pride and disobedience leads the the heinousness of their spiritual confusion and darkness (see photo.) 

Lent is coming up next week and so priests, religious, catechists, just about everyone is busily searching the internet for ideas for Lenten reflections. Msgr. was one of those and was kind enough to share with me the fruits of his search for Lenten reflections on reconciliation.

Well, thanks to the IHM Sisters (if I were to guess I would put my money on the bet that they are having trouble with vocations right now) we find that even after 2000 years we still have not managed to squeeze pantheism out of the thinking of some who call themselves Catholic. Here is a little snippet from their Lenten reflection on reconciliation:

As we are experiencing the impact of the universe story, we feel that something is missing in a sense of reconciliation that excludes the beloved community of life that is other than human. Recently, the members of the Earth Charter Committee decided to place a representative symbol of this community in their prayer corners.

“Universe story”, “Earth Charter Committee”, “community other than human”? This is not sounding good. My hair is starting to bristle already. If I were Shelray, apoplexy would already be setting in (but I have a little calmer disposition).

It is amazing how the presence of a giraffe, a turtle or a frog next to a candle or icon helps bring a deeper consciousness to our prayer.

Yea, but I am not exactly sure what it would be a deeper consciousness of (I tend to let my prepositions dangle when I fight off nausea). I am thinking here maybe the zoo or the cow pond. I don’t recall St. Paul admonishing any Christians to go to the local pound looking for reconciliation.

God is in us and in all. If we are polluting or wasting water, if we help destroy needed habitats by our demands for particular products, if we carelessly dispose of recyclable materials, our relationship to the earth community needs healing. Reconciliation lies in the recognition of the way things really are. Genuine reconciliation is based on the truths that God is in us and in all, working in all. We are bonded to and interdependent with all that is. When we live, respecting these truths, we are reconciled.

Ohhhh, those unpaid bills of the Church. It is true that there is a real connection of man with creation. We are stewards of God’s creation and we must manage and respect it as coming from God. However, it is rank heresy to imply some sort of consciousness to it (which is what I take from non-human community…I hope I am wrong).

Furthermore, the “God is in us and in all” comment seems to reflect a serious lack of appreciation here between God’s immanent presence which is the halmark of pantheism, and Christian truth in which God is transcendent in His nature but omnipresent in His power and in His offer of a close relationship to man.

I am sure the IHM Sisters are very nice and sincere religious. I just wish that they would stay within the bounds of Christianity in their theology (or at least be a little more careful about what they put on the internet).

 

Gay rights Groups Protest ‘Love Won Out’ Conference

As gay-rights groups staged a peaceful protest outside the First Evangelical Free Church, conventioneers spent the day inside, mostly listening to speakers who say they were previously gay. Parents of gay and lesbian children got advice and could speak to counselors about what to do, short of accepting their child’s behavior. The Love Won Out event was sponsored by Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian group that Fryrear works for in Colorado, and Exodus International, an umbrella group of ex-gay ministries. Most of the audience were parents and family members of gay people, while about one-fourth were ministers. More

 

Mother’s Genes Could Produce Gay Sons

Research into the genetics of sexual orientation is controversial. Religious leaders who believe that sexual orientation is a choice argue that such research is an attempt to legitimize homosexuality; others worry that a detailed knowledge of the genetics underlying homosexuality will open the door to genetic engineering that prevents it. More

LifeNews.com is reporting that Bishop Vasa of Baker, Oregon has written that Catholics, notably politicians, who state that the mother or parents have the right to decide whether or not to kill her unborn baby, are guilty of heresy.  They quote him as saying:

“…There is a point at which passive ‘tolerance’ allows misleading teachings to be spread and propagated, thus confusing or even misleading the faithful about the truths of the Church…There is a very strong word, which still exists in our Church, which most of us are too ‘gentle’ to use. The word is ‘heresy.’”

He goes on to explain:

Vasa wrote, “Those who maintain that any and all decisions about the disposition of pre-born human beings are exclusively the right of the mother or the parents, at least implicitly, reject the clear and consistent teaching of the Church…If that (pro-choice) candidate receives the vote precisely because he maintains that he has no duty to protect or defend innocent human life in the womb, then a vote cast for him is a type of declaration that the teaching of the Church, indeed the validity of the Fifth Commandment itself, is rejected.”

This is nothing new to most faithful Catholics, but it could be to those holdouts who want to be both Catholic and “of the world” rather than “in the world.”  The press and others like to hear words like ”heresy” and “excommunication” because they can use them to try to caricature so as to discredit the Church by depicting as being medieval.  Many bishops are very sensitive to this and further recognize that those of immature faith interpret these terms with an adolescent juridicism rather than medicinally as they are intended.

This is why I am somewhat ambivalent on the issue of how best to communicate the truth of the evil of passive material cooperation with abortion.  There is no confusion about the teaching that abortion is murder but many of those disposed to irrational rationalization still try to carve out space to allow Catholics to tacitly accept abortion as a necessary evil that must be tolerated in a pluralistic society.

These Catholics feel (and I emphasize feel because thinking doesn’t get them there) that because some bishops appear to waffle on the issue of Catholic reponsibilities, they have this “wiggle room” to ignore the truth.  Most who are heavily invested (read politicians and die-hard political partisans) will ignore the truth even when it is made unambiguous.  The biggest problem really is that the average Catholic is confused by it.  I think that is why we are seeing more and more bishops use more explicit and traditional language that cannot be misunderstood.  The press will of course, have a field day with it, but I pray it will be successful and so more bishops will ambiguously declare the truth.

Professors teaching at a seminar titled,  ”The Homosexual Question: Psychology, Rights and the Truth of Love.”, spoke at length about the threats posed by the gay rights movement and said current legislative proposals around the world could have far-reaching effects on how society is structured. One of the statements that caught my attention was about a recent study, which showed that 40% of children raised by homosexuals became homosexuals themselves. The name of the study wasn’t sited in the article, but this will certainly come under scrutiny of the pro-gay activists. I outlined a couple of bullet points of the public seminar. 

**Gay couples were unable to give children the model of sexual difference that any child needs to develop his or her own sexual identity.

**Their sense of procreation is falsified because it mixes the imaginary and the real in the sexual confusion of unisexuality.

**The Catholic vision of sexual difference and the “gay vision of alternate orientations” are incompatible, not only in terms of private morality but as visions of the meaning and structure of society itself.

** ”Gay rights” was an ideological and political movement intent on gaining a reconfiguration of society on the basis of a gay anthropology.

Source: CNS

 

 

Sticking to a theme as I am wont to do, here I go again about our culture’s confused idea of freedom.  Msgr. pointed me to an article written last year by one, Sam Vaknin, who for some curious reason decided to write an apologia for, of all things, cannibalism.

Now I am not aware of any large constituencies who are pushing for the legalization of cannibalism, but then again, I don’t get around much these days.  Vaknin’s motivation is not my primary concern; rather, it is his rationale.

One thing I can appreciate about Vaknin is his attempt to attend to proper distinctions.  Though as I will show, I do not think he is always successful.  He distinguishes among three types of cannibalism.  There are two non-consensual types which he passes over with just a description. Since the concern is freedom, he obviously devotes his attention to the one consensual type.  Now who in the world would consent to cannibalism?  Unfortunately, it has happened…but I will spare you the details. 

He asks some easily addressed questions such as what is the difference between organ donation and consensual cannibalism (let me answer: organ donation provides often the only chance for life saving therapy, cannibalism is a pathology).  Nevertheless, for any American who accepts his presumption as to what constitutes freedom (and the amoral, utilitarian ethic that goes with it), others of his arguments (in the form of questions for which he seems to assume there are obvious answers) will be hard to refute.

Why is stem cell harvesting (from aborted fetuses) morally superior to consensual post-mortem cannibalism? Consensual cannibalism is not the equivalent of drug abuse because it has no social costs. Unlike junkies, the cannibal and his meal are unlikely to harm others. What gives society the right to intervene, therefore? If we own our bodies and, thus, have the right to smoke, drink, have an abortion, commit suicide, and will our organs to science after we die - why don’t we possess the inalienable right to will our delectable tissues to a discerning cannibal post-mortem (or to victims of famine in Africa)? When does our right to dispose of our organs in any way we see fit crystallize? Is it when we die? Or after we are dead? If so, what is the meaning and legal validity of a living will? And why can’t we make a living will and bequeath our cadaverous selves to the nearest cannibal 

Here he assumes that freedom is the libertine license to do as one chooses.  In other words, if it does not obviously hurt someone than the right to do anything must be accorded to an individual or you are denying them their freedom.  It escapes those espousing this thinking that damage can be indirect and hard to detect, but real nonetheless when freedom is not directed to serving the truth.  Freedom is not a zero sum game in which it must be surrendered only circumspectly and in cases of grave necessity.  Rather, it increases and flourishes only when actions are carefully discerned and directed toward the truth.

I should mention that Vaknin attempts to deal with the morality of cannibalism by trying to argue that proscriptions against it (when murder is not involved) are simply social conventions; let me address some of these.

Cannibalism is often castigated as “unnatural”. Animals, goes the myth, don’t prey on their own kind.  Alas, like so many other romantic lores, this is untrue. Most species - including our closest relatives, the chimpanzees - do cannibalize. Cannibalism in nature is widespread and serves diverse purposes such as population control (chickens, salamanders, toads), food and protein security in conditions of scarcity (hippopotamuses, scorpions, certain types of dinosaurs), threat avoidance (rabbits, mice, rats, and hamsters), and the propagation of genetic material through exclusive mating (Red-back spider and many mantids). Moreover, humans are a part of nature. Our deeds and misdeeds are natural by definition. Seeking to tame nature is a natural act. Seeking to establish hierarchies and subdue or relinquish our enemies are natural propensities. By avoiding cannibalism we seek to transcend nature. Refraining from cannibalism is the unnatural act.

While he is only trying to show that an argument that says it is unnatural does not work, he seems to presume that humans cannot be assumed to be anything more than an animal.  Later he is a little more explicit:

The anthropocentric chauvinistic view is that it is permissible to kill all other animals in order to consume their flesh. Man, in this respect, is sui generis.  Yet, it is impossible to rigorously derive a prohibition to eat human flesh from any known moral system. As Richard Routley-Silvan observes in his essay “In Defence of Cannibalism”, that something is innately repugnant does not make it morally prohibited. Moreover, that we find cannibalism nauseating is probably the outcome of upbringing and conditioning rather than anything innate.

Vankin demonstrates the wisdom of Gaudium et spes; without God we become very confused about ourselves.  His thinking militates against the passive capitulation to moral and religious pluralism (i.e. the tacit rejection of the Church’s mission) that too many today want to take.  However, even the Greeks could see that rational animals were morally superior to the non-rational.  Nevertheless, his argument here is exceedingly weak.  Free will is natural to humans and free will is what makes morality possible.  Thus moral decisions can be seen to be natural to men where they would not be to non-rational animals.  Furthermore, simply hypothesizing that the repulsion to cannibalism is just conditioning (which is not something one can prove) does not explain its extreme rarity.

A final curiosity which is sure to confirm for any ”Fundies” who might have been getting “soft” about Catholicism, that Catholics really are the bane of Christianity, Vaknin uses Transubstantiation to argue that cannibalism is morally licit for Christians.  Here he stops too short of properly understanding the nature of Transubstantiation.  Just a few distinctions off the top of my head which undermine his equation of the two.  In cannibalism, the separated meat is dead flesh, no longer belonging to the substantial form (soul) of the person being eaten (even if the person is still alive).  Eating the person, or part of them, depletes his material substance.  At most, it will temporarily sustain the cannibal solely in his natural life.  In the Eucharist, the Host still belongs to the Substantial Form, and so to Christ.  It does not deplete His material Substance and is not dead flesh, but His Resurrected Flesh.  Normally, the Eucharist does little to sustain natural life, but it is the Food which leads to Supernatural life–the Medicine of Immortality.  Furthermore, it was Commanded by God who (though not in a voluntarist sense) may authorize actions that could not be authorized by solely human authority.

But back to my main point, the idea that as long as an action is not obviously harming someone, it must be allowed, is the (il)logical consequence of our culture’s deformed, libertarian definition of freedom.  I cannot imagine there being a mad crush for the freedom to cannibalize anytime soon, but then again, the moral sickness from abusing our freedoms has deadened us to the horror of killing our unborn babies…I suppose eating them may not be that big a step after all.

ACLU aborts federal funding for Abstinence Only sex education. The the Department of Health and Human Services and the American Civil Liberties Union has agreed to stop funding a nationwide program that promotes teen abstinence. An A-C-L-U lawyer says public money was being used “to fund a road show, really, to convert teens to Christianity.”  More

 The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada cautioned regulators Thursday against any efforts to control the type of entertainment offered in the state’s casinos, saying such efforts would amount to unconstitutional censorship. More

Tennessee ACLU Executive Director Hedy Weinberg said the organization has already filed a notice of appeal of the ruling on same sex marriage. If voters approve the amendment in November, the ban on same-sex marriage that already exists in state law, would be placed in the Tennessee Constitution, which cannot be altered by the legislature alone. State House Republican Leader Bill Dunn of Knoxville, ” I certainly hope the ACLU will not continue to try to thwart the will of the people of Tennessee by preventing them from voting on this measure. More

Pasadena has been sued by the American Civil Liberties Union over an order to a local couple to take down “political signs” at their home. In response to the suit, the city has at least temporarily stopped enforcing the law. More    

How Does SNAP check out it’s allegations of clergy abuse?  Since the sex abuse scandal broke 4 years ago, SNAP has called many press conferences to single out priests accused of sexual abuse in civil lawsuits. Many allegations, including the latest involving Father Robert Osborne from Vianney, are revealed publicly by SNAP before prosecutors determine if criminal charges will be filed.  24 Catholic priests have been cleared of wrongdoing in the past 4 years! David Clohessy, of SNAP makes light of the large number of false allegations made by his organization. His true character is quite evident by his asinine comment he made in response to the large number of false accusations it has made against innocent men. Given SNAP’s harping about accountability, you would think that he might want to take this opportunity to show that SNAP takes responsibility for their unjust deeds; instead, without contrition or remorse, he says they are all still functional and not suicidal, as best as he can tell. Good response David. The sense of compassion you show for the men that you are responsible for publicly humiliating is so becoming of a man who claims to be such a caring advocate for others.   

So how does SNAP check out the allegations of clergy abuse? The fact is, they don’t! It speaks volumes about the entire organization and their search for truth and justice.

Source

Charles Haynes writes an op-ed piece for the Salem Oregon Statesman Journal this week on the first amendment. We are purposefully not a political blog, but of course any attempt to isolate faith and morals from public life is a purely artificial, and even dangerous, endeavor. What is of interest in Haynes article is his view freedom. He represents the popular American perspective of freedom and what this means in a free society for any attempts to manage public expression.

Haynes appears to take the absolutist view that freedom of the press means that no form of expression can legitimately be curtailed. His point of departure, of course, is the Islamic cartoon controversy. He seems more concerned over the recent Vatican statement responding to these cartoons, in which the Holy See says that freedom of speech does not include the right to offend others, than he does over the violent response of some Islamists. Haynes goes on to conflate this statement with various European attempts to legislate against “hate speech.” For him, these are all problematic attitudes cut from the same cloth.

He contrasts these freedom stifling views with his understanding of freedom in the United States. Citing a 1940 Supreme Court decision (Cantwell v. Connecticut) in which freedom of expression was found to trump religious sensibilities, Haynes concludes that the freedom to offend is at the core of religious freedom in America. He then quotes the majority opinion and summarizes it by saying:

Justice Roberts had it right. It is always messy and often painful, but only a society that protects the right of all voices to be heard — however offensive or unpopular — can call itself a free nation.

His grounding of religious freedom in such a late decision seems questionable. Furthermore, his conflation of the Vatican statement with European legislative efforts fails to make some important distinctions. Having read the Vatican statement, I do not recall it suggesting legislative limits on expression. Rather, it was an appeal for the just use of freedoms. In determining the just use of freedom, one can in fact make distinctions that Haynes seems not willing or able to make. For example, while there is certainly some gray area, one can still distinguish between professing beliefs that some find offensive, and a purposeful belittling and demeaning of others. These distinctions can and should be made and (once again) incorporated into journalistic standards of conduct.

The fundamental problem with Haynes position is that he appears to believe that freedom is an all or nothing proposition. Unfortunately, he does not state the rationale for his thinking, other than obliquely by example, so I must guess. One or more of these are possibilities:

1) We cannot trust the government so, fearing unbridled oppression, we cannot put any limits on public expression.

2) We have to fear the tyranny of the masses.

3) In a pluralistic society it is impossible to arrive at any agreeable moral norms so we shouldn’t try.

4) Freedom is an end in itself.

To begin with, suspicion does not make for a healthy society. Healthy social life requires trust and suspicion is its antithesis. The French Revolution’s Reign of Terror and Stalin’s Great Purge are extreme examples of pathological suspicion taken to their illogical conclusions. Our structures of government have generally proven to be sufficiently robust to accommodate limits on absolute liberty in the past. Until relatively recently we had strict limits on pornography and we still do over certain types (e.g. child). So far, the jack boots have never taken over the presses. In fact, it is more the case that the onslaught of unrestrained freedom of the press, particularly in terms of pornography, has damaged society. The libertinism of pornography is part of the problem which is now taking a heavy toll on the family and society, to the point we have seen for sometime troubling societal instabilities arise. We also have limits on political speech such as that advocating violence, insurrection, threatening a public figure, treason, etc. In other words, there never has been absolute liberty of expression and for a stable society there never can be. I believe that the current libertinism has come to the point that it is now a threat to social stability.

Fear of tyranny from the majority is a suspicion that would seem to undermine the legitimacy of democracy itself. Nevertheless, even if it is a real concern the above discussion still applies. Absolute permissiveness is not the answer; libertinism is a much greater threat.

It is true that in a pluralistic society it can become difficult to agree on moral norms but this does not mean that capitulation to moral relativism is the answer. Difficult does not mean impossible.

Finally, we need to recognize that freedom is not a end but a means for seeking the truth. To be authentic, freedom must serve the truth. When freedom becomes an ultimate good, it becomes an idol which must be served at the expense of greater goods. In the case of abortion, the greater good that we end up offering on the altar to the gods of choice is a human life.

Haynes’s is an overly simplistic view that, in the end, will crush itself under the burden of its own weight. His is the view of freedom as liberty from any kind of restraint. By necessity, this erroneous view leads to false dichotomies in which one person’s rights can be had only at the expense of another’s rights. Because freedom is the ultimate good that everyone must pursue, it reduces to a Nietzschean will to power where only the strongest can win. Paradoxically, freedom without truth leads to the idolization of man, or more specifically the idolization of his will to power.

 In light of the public outcry over reports of forced prostitution and human trafficking in Amsterdams infamous red light district, the business came together and orgainized it’s first ever “open day”. “The open day is partly to promote the red light district but also to help change the image of the area because we think it is too negative,” said organizer Mariska Majoor, a former prostitute who now runs an information center on the district.

How negative can an estimated 3,500 women per year being trafficked to the Netherlands be? A majority of these women are from eastern Europe and Asia to work in secret brothels or illegal escort agencies, where they are often held captive and abused.

As seen by the apathy over the horrific crimes committed against these poor women and their desire to protect debauchery, the manifestation of lust has progressively diminished their ability to love and to show compassion towards the weak and vulnerable of this world (St. Augustine).

More

The pagan WinterStar Festival 23, “Sects & Sex”, will be rolling into Ohio this weekend. The ex-wife of former Governor Richard Celeste, “Dagmar Braun Celeste was “ordained” in the Catholic Church by Romulo Antonio Braschi“ in 2002. She was declared excommunicated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on July 22, 2002, which left her a “priestess” without a church.

Like a three ring circus, other performers (among many) include a second generation Pagan clergy, the author of  Secrets of Erotic Spirituality, and a  feminist activist!!!

More 

An intersting new blog of sorts called OfMention. Actually, it is a metablog; kind of like Christopher Blossers’ Blog Roundup he occassionally does on Against the Grain. However, OfMention posts stories they think are “of mention” by the week and logs them by categories. Very helpful!

However, I should warn you about their judgment. This is what I mean. They list the purpose of the site as:

OfMention.com compiles commentary by well-known and respected writers on current topics of mention in the Catholic blogosphere and beyond.

Well, your’s truly had a post picked up by them. Now I think that Mom might be the only one would believe that I could qualify for the category of writers from whom they pick. Nevertheless, I want to thank the Custodians of OfMention for picking up one of our posts.

Catholic On-Line is running an article by Mary DeTurris Poust from OSV on the hottest topic in jurisprudence circles these days…that is, “let’s sue the Catholic Church into oblivion.”  She does a much more eloquent job of it than did I (what do you expect from a former engineer?) but I am happy to see at least our arguments correspond.

Some tid bits:

Mark Chopko, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), told Our Sunday Visitor that the claim that the only way to bring justice to victims of sexual abuse is through lawsuits against larger agencies — in this case, the Catholic Church — is, in essence, misguided and hypocritical. It’s misguided, Chopko pointed out, because no children will be helped by the lawsuits.

And it’s hypocritical in that judges are not willing to allow similar lawsuits against the public-education system — where, government studies show, more students are abused each year than were ever abused by Catholic clergy in the United States during the entire 55-year period studied by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

“This is a naked attempt to punish the church, and not even a church that still exists but a cruel caricature of the church that predated the reforms of 2002. That’s just wrong,” Chopko said. “Not a single child will be better protected because of this. In fact, the costs on the church infrastructure will be staggering and ultimately will hurt the very people we are pledged to serve in the parishes and the dioceses.”

The notion that the only way to force change is through civil action against the property and cash of the church is “fundamentally unjust and built on a false premise if not an outright lie,” Chopko said. “For that to be true, that means that all the action — victims’ assistance ministries, review boards, permanent removal of offenders, open communications policies, no-confidentiality agreements, reporting abusers and cases to police — since 2002 is an elaborate hoax. The people should not be so willingly misled.”

The rest…