I imagine everybody knows about “Big Love” screening on TV at the moment.
Recently when talking about the program with a friend, I asked her to define “love” for me. You see, she thought the program was cool, and even tried to defend the idea of polygamy, saying, “…well I wouldn’t do it, but if others want to, then that’s ok, as long as he loves them all”
I was quite flabbergasted. You see, essentially, this person, had just made up her own definition of love: “…love is what you want it to be, as long as people feel ok about it …”
Conversely, I had a conversation with a guy at work about how polygamy was wrong and immoral, – and he absolutely agreed at a moral level, and even backed the civil law which outlawed it and meant that a man could be prosecuted for it. So in that sense he was indirectly affirming that one of the reasons for the civil law is to apply and uphold the moral law, for the common good of society , protection of the innocent (children), and protection the natural institution of marriage…etc…etc…
But, when I mentioned that homosexual acts (not the inclination, but 
homosexual acts) should also be outlawed on the same grounds, and using the same principles, ( i.e., that true love always respects the dignity of the person, and their true objective good, and protects the societal common good), he wanted to leap across the table to strangle me.
What was really interesting was the brainwashing that our society has perpetrated upon him, so that he couldn’t consistently apply those same moral principles properly.
If an action, even a seemingly private one:
(1) is very serious,
(2) destroys one’s own being and moral dignity,
(3) destroys other people ontologically and morally, and corrupts their conscience, and
(4) therefore endangers or destroys the common good, …
…then that action, should be legislated against by the State – should it not?
For example; – the act of looking at pedophilic pornography on the internet. The person hasn’t actually perpetrated the act. But:
(1) they damage themselves in looking at it (and could end up becoming one of the perpetrators of pedophilia),
(2) they materially co-operate in seriously damaging other people (the poor child in the pictures or video) and
(3) they contribute to seriously damaging and corrupting the common good of society.
So, quite rightly, the State legislates against such action, and prosecutes those who do such things. So why do we tolerate homosexual acts legally? Why do we tolerate adultery legally? These all destroy society in a very serious way.
We can see that the State has the right to get involved in other serious private moral affairs within the home, e.g., child abuse. So why should the State, not reflect the moral law at this level, and get involved with legislating against adultery and homosexual acts, which are very serious, intrinsically damage people, destroy and corrupt the innocent, and injure society?
Where does religious freedom and the freedom of choice some into this? People don’t have the right to murder, so why should they have the right to abort? No-one has the right to sin. No-one has the right to go against the natural law. People have the personal freedom to do such things, but not the right. Should the State inhibit certain freedoms within just boundaries? e.g., freedom of expression is not limitless, there are boundaries and responsibilities for this. I can’t just get up in a public square and say that I hate dwarf people. I have the freedom to drive my car at 200kph, but the State puts boundaries on that freedom so as to protect me, and others in society. Should not the same principles be applied to homosexuality? Adultery?
Why would this be good? Because when an act is made illegal, the law sets up a moral mentality (which should reflect the natural moral law from God) which teaches against the act, makes it unacceptable for society as a whole, protects society, and deters the action. And when the State prosecutes an abuse against suchs laws, it is applying these 3 aspects of justice: punishment, reparation, and deterrency. These 3 aspects of justice are very important for keeping society ordered and helping the members of society act within certain boundaries when they are temped to act otherwise. We are all weak (and fallen) and need guidelines for our lifestyles. Just look at children who aren’t set any rules or disciplines. Christ has given us grace after the redemption, to heal us and transform us, but that has not eliminated the need for law in society.
These are important questions and issues.
What happens when the State enacts laws which contradict the natural moral law, e.g., abortion is legal, divorce is legal, homosexual acts are legal, prostitution is legal, pornography is legal, contraceptives are legal, homosexual unions are legal… and wait for it….it’s coming…soon polygamy will be legal – mark my words. Some countries are already looking at allowing civil unions (essentially another word for marriage) with 3 or more people.
By legalizing it at a constitutional level, it ends up normalizing it at a moral level. Society then spirals downward into implosion, which is what is going now – the evidence speaks for itself.
What do others think?
i haven’t read all of what you wrote yet but yes i agree so far with your comments. I’ve watched 2 episodes so far and i still don’t understand what’s going on. Especially since that main guy is sleeping with 2 women. and yes if there is more serials like that……which i imagine could happen, like survivor…..then it would be immorality at the strongest send of the word.
that’s my 5 cents worth until i find time to read the whole article…..maybe keeping it short in future would help
Thanks – this was a topic that I felt needed teasing out, this is shorter than what I started with! I agree shorter is sometimes better for ease of reading.
He’s ‘married’ to three women… and has children with all of them… hence the three rings on the little picture up top… his best friend also has three wives and is looking to recruit a fourth – two of the best friends wives are bisexual… it goes on and on – I find it too offensive to watch, I initially watched a couple of episodes and all this happened really quickly – I hate to think where the rest of the season is going to go
Hi Agnes,
Great, thought-provoking post. A lot to ponder…
Talking from my gut (or typing, as this case may be), I’m interested in what you’re saying but my entire being balks at the comparison between paedophilic pornography and homosexual acts – let me say now that my response is an emotive, not intellectual, one.
There’s no time or place like the present (!) to bring up my discomfort at the intolerance and abhorrence our Church directs towards the act of homosexuality. Now, before I get 10 replies quoting several sources telling me how wrong I am, let me reiterate my point that this is purely an emotive response. I am not attempting to say the Church’s teaching on this issue is wrong, I am not trying to discredit it, I am merely voicing my internal discomfort with it – with asking people who, through no choice of their own, are facing a life of celibacy, unease and non-acceptance. What are we offering them as a church?
I KNOW I’m not the only person in my position – I know there are plenty of others who, deep down, don’t feel comfortable with the Church’s teaching on this subject. I’m keen to hear from you people, and others of course
Agnes,
Thanks for that. Even though it is a little longer than usual, I think you needed to length to make your points, which you did well, so don’t be too worried about that.
Your comments remind me of a conversation that I also had with a work colleage; we were talking about tolerance, and were trying to see what is of value in “tolerance” and what tends to get abused. The conversation grew out of discussing the Islam issue around the world. I mentioned that “tolerance” is a relative virtue, i.e., only in certain circumstances is tolerance actually virtuous, and in others in can be sinful.
E.g., it is virtuous to tolerate some annoying little habit of a co-worker, or to tolerate some difference of opinion with a friend, or to tolerate some personality querk of your spouse…etc…even virtuous to tolerate some lesser sins….it is part oflove to do so – “love is patient, love is kind” etc… (cf. Corinthians 13).
But it is not virtuous to tolerate some serious evils, e.g., blasphemy, child abuse, child pornography, or pedophiles, to name but a few. If a person commits a heinous crime against a child, we don’t tolerate it as if it’s ok, something that we’ll silently put up with as if we’re saintly to do so, quite the opposite, we track the person down, bring them to justice, and lock them up for life. To not do so would be sinful.
Now when I mentiioned this to this co-worker I was talking with, he said “who are we to judge whether that person is doing smething wrong” and “maybe what they doing is right is right in their eyes, so who are we make comment about that.”
What mazed me was his confusion about some very serious moral matters. If I followed his philosophy to its conclusion, then anything should be allowed in society, and the rest of society has no right to do anything about it, or even comment on it. How stupid is that?
So I proceeded to tell him that if I molested his little daughter I’m sure he would not be so accomodating. If I actually applied that philosophy to him, when it came to some heinous act against him or someone he loved, he wouldn’t tolerate it at all and in fact would think it a terrible injustice if it was tolerated.
Agnes, you raise some very good questions about why we tolerate homosexual acts, and tolerate other things which are very dangerous for society.
A couple of generations from now, our descendants will look back with horror at what we have allowed to happen to our communities.
Hi The Captain – it can get tricky when you let your emotions do the responding for you.
On the outside yes it does look like the Church is the bad guy… because we have taught to us that everything is ok so long as you’re happy. The thing to remember is that ultimately the homosexual act is disordered, no life can come of it, it is not of God. I can not say why people have homosexual tendencies but I do see that acting on those tendencies can only do harm…
I have heterosexual tendencies and it appears at a societal level that I would be justified to act on those with someone who I thought would make me happy – but I choose not to, I choose to wait until marriage, and if marriage never comes then aren’t I in a similar position to a homosexual? Under church law I am not able to commit a sexual act… and yet I am happy to do this… I am happy to remain celibate because that is what God asks of me.
I thought your comment about “when an act is made illegal, the law sets up a moral mentality” is quite an interesting one.
Research shows that laws do actually have a big impact on the future moral actions of the people in a society.
In countries with lax or open abortion laws there are more abortions performed; whereas the opposite happens in countries with strict controls, or the minority with prohibition, of abortion.
It shows that society’s moral future is actually shaped by the current legal nature of an act (not entirely, but it’s definitely a big part of it).
I think the really important thing though is that a society needs to have a sound philosophical underpinning.
If a society’s guiding philosophy is erroneous then no amount of changes at a legal level will fix the root problem of immorality.
If we made homosexual acts illegal in NZ right now we wouldn’t actually see much of a reduction in homosexual activity – because people’s hearts and minds have been formed to think that homosexual acts are morally acceptable.
If people weren’t formed in their hearts and minds as to why homosexual acts are wrong then the law would simply be changed back again as soon as people who had inadequate formation gained power.
The problem of erroneous philosophy cannot be fixed at a legislative level; it needs to be addressed with education and formation in truth.
Once a critical mass of civilians, formed in the truth, is reached, then the laws will begin to change to reflect the truth of natural law, etc (which the majority of civilians have embraced.)
The problem of societal philosophical error is only resolved in one of two ways; either through societal formation in the truth which results in a change of direction for that society, or societal destruction because of the philosophical error they have embraced.
The Romans and the Greeks are classic examples of once great cultures who embraced philosophical errors and then clung to those errors until they resulted in the very destruction of their societies.
Until we address the serious problem of moral relativism in the West our laws will continue to reflect the philosophical errors we have so eagerly embraced in our rampant pursuit of individualist secularism.
If we want to see law changes in NZ in regards to moral issues, then we need to get out and imitate Christ by loving others and proposing the truth at every possible opportunity (yes; that does mean we have to speak to others about moral issues!).
We need to win souls for Christ people; if that happens then those souls will eagerly throw off the lies of moral relativism and selfish secularism in pursuit of truth – and when that happens the laws will change to reflect the truth.
are the people in “Big Love” supposed to be Mormons? Not that that condones the behaviour…
Hey Ox,
What you say is correct, that the underlying philosophy in a country is what generally forms the laws of a country. But it is not a one way street. It is actually works both ways. The philosophies and morals also come from the law. It’s not an either/or option, it is both.
Both are required: (1) sound philosophy, grounded in the truth, which leads to just laws, (2) but also sound laws, which reflect the Eternal Law (divine and moral), which then work back to form the conscience, and philosophy of the country.
Both are required and compliment each other. And the way society has always worked is that you can’t decide to build a society from scratch, you slowly need to change people’s attitudes, as you have rightly pointed out, but again, this works both ways, from proper education and from sound governance.
In fact this is seen in the Church from Bishops: they are commissioned to uphold the Faith and Church Life through 3 aspects of their office: priest, prophet, king.
Prophetism is about teaching and formation, and Kingship is about governance, through the authority of Christ. You can’t have one without the other, because some people won’t respond to sound education even when it is given, they need to be disciplined through sound laws which then works back the other way and teaches them the truth.
Children are a good example of this
They are part of a particular branch of Mormon – Mormon protestants if you will… they have standard Mormons coming to them to evangelise them. It is against Mormon law to be a polygamist…
Hi Dumb ox
i thought your post a very good one. For me, unless there is a real reawakening of the value of objective Truth in our society we may be going the way of the Romans. A rediscovery of objective Truth would also lead to a deeper and better understanding of freedom and love. But our culture seems very far from that at the moment. When i try and talk to people about some of these issues often i get quite a blank look.
Captain thank you for writing what you did. i struggle with this issue also. i completly see the coherence of the Church’s teaching, but i also know people who are living the gay life, and who i cannot just pigeon hole into some kind of morally depraved box. i suppose the only answer is Christ, who does not condemn but challenges; challenges us to a deeper following of him. This can often mean great suffering and i think we are scared of calling people to this.
Agnes you compared your living celibately with someone who has homosexual tendencies doing the same. But there is a difference which you yourself alluded to
“I choose to wait until marriage”
The problem for a person with homosexual tendencies is that s/he does not have the option of waiting until marriage- that option is always open to a hetosexual person.
But they do have an option – to follow Christ or to not, just like the rest of us. I hear this constantly, why are those with homosexual tendencies treated differently, they aren’t! I too have homosexual friends and I deal with that in the same way I deal with having a friend who lives with their heterosexual partner – I do not participate in the way they live, I love them and I offer friendship, but they know I will always stand with Christ and the Church, and will not co-operate with either of those lifestyles. The Church does not single out those with homosexual tendencies and give them a seperate rule to the rest of us and it certainly does not suggest putting them ‘into some morally depraved box’. This is societies view of Church teaching.
Every one is called to chasity, every one is taught that the sexual act is between a married man and woman, period.
Catechism;
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity [1], tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered [2].” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstance can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. [They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial.] This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Please note: “openly homosexual” in this post refers to people who are living active homosexual lifestyles as opposed to living chastely.
Hi Captain,
Just saw your comment on homosexuality and Catholic teaching and I thought I’d post a reply to that specific point.
Catholic teaching on homosexuality is very clear that all homosexual acts are gravely disordered and to engage in homosexual sex (or homosexual activity) is gravely immoral.
Now, the standard response to this teaching (from those who oppose it) is that it is discriminatory and it is hateful towards people who struggle with homosexual desires and that it leads them to a life of unhappiness and identity confusion, etc.
But in actual fact, the Catholic teaching on this issue also states that people who struggle with homosexual tendencies are not immoral people and they are to be treated with absolute love and charity.
So, the Church makes an important distinction between the person and the act of homosexuality – the act is gravely immoral, but the person who struggles with the desire is not.
Now, when it comes to the science behind homosexuality some very important points need to be made…
1. There is no sound scientific support for the modern notion that homosexuality is genetic.
The two studies that were put forward as evidence of a genetic link have been never been able to be replicated, which means that the results they came up with cannot be considered binding because the same results have never been able to be replicated in other similar studies.
Now, even if a genetic link was discovered, this would not change the fact that engaging in homosexual acts in gravely disordered and not in the best interests of those involved.
There is strong evidence to suggest that alcoholism is genetically acquired, but no person in their right mind is going to start suggesting that because alcoholics appear to be born that way they should just embrace their alcoholism and enjoy life as an alcoholic.
After all; it’s perfectly natural, they’re not hurting anybody else by indulging in alcoholism and if we try to encourage them to live a life free from alcoholic activity we would be just creating identity confusion within them.
2. The research actually shows that same sex attraction is caused by a combination of psychological, social and biological factors.
3. It is often claimed that people who embrace the homosexual desires they are experiencing are much happier and better off in life than those who actively work not to indulge those desires.
But research in many areas shows that this is complete bunkum.
Openly homosexual people represent much higher than heterosexuals in mental health statistics relating to depression and suicidal ideation, etc.
Some groups have tried to claim that this is caused by homophobia, but the majority of these studies are conducted in liberal countries that are open (and even supportive) to homosexuality.
We also know that outside of Africa; homosexual men make up the greatest number of new HIV cases each year (approximately 70% in NZ last year, with one new openly gay man becoming HIV positive every four days last year in this country alone).
Studies have shown that openly homosexual men have a dramatically lessened life expectancy than heterosexual men – several studies have shown this life expectancy to be an average of 20 years less!!!
We know that the openly gay population suffers from a raft of serious medical conditions (related to homosexual sex) that are virtually unheard of in the exclusively heterosexual population.
Openly gay men represent alarmingly high in anal cancer statistics.
Openly homosexual people represent much higher in sexual promiscuity statistics (particularly gay males) – and even in so called “committed” homosexual relationships the average length is 18 months and it involves multiple numbers of other sexual partners.
4. Research has shown that far from being secure in their identity, many openly homosexual people also confess to having been recently aroused, or in love with or attracted to someone of the opposite sex – which suggests sexual confusion rather than security of identity.
5. There are several therapy practises for those struggling with homosexual desires that are experiencing great success. Despite the backlash from militant gay agenda groups these therapy programs have the same success rates as drug and alcohol rehab programs – with many people overcoming their homosexual desires and going on to marry and raise families.
These therapies aren’t brainwashing sessions; instead they focus on working through healing the root emotional/psychological cause of the homosexual desires in the patient.
With all of this in mind, one seriously has to question whether living an active homosexual lifestyle is really in the best interests of human beings.
I think the evidence is clear that the Church’s position is actually the most truly compassionate and loving approach to this issue, because it frees those suffering with homosexual desires from all of these risks and complications.
I (and other members of my family) have close friendships and associations with openly homosexual people, and to suggest that they are happier having embraced homosexuality is simply not true.
They are some of the most broken people I know, and their lifestyle reflects a desperate cry for help.
It’s one area that I believe we are not doing enough in as Catholics in NZ – we need to actually be reaching out to actively homosexual people in the hope that they will find their way to the Church, whose teaching offers them true freedom and fulfilment.
I know I’ve rabbited on, but can I suggest a couple of excellent links on this issue?
1. There is a FREE MP3 talk on this issue that can be downloaded from:
http://www.fli.org.nz/?sid=60 – it’s called “The Church and Science on Homosexuality”
2. There is an excellent little booklet you can download from:
http://www.fli.org.nz/?sid=4 – called “Homosexuality and Hope” – Just click on the PDF logo beside the title – this little booklet takes ten minutes to read and it comes from the Catholic Medical Association in the US
The Dumb Ox
Great post Agnes Day – these thought provoking topics are really worthwhile!
Captain, I wanted to say how great I think it is that you admit to struggling with this teaching. It is so important that we are “thinking” Catholics. It’s ok to have an emotive response, that’s human. It’s also ok to admit that you do not necessarily agree with a certain Church teaching. However, it is vital that we rise above our emotional responses to certain issues and teachings and apply our intellect to understand better why the Church teaches what it does. In my own life I have really seen how openness to further understanding the teachings of the Church has led me to see the great Truth that is at the foundations of these teachings.
The Church does not “hate” people with homosexual tendancies – far from it, She loves them and calls them to live chastely, just as she calls all of the baptised to live this virtue. This may be harder for them, yes, but there is nothing wrong with suffering – in fact it can bear much good fruit in a soul.
In contrast, we can see many evils that come from the homosexual act – AIDS is just one example (yes, I know it is transmitted in other ways, but male-male sex is one of the most prominent). The homosexual act is not life giving. Our world tells it is love-giving, but I would debate that as well.
I understand this issue is a touchy one, and having friends or relatives who are homosexuals (practising or not) would make it even more difficult, but it really is an issue we need to discuss as Catholics and one we should seek to know and understand the Church’s position on.
Excellent – awesome stuff Ox! Stat’s etc and links are always good.
And Perpetua, good distinctions, thank you. I agree that thinking about Church teaching is good, and that having an emotional response is human – we’re not Christian robots after all…
Hi Anges,
I didn’t mean to suggest that civil laws shouldn’t reflect moral laws; because they definitely should.
But what I was explaining is that you will not change a person’s heart and mind on a moral issue by changing the civil law on that issue only – they need to embrace sound philosophy first (or; as well as a law change).
How you live reflects how you think.
The same is true in civil law – if a society’s thinking is flawed then their laws will reflect their flawed thinking.
But you cannot address the problem of flawed thinking with good laws.
Yes, those good laws will protect society and they are vital; but they won’t cure philosophical errors.
If we want to cure the root problem of bad laws then we need to address the problem of philosophical error, which; in our case, is moral relativism.
If address the issue of moral relativism then I believe we will see the laws change for the good.
Hi Agnes
I am quite aware of the Church’s teaching on Homosexuality, and i agree with it. i was simply pointing out that for homosexualy orientated people, the virtue of chastity has an added dimension.
i know that the Church does not have a separte rule for Homosexual orientated people, but i also know that for them living a chaste life can be more burdensome because they have no hope of every having a life parter.
Finally i am sorry if i gave the wrong impression that i thought the Church condemed them as morally depraved- i know the church does not. i suppose I was trying to express the diffculity of holding to the Church’s teaching and yet knowing some gay people who are good people and who seem pretty happy. But i suppose if obedience to the Church’s teaching was easy, it wouldnt be worth much eh??
Ox – Yes, of course – I am saying the same thing here… I was posing the question earlier… not plugging a revolution… I agree with you.
You can’t just do a complete 180 and expect hearts and minds to change… if anything it would have the opposite intended effect initially. I agree with you completely on that
On with the battle against moral relativism!
Matt – Thanks for taking that a step deeper. At the moment I feel a bit like there is no hope of ever finding a life partner!
But there is hope – I’m sure you would agree, I know of a man who was once homosexually orientated and now has a wife and child… there is always hope with the Lord. Those who have the cross of homosexual tendencies are called to live chastely… if you are called to live chastely in any form then embracing that will make you the happiest, won’t it?
It’s so true what you say – if it was easy it wouldn’t be worth much… that is really true.
Matt, you said: “The problem for a person with homosexual tendencies is that s/he does not have the option of waiting until marriage- that option is always open to a heterosexual person.”
That option is not always open for a heterosexual person.
Some people don’t have the option to get married, just like those who suffer from homosexual tendencies, for example: the handicapped, or a dwarf person, or a hiddiously disfigured person, many of these people never find anybody, and it hurts for them too.
But, like people who suffer from homosexual tendancies, they don’t have the right to say: “poor me, I’ll bend the natural moral laws to suit my suffering, and anybody who says diffrently is a handicap-phob, or dwarf-phob, or an uglyperson-phob.”
Marriage is not a right, it is a gift. Sex is not a right, it is a gift.
We all have to accept suffering in our lives. I’m sure you would agree and you’ve mentioned that.
A person who gets cancer has to accept that there are things in life that he/she won’t be able to do like other people. Same goes for somebody who’s blind, or deaf, or in a wheel chair, or who has serious mental health problems.
These people often didn’t get to choose their lifestyle – it was seemingly forced on them by Divine Providence – but the key is to see it as a grace, and offer the suffering up for the redemption of others. Now, non-Catholics who suffer from homosexual tendencies won’t know anything about that, but the Church, and her bishops and priests, needs to teach Catholics who suffer from homosexual tendencies to do so…to see these things as gifts that they can be sanctified through, and learn self-sacrifice, and offer it to God, by denying themselves in this way.
We all have to do that – heterosexuals as well as anybody else. We all have disordered passions because of the fall and have to learn to control them by the aid of grace, and live chastly.
Homosexuality is an un-natural psychological and spiritual disorder – so the disorder is more serious than a natural passion that is disordered, but they still have to learn to control it and not just indulge it as they please.
You’re right Christ doesn’t condemn people, but he does condemn sin. And indulging in homosexual behaviour is sinful and is therefore condemned by Christ; and so should we condemn homosexual activity, but always love the people who struggle with it, just as Christ loves them.
Thanks, Captain, for voicing a response shared by many.
I, too, find it quite sickening when voices in the Church equate homosexuality with paedophilia, and other such depravities.
Perpetua talked about the “many evils that come from the homosexual act – AIDS is just one example”.
AIDS “comes from” a retrovirus, a small pathogen using reverse transcriptase to replicate, and incidentally depleting the human immune system.
While it is true that AIDS is spread quite readily by male homosexual acts, it is misleading to call AIDS “an evil” coming from the homosexual act. This is like calling the common cold “an evil resulting from the circannual biorhythm of the human immune system”.
HIV does not spontaneously appear when people engage in homosexual acts.
Too often, it seems, some of the curia find it easier to assert nonexistent links between homosexuality and other issues, than to engage in rational discussion of the topic.
Thank you, Dumb Ox, for a rational approach to the issue. Even if I disagree with your conclusions, at least you have constructed a logical case.
Like the Captain, my own feelings on the subject are just that, feelings.
However, I think it is important to distinguish between Church teachings, which Agnes posted, and the ill-chosen and hurtful insinuations that some in the Church have made.
Very well put JP III – we too often think that things are rights, and forget they are gifts…
Matt,
I like your comment about “if obedience to the Church’s teaching was easy, it wouldnt be worth much eh??”
I would also add that “happiness” can be a very deceptive and subjective thing.
Sometimes people can appear to be happy, or can state that they are really happy, when in actual fact they really aren’t as happy inside as they project outside.
My brother has a really close friend who he is always hanging out with and sharing the faith with and his friend also happens to be openly, and very actively, gay.
My brother’s friend claims to be very happy, but when he and my brother talk away from the crowds it is quite obvious that he is actually very broken inside, and when he has been drunk he has also expressed to my brother that he really isn’t as happy as he claims to be.
Sometimes people can also think that they are happy until they discover that what they thought would make them happy forever actually has a very limited shelf-life and all of sudden it can become a lot less satisfying than what they first thought it was.
One of the problems with sin is that it is very appealing, if it wasn’t we wouldn’t sin!
But what can initially seem really enjoyable can just as easily become unrewarding and shallow given enough time.
This can also happen when someone stops to truly contemplate where their life is REALLY at – I encounter many people today who are involved in all sorts of immoral situations but they haven’t really stopped to ever consider their lives.
As a result of this failure to stop and assess where things are at they just keep doing what they’ve already been doing and think that its making them happy, when in actual fact they are just ignoring the reality of their lives and mistaking that for being happy.
Another thing that can often happen is that people can believe that something is making them happy until they discover the truth (that they often never thought existed) then all of a sudden the old “happiness” pales in comparison to the truth they were missing before.
That’s the beauty of conversion I guess, the Holy Spirit blesses us with the grace that opens our eyes to a whole new world of meaning and purpose and then everything else becomes rather unfulfilling in comparison.
The most beautiful thing about this grace is that it leads us to the fullness of truth in Christ and then we get true joy, which far surpasses happiness.
Just my thoughts!
The Dumb Ox
Thanks Peter,
I think that Perpetua was trying to convey that AIDS, being a disease, is actually an evil.
I don’t think you would call a disease a good.
Bu that’s not the same thing as saying that a person with a disease (in this case AIDS) is evil, or that the devil made AIDS.
A disease, by its very nature attacks the created good that is the human body, and in the case of AIDS it even kills that good.
So, a disease is a physical evil and Perpetua was explaining that the risk of contracting AIDS is far greater during male homosexual sex than it is during any other sexual act.
Now, if a certain type of behaviour comes with its own extreme risk of disease, natural law would tell us that such behaviour is not in the best interest of human beings.
Then there is also the not so small fact that if an entire population was to revert to exclusively homosexual behaviour then that population would cease to exist within a generation.
Once again, natural law would state that a behaviour that leads to the destruction of a society is not in their best interests either.
Peter, can I ask what you mean by these statements?
“I, too, find it quite sickening when voices in the Church equate homosexuality with paedophilia, and other such depravities.”
“Too often, it seems, some of the curia find it easier to assert nonexistent links between homosexuality and other issues, than to engage in rational discussion of the topic.”
Hi JP III
thanks for your post. You made an excellent point that i dont think i had quite considered before. Marriage and sex are gifts not rights, and there are plenty of other people who dont get the opportunity to marry. good stuff!!!
Hi Dumb ox. yes i know all that you say is true, it is just difficult to challenge people in todays post modern environment. i think i just need more courage!! cheers
Agnes quoted the Catechism further up:
“Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”
I would like to comment on something here.
We must distinguish between just and unjust discrimination. There is such a thing as just discrimination.
For example, the Church has the right to discriminate against a man who suffers from homosexual tendencies, who is applying for a teaching job in a Catholic school for boys. This is a just form of descrimination. Another example:
it is just descrimination to prevent gay couples from adopting children.
In fact the Vatican has said that it would be an act of violence against the children to allow such a thing. Why?
Because, in doing so, it would utterly confuse the children as to the true nature of family, and homosexuality, and therefore distort them in their human and spiritual formation, which could well end up destroying them, and taking away their innocence, and hence severely endangering their salvation.
This is Church teaching. Cardinal Ratzinger has taught on this very topic when he was Prefect for CDF.
But we must avoid all unjust discrimination against those who suffer from homosexual tendencies, i.e., they mustn’t be persecuted for having this inclination.
But they can be stopped from having positions of authority in society and in the Church.
Often “feelings” get in the way in these discussions, and many have mentioned this further up. Feelings are not good indicators when dealing with moral issues. They often blind us, especially when they touch us personally and the way we live, or would like to live.
Peter you said: “Too often, it seems, some of the curia find it easier to assert nonexistent links between homosexuality and other issues, than to engage in rational discussion of the topic.”
Can you please give some examples of this?
What exactly have they said? Do you consider what I said above to be of that kind?
JPIII
Could I also say that another form of just discrimination would be to prevent a Catholic man or woman, who is a teacher, and who is co-habitating with his/her partner, from teaching at a Catholic school, or any other Catholic institution.
That would be just.
Same goes for a Catholic youth worker who is living with his or her partner before marriage.
It would be just to remove them from such a
position.
This may sound bizarre, but it is very important because of the example it sets for others and how it is important to live the values that one professes or represents.
If not, then they shouldn’t be representing the the Church, or school in an official position; or teaching others while in that position that is supposed represent or embody that institution.
JP III and The Ox,
Thank you for your comments. You both asked me to expand one of my comments, around statements from some (but not many) among the Curia.
Firstly, no, I was not placing either of your comments in that category. While I may not share fully in all of the beliefs you have stated, your points are, at the least, valid arguments.
I have no objection to that sort of conversation, which falls under the category of logical discussion.
What does concern me is the occasional interview or article from high-ranking individuals that identifies homosexuality with paedophilia, or does treat AIDS as a “punishment”.
Some of this was evident in the recent (2005) US Seminary inspection document from the Congregation for Catholic Education – where the assumption that the abuse crisis and priestly homosexuality were directly linked was evident in some of the questions to be considered. (Unfortunately, Google can’t find me the online text of the questions, which I read at the time).
The Instruction released at the time did not suffer from this fault, but the inspection document and several interviews about the topic did.
I agree, for the record, that a disease could safely be called an “evil” – my concern is that we’re very careful about the distinction, particularly when the topic causes so much pain.
JP III, you posted:
“Could I also say that another form of just discrimination would be to prevent a Catholic man or woman, who is a teacher, and who is co-habitating with his/her partner, from teaching at a Catholic school, or any other Catholic institution.
That would be just.”
I would have to disagree, on the grounds that we have to be careful not to presume too much about other people’s relationships.
Sure, if they are talking openly about this co-habitation and how often they’re engaging in sexual relations, your point may have some merit – but it is never fair to judge people based on supposition or rumour.
To “live with someone” does not always mean to engage in sexual relations with them, and the only people who would know for sure would be those in the relationship.
And, just to be consistent with the Commandments, JP III, we should really ban all who have ever told a lie from teaching in Catholic institutions. Or, Heaven forbid, taken the Lord’s name in vain.
In fact, I’m not sure if humans are up to those measures… we should probably just ban people altogether from Catholic institutions, just to be safe.
Seriously, though, we *try* to live up to the values our Church represents – we *all* fall short, however, and picking on one facet of someone else’s perceived failure is itself not modelling those values too well.
Peter
Absolutely I agree that it is unjust to make uninformed judgments on rumours or assumptions about another persons lifestyle or situation; and a person should not be discriminated against on unsubstantiated rumours. I would like to make four points in regards to this;
1) There are certain things that demonstrate in a persons life that they are sexually active before marriage;
they say that they live with their partner, so it is not an unfair judgment to assume that they are sexually active in that relationship. Even if they are not sexually active it is against all Christian prudence and spiritual advice for two people who are romantically involved to live together; and think they could absolutely abstain from sexual activity. To do so would be foolish and a sin of presumption which is part of pride (we are not talking about remarried Catholic divorcees who have decided to be continent, we are talking about people who cohabitate without being married).
2) While your point is true that we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and therefore can never consider ourselfves better than any others, we must make a valid distinction between those who are sincerely trying to live the Christian life, and in this case that means practising abstinence and chastity, and between those who make no effort to convert their lifestyle to Christ and just continue living together – that is what I would call obstinant unrepentence, which is a sin of pride, and can lead to sexual immorality.
3) We also need to make a further distinction between public life and private life. A person who holds a position of authority (parent, teacher, priest, bishop etc) must understand that they represent something greater than themselves, and their action can come under further scrutiny. In this case we are talking about a teacher in a Catholic school; and therefore the teacher must, if they are going to teach in a Catholic institution, make a sincere effort to live and uphold the morals of the Catholic faith. Otherwise they are a counter sign to what they are representing and the worshipping community, including parents of the children at the school, have a right to expect that the teacher will authentically and sincerely represent those morals. If there is strong doubt that the teacher is making no effort to live a Christian lifestyle (continuing to live with their partner) then there are just grounds to make a judgment, after a proper investigation, that the person is unfit to teach and represent the Catholic faith; because of the harm and the bad example that sets for the innocent children and the contradiction that it poses.
4) Added to this dinstinction on private and public life is the fact that justice not only needs to be done, but needs to be ’seen’ to be done – this is a valid distinction and is seen in secular society. Politicians have to adhere to this also. Their life not only needs to be an example but they need to avoid certain circumstances that would cast major doubt of the authenticity of their example. This is also seen in the life of a priest who (for example) has to visit a brothel for a valid pastoral reason. That priest has to be very careful not to be seen to be entering a brothel – it could look very bad! This also applies to a male teacher who has to visit the home of a female student; he needs to be very careful that he is doing the right thing, but also that he is seen to be doing the right thing.
A Catholic teacher in a Catholic school who says that he lives with his partner is an inappropriate role model for children because of the contradiction that it demonstrates.
Long yes… but I felt I had to be thorough…
Can I add a thought also…
Peter I don’t understand what you mean when you say JP III and the Dumb Ox have logical and reasonable arguments and points and yet you disagree with the conclusion. I would think that if a logical argument is seen then accepting the conclusion based on that logical argument would be logical, one would naturally flow from the other…
…. can you please explain
Certainly, Agnes.
We maybe using different definitions of “argument”. In the way I was thinking of the term, a “valid argument” is an argument that holds up within its own context.
For example “I benefit from eating potatoes, therefore potatoes are good”.
The statement supports itself, and is a valid argument.
If you have an allergy to potatoes, you certainly don’t have to agree with the conclusion – but you can still concede that, in its own context, the argument is valid.
In the cases at hand, I can understand and see the reasoning behind each of JP III and The Ox’s points, but that does not compel me to agree with them.
I can agree with parts of the arguments, but see the arguments themselves as too generalised to fully speak to my own experience.
Another part of the distinction is between logic and truth. A logical argument is not inherently or necessarily a truthful one.
Hope that helps,
Peter
Peter, you said: “What does concern me is the occasional interview or article from high-ranking individuals that identifies homosexuality with paedophilia…”
On a slightly different point, the independant report done in the States about the clerical abuse scandal over there, showed that 95% of the abuses were carried out by priests with closet homosexual tendencies.
And further to that, the abuse that they were perpetrating, was ephebophilia, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia), not pedophilia.
Ephebophilia, is not about sex with children , but sexual activity with post pubescant boys. The scientific evidence has proven that almost all the cases in the USA were from priests suffering from homosexual tendencies and preying on young teenage boys.
So, there is a disturbing link of homosexuality and ephebophilia.
That says to alot to me.
And I may be wrong but I did think that there is scientific evidence to show a link between homosexual activity and pedophilia, as there is also a link between pornography and pedophilia.
I’ll try and find the studies on this.
JPIII
Hi JPIII, in your earlier comment you mention ‘discrimination’ and ‘descrimination’. Did you just misspell it or are there two different meanings of the word when spelt differently?
I’m also not sure I understand what you mean by “just discrimination”. This sounds like it’s all very subjective e.g. as Catholics we would see barring of a homosexual man from teaching at a boys school but would greater society see it as “just discrimination” or just discrimination.
What’s to stop people from discriminating against other groups they don’t like and claim it’s “just discrimination”?
Hi Conan,
Let me answer your question about “just discrimination”.
The best way I can do this is to give an example.
An employer places an advertisement for someone to work in his bricklaying company.
Two applicants apply. One is a 6 months pregnant female with 10 years of bricklaying experience and the other is a young man with 8 years bricklaying experience.
Due to the physically demanding nature of the work and the fact that the employer wants a long-term employee the young man is selected for the job.
The employer has been just in his discrimination for the sake of his livelihood, the sake of the mother and for the sake of her unborn child.
Unjust discrimination would be this…
An employer places an advertisement for someone to work in his company as a sale rep.
Two applicants apply. One is a female with 12 years of sales experience and the other is a young man with 3 years of sales experience.
Due to the fact that the employer thinks women are weak and that they should only be working in the kitchen at home he employs the young male.
In this case he has discriminated against her on unjust grounds, based on the personal prejudice that he has against the role and dignity of women.
Does that help?
Conan,
yes, I mispelt the word. Sorry.
Good point.
Just discrimination is a term used by Cardinal Raizinger when writing his Official Documents for the Congregation for the doctrine of the Faith about homosexuality.
One is called: “Some considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons” from 2003 and another is called “Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons” from 1992, and another is called “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” from 1975.
These give a very good outlay of what the Church’s position is with respect to sexual immorality and homosexuality. And for the record, they’re not a set of rules, of dos and don’ts, but give a solid explanation.
In the 1992 one, Cardinal Ratzinger explained that there can be such a thing as “just discrimination”, i.e., that sometimes it is in fact a good thing to prevent someone from doing something, or from having a certain position in society. For example, it would be right to not give a primary teaching job to a convicted pedophile. That would be a form of just discrimination. This happens all the time in our society. If a person has a criminal record, then the person is restricted from all sorts of jobs; e.g., security jobs, police, banking …etc…i.e, restrictions are placed on him or her because of a factual occurrence in their life which shows that they could be a threat to the common good if placed in a position of trust or authority.
Same goes for men who have abused their wives or children: they are supervised while spending time with their children. This is a form of restriction on someone’s freedom because we, as a society, are protecting a higher good, and the innocence of the children…etc…
So, firstly, there is such a thing as “just discrimination”. The State or Church, can discriminate on certain just grounds, for the sake of the common good.
Next, to answer your question, who decides? That’s basically your question. Who determines this?
Well, the State has the right to do so but that does not mean that the State always gets it right. The State can err either way. It can be too tight in placing restrictions on certain freedoms or it can be too lax in these matters. This is where what the Dumb Ox was saying comes into play.
If the society is formed well in its ethics and morals, flowing from proper philosophy, then it will see clearly what higher values are at stake and inact laws and conditions appropriately to protect the higher things at the expense of lower things. But even then it can get difficult to determine and many factors need to be weighed properly.
The Church’s role is to teach and remind individuals and the State of solid morals and ethics, based on the dignity of the human person, enlightened by Divine Revelation (Faith) from God, so that the State can get these things right and hence build a just and charitable society.
So, this is the reason for the documents I have mentioned above. Ratzinger, speaking in an Official Capacity for the Church, is reminding the Church, and the world of what truly are the higher principles and values at stake, and not to confuse things.
Because that is what is going on: in the name of tolerance and moderation and discrimination, many are saying that people who suffer from homosexual tendencies should be allowed to do everything that heterosexual people can do; and that is completely false.
I hope I have explained well. I f you have any questions, fire away…
Here are a couple of quotes from the documents mentioned above.
“There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.”
“The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions.”
“The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.”
“…there is no ‘right’ to homosexuality.”
Peter – what you have outlined there seems to be subjective… what we are discussing is objective truth… that is where my confusion lies – an objective truth does not need to be thought to be true, it IS true and if you don’t agree with the truth then you are wrong. eg the world is round… just because all those years ago people thought it was flat and they all agreed – that doesn’t make them right.
Your example of potatoes is presented as subjective but is not, potatoes are nutritious, that nutrtition is not reached by someone who is allergic to them but it doesn’t stop them being nutritious…
It is an objective reality that homosexual acts are against the natural order… against God… do you agree?
Peter,
Firstly; let me say that I don’t think I have actually ever heard a member of the Curia talking about AIDS in the way you mention; I’m not saying it hasn’t happened – but it’s just that I haven’t heard it before.
In regards to the connection between homosexuality and paedophilia…
Sexual abuse statistics show that per head of capita homosexual males are more likely to commit acts of sexual abuse against children. This issue has been confused by gay activists and others who wrongly misrepresent the statistics.
You see, homosexuals make up between 1.5 – 3.5% of an average population, yet they average in at about 25 – 30% when it comes to statistics of sexual abuse of minors.
This means that there are more heterosexual sex offenders in total, but per head of capita there are more homosexual oriented sexual offenders.
Let me explain – let’s say we had a population of 1000 people.
The stats tell us that between 15-35 of those people will be homosexual.
Now if 100 members of that population were convicted sex offenders then statistics tells that approximately 25 – 30 of those sex offenders would be homosexual.
Here comes the important point…
If 100 of that 1000 strong population are sex offenders, and 25 of those 100 paedophiles are homosexual, and there are only 30 homosexuals in that population of 1000, then that means that over 80% of that homosexual population register in the sex offender stats.
While less than 8% of the heterosexual population in that group of 1000 register in the sexual offending statistics for paedophilia.
One US study – in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy – showed that although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual paedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offences.
Gay activists have also clouded this issue by claiming that “homosexuality” should be defined as an attraction to adults of the same sex, and that those who experience such attractions are not attracted to children.
Research, however, does not support this. A study in Archives of Sexual Behaviour, for example, found that homosexual men are attracted to young males. The study compared the sexual age preferences of heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, and lesbians. The results showed that, in marked contrast to the other three categories, “all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories,” which included males as young as age fifteen.
Likewise, in The Gay Report, by homosexual researchers Karla Jay and Allen Young, showed that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys sixteen to nineteen years of age or younger”
Please let me make the important point that not all those with same sex attraction are paedophiles or will commit acts of child abuse, but the point I am making is that research shows that they are more likely to either indulge in this type of behaviour, or to express desires in favour of this type of behaviour.
The simple fact is that a population so small should not register so highly in paedophilia statistics, and the fact they do suggests that there is an issue that needs to be addressed in this regard.
Very good points Ox. Thanks for grabbing that info.
Hi Ox,
Just saw your much-earlier post about homosexuality, very interesting. My only response is when I have found myself attracted to people throughout my life, it’s intoxicating and I have no power over that attraction (not to be confused with “I have no power over my response to that attraction”). I thank God that I am attracted to members of the opposite sex. I don’t CHOOSE to be heterosexual, I am – and I’m so grateful for this, because I’d hate to be faced with the challenges that homosexuals deal with; even in supposedly accepting societies. Choice? Conditioning? I don’t buy it.
You say “the risk of contracting AIDS is far greater during male homosexual sex than it is during any other sexual act”. Not true.
The risk of contracting HIV (the virus that leads to AIDS = important disctinction) is the highest it could be when having unprotected sex with someone carrying the virus. HIV does not discriminate.
I would be very interested to know where you get the figures “homosexuals make up between 1.5 – 3.5% of an average population, yet they average in at about 25 – 30% when it comes to statistics of sexual abuse of minors”.
I, for one, would have no problem with my son (if I had one) being taught by a man with homosexual tendencies. I would have a problem with my son being taught by a person with paedophilic tendencies. Call me belligerent but I do not believe the two go hand-in-hand.
For the record, I’m loving that this debate is going on. JPIII, Agnes and Ox, your points are very interesting – I’m struggling a lot with them
, but I completely appreciate you making them.
Over and out,
El Capitan
Hi Captain,
1. I didn’t suggest that homosexuals CHOOSE to be attracted to members of the same sex – and neither does the research, but homosexuals can definitely choose whether otr not they act on their same-sex attraction.
It is really important to remember that just because a person experiences a desire it doesn’t mean that the said desire is natural, ordered or that it should be freely engaged in.
I gave the example of an alcoholic (or any addict for that matter) who doesn’t choose the desires they are afflicted with, but that doesn’t mean that they should embrace their desires and act upon them.
If we are going to start suggesting that inherit desire is all that is required to legitimise acting out on that desire then why can’t paedophilia be allowed? Or bestiality? Or even marrying your sister or bother?
What about people with mental illness?
Shouldn’t society and the medical community just embrace them and stop trying to provide medications to fix their disordered thinking and actions?
2. In actual fact, the riskiest form of sex you can have with someone who is HIV positive is anal sex.
The study entitled “HIV prevalence and associated risks in young men who have sex with men” by Valleroy, et al. showed that young gay men who had anal sex had a five-fold increased risk of contracting HIV when compared with gay men who never engaged in anal sex.
This is also borne out in the HIV statistics, where 70% of new cases annually occur in the male homosexual population, yet the homosexual populations is only between 1.5 – 3.5% of an average society.
This means that there are way more heterosexuals having unprotected sex than homosexuals (even if every gay person in an average society was having unprotected sex), yet homosexuals make up more than twice the number of new HIV cases each year outside of Africa.
This suggests that their sexual practises place them at greater risk of HIV than heterosexual populations.
Are you also aware that in the early 80’s HIV was actually initially called “Gay Related Immuno Deficiency Syndrome” (GRIDS) by Western doctors, in fact it was regularly referred to in medical circles as the “gay plague” or the “gay cancer” because of the fact that it was most prevalent in homosexual communities.
3. My stats on gay populations come from a multitude of international studies and census data that show that the average society has between 1.5 – 3.5% who identify as homosexual.
The paedophilia stats are from places like “Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in paedophiles” by Blanchard R, et al. (from the Archives of Sexual Behaviour 2000; 29: 463 – 78)
It is also interesting to note that political scientist Professor wrote that “paedophile organisations were originally part of the gay and lesbian collation…” in the Journal of Homosexuality 1999; 37: 1 – 24.
And David Thorstad, co-founder of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) publicly stated that there is an overlap between the gay movement and the movement to make paedophilia acceptable – Journal of Homosexuality 1990; 20: 251 – 74
Captain, you said: “I, for one, would have no problem with my son (if I had one) being taught by a man with homosexual tendencies. I would have a problem with my son being taught by a person with pedophilic tendencies. Call me belligerent but I do not believe the two go hand-in-hand.”
Captain, you are right to see a distinction between homosexual inclinations and behaviour, and pedophilic inclinations and behaviour. I don’t think Ox, and definitely not myself, are saying that they are one and the same thing. Not at all.
What Ox has pointed out from the stats, is that there seems to be a strong link between the 2. That is concerning from the sociological and psychological point of view.
Captain, would you feel ok, if the man started teaching your son that homosexuality is ok. Or worse, that it is equal to heterosexuality? Would that be ok for you if you had put your son in a Catholic school to receive a Catholic education?
What about this: would you have no problem for your son to be taught by a man who had anti-Semitic tendencies and was teaching your son social studies? What about a man who frequented a modern-day Nazi party? Or a man who was a member of Destiny Church? Or a polygamist?
Would that make you feel uncomfortable and worried for your child? I’m trying to get a feel for where your “line” lies with respect to the education of your child, or son.
You see, parents have a huge responsibility, given to them by God, to look after the education of their children. This is one of their primary responsibilities. As Vat II says, they are the primary educators of their children.
Formation is so important for determining how a child acts and behaves. It is extremely important – not only for this life, but so they can get to Heaven. When parents come before God, they will be asked what they did to protect their children from false doctrine, and dangerous circumstances; what they did to give their children good education, good morals, good discipline…especially if the child ends up in Hell.
But not just for the next life, but also so the child can come to deep fruition and flourishment in this life: to come to be a best and most saintly person that they can be in this life, and hence, be the most fulfilled and happy.
If parents don’t look after that properly, their child could spend their life living a very sinful and sad existence.
I’m not saying that children don’t have responsibility themselves, and can’t choose their own way in life. I’m just talking here about the consequences of parents not looking out for their children when it comes to education, and therfore not giving their children a solid platform on which to grow and develop properly in the Christian sense.
JPIII
Hi Agnes,
Good post and discussion generated! Just looking at your comment to Peter regarding homosexuality being against the natural order and God. Don’t get me wrong, I totally agree with you. But does an objective truth need to be universally accepted for it to be labelled as an objective truth?
Using your example of the world being flat, wasn’t it generally accepted by everyone at the time that the world was flat? This would then have been the objective reality at the time wouldn’t it?
Homosexuality being against the natural order is an objective truth for us, but as it is not universally accepted, does this make it at the moment a subjective view moreso than an objective reality?
Hi JPIII, I’m always a bit wary of using stats because stats can be taken from so many sources and be twisted to suit whatever a person’s agenda may be!
As to your comment above to The Captain, hypothetically, if a homosexual man was teaching in a Catholic school, wouldn’t the school draw a line as to what he would be teaching in his classes as a sign of just discrimination?
Also, sorry if my earlier comment seemed pedantic in terms of the spelling of discrimination… just wondering if there was a different meaning like if you spelt “principal” or “principle”.
Hi Ox,
Thanks for responding.
Just a note: Yup, was aware about referrals to GRIDS and gay cancer and I’m not denying that, initially, HIV was most prevalent in the male homosexual domain. However, that – and your facts about the correlation between homosexuality and HIV and AIDS – obfuscates the argument about the spread of HIV. The riskiest behaviour is having unprotected sex with someone infected with HIV – homosexual or heterosexual.
Hi Conan,
Objective truth does not have to be universally accepted to be an objective truth.
An objective truth, is a truth that is universal and absolute; in other words it’s not open to subjective personal interpretation or change.
It’s objective truth that the earth is round – now if 99.9% of humans had a vote tomorrow and they felt that the earth was actually square, they would be wrong.
Their opinion doesn’t change the objective truth.
An objective truth cannot be changed by opinion or popular majority.
Subjective truths can be – for example; 90% of New Zealander’s like eating BBQ food is a subjective truth.
It’s true that 90% of kiwis like eating BBQ food, but in two years we might find that it is equally true that 99% of kiwis don’t like eating BBQ food.
It is philosophically impossible to hold to the notion that there is no such thing as objective (unchanging, universal, absolute) truth; because such a concept is self-refuting.
If there is no objective truth then how can you objectively state that “there is no objective truth”?
Put another way; by saying there is no objective truth, you have created an objective truth of your own (“that there is no objective truth”) and you are now trying to use that as the final arbitrator of right and wrong.
If there is no such thing as objective truth then there can be no God, there can be no rules and there can be no laws – because no one can appeal to an external authority to support their claims of “right” and “wrong”.
When that happens everything becomes worthless, because nothing is anymore true, right or sacred than anything else.
Then right and wrong is decided by those who have the power, and that means that we lose the protections and rights that objective truth provides all human beings.
Does that help?
Hi Conan
Regarding – “But does an objective truth need to be universally accepted for it to be labelled as an objective truth?”
No, that was the point I was trying to outline – that an objective truth IS such because it does not require people to believe it to make it true. The best example of an objective truth is that God exists and is the creator and sustainer of all things…
and “Homosexuality being against the natural order is an objective truth for us, but as it is not universally accepted, does this make it at the moment a subjective view moreso than an objective reality?”
It is an objective truth yes, but not just for us, and objective truth is for all. As I outlined above God exists not just for those who believe but for all, the same goes for homosexual acts – it is against the natural and moral order for all, not just for those who agree.
One of the main reasons I am Catholic is that it holds objective truth – and is the only faith to claim that! I want to search and obtain the truth and that is found in the Church Christ founded.
Conan,
truth is not dependant on whether is it accepted by all or not. That would make it relative to us, and therefore relativistic.
All truth is objective. It doesn’t depend on who accepts it or not.
Truth is not dependant on us.
Truth comes from God, because he is the most true, most real and origin of all things. And then we discover it.
We can discover different parts of the truth according to different means.
For example, natural truth, from the created universe…our sciences discover truth about the universe. Some of these things are disputed because they haven’t been completely finalised.
Some never will be because what God has created is so big, that we may never discover eveything there is to know about the universe.
But there is also Divine Truth, and this is what God has revealed to us, through Revelation.
Divine Truth is even more certain than natrual truth because it is God Himself revealing it and He is more trustworthy than our little brains discovering stuff in the created universe.
We sometimes get things wrong is our natural research.
But in Divine Revelation, it is infallible because God has revealed it. And if God isn’t true and trustworthy, then nothhing is.
Where has he revealed it?
He started with Israel and it culminated in His Son, who is the fulness of God Revelation, ie., Jesus reveals the Father to us. He is the visible expression on the invisible God.
So, truth is given to us in creation (natural truth) annd then in Revelation (Divine Truth).
And the Church is the one who has been infallibly endowed by Christ to intepret what Divine Revelation is and to hand that on.
That why we can say that objective truth applies to all, especially truth taught by the Church, because it is essentially God teaching through the Church. And it doesn’t depend on whether others accept it or not.
Hey all, thanks for the replies. Another question, who decides what is objective truth and what isn’t?
Conan,
just to add something esle. There are other applications for the use of the word truth: e.g., did a person truly mean to say something bad, i.e., what is the truth about their intention.
In these cases, only God can judge whether an intention is true or not, or how mixed an intention is: e.g., whether it is partly good and partly bad in a persons desire…etc…
But it is still truly objective according to God who sees all things, and understands them more deeply than all else.
It is objectively measured by God.
We can try to measure it, and get some idea of what the truth in an intention is, but it is always imperfect. But that doesn’t mean that the truth of it is relative; but just partly unknowable for us from the natural perspective.
El Capitan,
Unprotected anal sex with an HIV positive person carries far more risk of HIV transmission than vaginal sex with an HIV positive person does.
This is because;
a) The delicate and thin rectal walls are not designed for intercourse (or penetration of any sort) and anal sex cause abrasions of the rectal wall which normally result in bleeding.
b) The penetration of E.coli, always present in the stool, and other bacteria, viruses and parasites penetrate through such lesions into the deeper body tissues. This leads to the suppression of the immune system.
The immune suppression increases the risk of contracting HIV and certain cancers and opportunistic infections, to which one would otherwise be resistant.
c) The Vaginal tract contains anti-bodies and infection fighting cells known as killer cells, and the rectal tract does not. These cells provide an inherent level of defence against virus transmission.
Yes, you would be foolish to have sex with an HIV positive person, but you would be even dumber if you had anal sex with them.
I think what i’m trying to say is if we see objective truth coming from God and the Church, won’t other religions have their own objective truths? Is it then up to us to make them see what the truth is?
God decides what is objective truth and what isn’t. He then teachs that to us through different means.
(1) the natural law written into evey person’s heart, i.e., most sane people knows that it’s wrong to murder.
(2) the Divinely Revealed Law, Revelation. This is taught to us by the Church. So, essentially, it is the Church who decides the important moral and Divine Truths that have been revealed by God and that we need for our salvation.
As for other natural truths, i.e., gravity, etc…these are decided by scientists who can PROVE them according to reasonable means.
But within the field of science there are many theories, that some think are already laid down are true, but remain theories at best, e.g., darwinism.
Hi JPIII, thanks for that… in case you missed my other question which I posted before your reply…
“if we see objective truth coming from God and the Church, won’t other religions have their own objective truths? Is it then up to us to make them see what the truth is?”
Follows on quite nicely from your reply though!
Conan
I see what you are saying – this seems to be a catch 22 situation for you… it looks like you are making the subject of objective truth subjective… by the way you say ‘if we see objective truth coming from God’. We don’t ’see’ it, we know it, truth does come from God, where else would it come from?
Other religions may say that Jesus was a nice guy but not God… they may say this is completely true… they may say they have evidence to support that truth. But it is not true. Many hundreds of thousands of people believe in reincarnation – they even think there is evidence to support this but I can confidently say that reincarnation is not real, it is not possible and is completely false. It makes no difference how many millions believe in it – it will never be anything but a false teaching.
Is this clarifying?
And yes – it is up to us… the Church to promote and teach what truth is… definitely!
Hey Agnes, using your example of reincarnation, how do we then go about telling millions of people they are wrong? In their minds, they will be seeing reincarnation as some that is true and stems from their belifes perhaps. By trying to show them what the truth is won’t that be seen by them as an attack on their fundamental beliefs?
It is unavoidable that in revealing the truth it would be viewed as attacking their fundamental beliefs – we are… and it is good to because they are wrong.
It is in the delivery of this information that we have to be charitable and prudent, I would never attempt to walk up to a Hindu and flat out say – You are wrong! This just wouldn’t be productive…
God also steps in and provides the grace and situation for this information to be recieved… prudence comes in big time when dealing with evangelising and apologetics.
Conan,
You said: “if we see objective truth coming from God and the Church, won’t other religions have their own objective truths? Is it then up to us to make them see what the truth is?”
Kind of. What these other religions have is PART of the truth (not that you can split up God – who is the Truth), but they have some truths, natural and Divine.
Only the Catholic Faith has what is called the ‘Fullness of the Truth’, i.e., it has received and guarded every truth that God has Divinely Revealed on earth, and that is necessary for our salvation.
So in that sense, Catholicism lacks nothing that is required for our salvation and life in God.
Other religions do not have truths that we don’ t have, ok. That is important. Some Catholics, prattle on about how we could recieve alot from other religions. At the level of truth this is simply not true.
It can be true however at the level of understanding what truths they have authentically guarded and have valued in their history, i.e., we can learn about how the Orthodox have deeply valued the liturgy, sometimes more than us. We can learn from the Protestants about have they have deelpy valued their truncated version on the Bible, sometimes more than us. etc…
So, other religions have some portion of the Truth, and to different degrees, i.e, the Orthodox have more truth than Anglicans, Anglicans have more truth than other Protestants, Protestants have more truth than JWs, JWs have more truth than Muslims, Muslims have ore truth than Hindus, Hindus have more truth than Budhists, Budhists have more truth than New Agers, and New Agers have more truth than Satanists.
And as is shown by the last religion shown above (satanists), just because they have some truth, doesn’t mean that those in them are “all ok”. Same goes for us Catholics – to those who have received much, much is expected.
Yes, it is up to us to effectively preach and live the truth, and evangelise, so as to bring all these people into the truth, because that is what God wants. God desires that all men come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:3-4). That’s why He sent Jesus and founded the Catholic Church, which is the One True Church, so all can come to live with God.
That doesn’t mean that non-Catholics can’t be saved – they can through charity, but it is much more difficult for them.
Sorry – i seemed to have missed a bit in my answer;
Evangelising and being a faithful witness is the best way to show people the way to the truth and this touches in on the topic earlier of having a man with homosexual tendencies being a teacher in a Catholic school – in order to promote the truth being a faithful witness is essential… if you are not trying to live the Christian life then you cannot be a faithful witness… (I am not saying that a man with homosexual tendencies cannot live a Christian life – I am just trying to collate topics… and be concise)
Like most, I am the only Catholic in my office I take any chance I can to talk about my faith, this doesn’t happen every day or even every week… being a witness and being seen to live a faithful life is the most regular and effective evangeliser.
I also think that this Gospel passage is pertinant to this dicussion on truth;
“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Dt 8:3; cf. Mt 4:4)
Check out this story. It is pertinent to discussion on homosexuality.
Who thinks that they were justified?
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=70802
I can see where both sides are coming from. I doubt the firefighters would have failed to act if the parade spontaneously combusted or something like that.
This might be an example of the just discrimination you’re talking about? How far can we push just discrimination though? Would it be just in the the best interests of everyone to prevent muslims from getting on planes?
JPIII,
Way back in #44: “If parents don’t look after that [their education] properly, their child could spend their life living a very sinful and sad existence.”
“You see, parents have a huge responsibility, given to them by God, to look after the education of their children. This is one of their primary responsibilities. As Vat II says, they are the primary educators of their children.”
Exactly! Parents are responsible for their child’s education. But catechesis begins at home. While my parents were (and still are) responsible for my formation – my teachers were not…or at least, not to the same degree. They were responsible for teaching me, not forming me. God forms me.
Are you saying that parents should only send their kids to schools where there are no sinners teaching, and where all those who teach have a total understanding of God with an incredibly deep faith? I’d wager that such a school does not exist on this planet!
How do you measure such things? Even if you go for the easy targets (i.e. “he’s living with his partner so he’s out”) and then say “whew – that’s them all gone. I’m sure whoever is left goes to reconciliation every day.”
I hope you see my point in facetious little example there. Since we can never have total control over who is teaching in our schools or over what they truly think and believe (what’s to stop someone who’s extra sinister acting all pious, saying they’re single, speaking the Creed at every school Mass etc.), parents should focus on establishing strong Faith and being a good witness. Moreover, they should earn enough respect from their children when they are young that when one comes home from school saying “Ms X said Y”, they can say “no, Z is actually the truth” and the child will listen and believe.
That is their responsibility.
Ox, Agnes, JPIII et al,
Re: objective truth, the problem we face is that anytime you try to tell the world something that it does not believe, the burden of proof is placed on you – not them. If you challenge the incumbent, you have to do the challenging. Galileo had to prove that the Earth orbited the Sun before he could be believed. Let’s not get into the details of the rejection of his teaching at the moment (not the Church’s greatest moment) – the proof was still there.
Now, take our (Catholic) view of objective truth. I say that it is our view because it is seen as that by those who are not Catholic. How do we prove to them the objectivity of the Truth? Especially when you look at our target audience – i.e. the “average” person in NZ. Judging by the last Census, you have a 4 in 5 chance that the person you are speaking to is not Catholic and does not recognise the Church’s authority to teach on such matters. There is an almost 1 in 2 chance that that person doesn’t even believe that God exists!
I’ve had some…frankly depressing conversations with such peers where I have tried to show the truth behind the Truth, only to have them fly in my face with subjective nonsense – that they believe to be true with the same enthusiasm as I do the Church! Case in point – sex is primarily for procreation. Surely this is matter-of-fact? Apparently not.
The point I’m making is that I would be very keen on finding out how those of you who live in this great mission field (NZ) propose we actually go about teaching those who do not believe. Because, to get back to your original post Agnes, without this understanding becoming more common, the State will never legislate on such matters that we see as morally reprehensible and objectively wrong.
Anyone?
Just to comment on #66 James, more often than not all the good stuff taught in schools is negated by the friends that kids end up with at school who influence them… so I agree completely with having to establish a strong faith based / moral background at home.
Hi James, I think that was the point I was trying to make(badly it would seem). We may have our objective truths which we know to be true, but to the rest of the world they are our truths, and they don’t know or care that it may be the truth.
So how do we respond to that? Declare war on all those who don’t see the same objective truth as us?
James,
It’s actually quite easy to explain objective truth, the tough part is having them accept it; that’s why we need the grace of the Holy Spirit to enlighten hearts and minds as well.
Here’s how I usually do it…
Bob: “You can’t force your Catholic beliefs on me Ox, everyone has their own version of moral truth. Your moral truth is cool for you, but I have chosen another moral truth that’s okay with me”
Ox: “Bob, do you believe that it is wrong to murder someone?”
Bob: “Of course I do”
Ox: “Well I don’t. In fact I feel quite comfortable with murder, I have come to the truth that murder is okay.”
Bob: “That’s nonsense; everyone knows that murder is wrong. It’s immoral to kill an innocent person!”
Ox: “But that’s your truth, but I have my own truth and I believe that murder is sweet as”
Bob: “Ah, but the majority of New Zealanders think murder is immoral, so you’re wrong – murder is immoral.”
Ox: “Who says? Just a moment ago you told me that everyone has their own moral truths and that all moral truths are equally valid”
Bob: “But there are some truths that are universal and you can’t go against them”
Ox: “So now there are some absolute truths that we must all follow? You are now saying that there are some rules that must never be broken?”
Bob: “That’s right”
Ox: “Well who says so? What if I don’t like those moral rules and want to do my own thing?”
Bob: “You can’t, everyone knows its wrong to murder”
Ox: “What do you mean everyone “knows” that murder is wrong? How can they say that with any certainty and authority if there is no objective truth or moral absolutes?”
Bob: “Because morals are decided by what the majority of a society thinks is right and wrong – and the majority of kiwis think that murder is wrong.”
Ox: “So, if in ten years the majority of kiwis thought that murder was acceptable, then it would be okay to murder other people?”
Bob: “No, because they’d be wrong”
Ox: “How can they be wrong? You just said that the majority makes the moral rules.”
Bob: “Because everyone knows that murder is wrong”
Ox: “So you now agree that an individual’s personal morals can be wrong, and the majority can be just as wrong about morals – so if morals aren’t decided by the individual or by the majority, then how are they decided?”
Bob: “Theres just some things that are morally wrong”
Ox: “So now you’re saying that there are actually moral absolutes and objective truths that cannot be changed”
Bob: “No, that’s not what I’m saying – because there are no moral absolutes”
Ox: “So if there are no moral absolutes then how can you make the statement that “there are no moral absolutes” – because in saying this you have created a moral absolute (“that there are no moral absolutes”.
And you are saying that I have to accept your moral absolute (that there are no moral absolutes)!!!
If there are no moral absolutes then I don’t have to accept what you say about anything, cause I can make up my own truths about anything from murder to paedophilia to rape, etc, etc.
Bob: “Well if you put it like that then I suppose there do have to be absolutes”
Ox: “Glad we agree! Now we’ve settled the fact that there are moral absolutes and therefore objective truth, we need to examine the morals we live by to see which ones are true and which ones are lies.”
ENDS
From this point I would normally begin to examine the specific moral code being quibbled about (be it sex before marriage, homosexuality, etc).
Just my thoughts anyway
Too often people try to tackle specific moral issues without first walking people through the facts of objective truth first – without dealing with the flaws of moral relativism you’ll be arguing about morals till you’re blue in the face.
Ox, that’s all well and good but what if you’re trying to argue it with someone who isn’t an intellectual giant?
James,
firstly, let me reply to no.67 and then I’ll reply to no.66.
Ok, its true, when you say to somebody, the Catholic religion is the true religion because God has revealed it, they’ll say “Says who? You? Ha, hahahahah!”
You’re confusing a few things here. When I am answering Conan, I am givng him the Catholic position and teaching on this, not in a way as if I’m talking to an atheist, but because I’m talking to a Catholic. So, of course I’m not going to try and prove the existence of God with him, I assume he already holds that beleif.
If I were talking to other non-Catholics I would adopt a different stance. I thought that would be obvious.
We’re all Catholic here, so I thought we’d have no issue with Catholic Dogmas (e.g., the Catholic Religion is the One True Religion).
When talking to other non-Catholics about objective truth, one has to start with obvious examples.
I used this very technique with a guy at work who hates the Catholic Church and can’t stand the idea of having a moral code to have to live up to. So I started asking him if he thought there was any objective truth. He said no. So I proceeded to ask him several questions.
“Does somebody else have the right to walk into your house and take your life”. He said no.
“Do you have the right to do that?” No.
“Does anybody have the right to do? No.
Ah, so you believe that that applies to everybody in society. Yes. Right, so essentially, that moral law, or code, or restriction, whic gives everybody the right to life, applies to everybody? Yes.
So, in fact you believe it is an objective truth for everybody? I suppose so.
“Ok, lets continue…”
Does it apply to a baby? Yes. does it apply to an unborn baby. Not sure. Ok, what defines life…?
Then I walked him through every commandment, and moral precept I could think of, give or take, and he agreed that they applied to everybody.
So, I had just got him to prove to himself, that he believed that the are objective truths that apply to everybody.
So, he had agreed to some moral truths.
Then I asked him “Why do these apply to everybody. They don’t apply to animals.”
Then we started looking at what the human person is.
You see, my objective was to take him back to the Uncaused Casue, the First Mover, the First Being….
And that first Being is God.
Which we did. In the end, because he is an engineer, he accepted that we can’t get something from nothing. So there must be something that brought the universe into being.
We didn’t get to go any further as we had some work to do…but my next step would have been to talk about which religions accept that there is One God.
Then, I would have looked at the cridentials of Jesus christ as God. Namely, he rose from the dead.
When they start disputing that, there are many ways to go…
But we don’t have time for that…
James, there are many many ways of showing people why the Catholic Faith is right in alsmot everything…it’s just a matter of knowing your own faith first, then knowing some techniques of sharing it…
But, first and foremost, others need to see in us, that we have something special with our faith.
JP III, I’m coming back to answer the other one…
Conan prefers using a big sword.
But I do like the way Ox and JPIII have explained objectives truths to 3rd parties.
Conan,
I thought I was giving the non-intellectual version!
What I also meant to say was that there is no one simple key to explaining the truth to a culture that has accepted a philosophical error – because they need to experience a paradigm shift.
You need to keep explaining various aspects of Catholicism to people as they arise, while living a life ordered towards Christ and the truth.
That witness will be powerful and if you are praying for that person’s conversion then it will make an impact.
It’s not just about one conversation or snazzy hook – it’s about multiple conversations, prayers and living a life that witnesses to that truth.
We are living in philosophically flawed times that have come about from the roots of nominalist philosophies of the 12th Century – it’s taken 800 years to get to this point, so it’s not like it can be undone in 8 minutes!
People’s errors of belief are rooted firmly in errors of thinking and if we don’t address the errors of thinking then we can only expect to get so far.
We need to explain to people where philosophical errors lead, and in our current age the error of choice is moral relativism – and moral relativism can only lead to anarchy and societal collapse; because you can’t have a community or a society if no one believes that same thing!
Moral relativism just ends up creating a country full of individuals who all hold different beliefs and can never discuss any of them because how can there be anything to talk about if everyone’s belief is equally true and everyone is right to believe whatever they want?
Sorry, started blahing on again!
It’s a big issue and it needs to be addressed on many fronts rather than with one magic pill that will suddenly solve everything.
JP III said: “Ok, its true, when you say to somebody, the Catholic religion is the true religion because God has revealed it, they’ll say “Says who? You? Ha, hahahahah!”
This actually happened to me the other day believe it or not… she was doubled over with laughter thinking of the ridiculousness of making such a statement, and the result wasn’t what I think she expected…
I stood there and looked at her and waited till she finished laughing and then said ‘It’s true, what would be the point otherwise?’ this simple action of physically standing and taking the ridicule and not being phased meant something to her, it seemed to speak more than the words, it showed that I did truly believe… and the conversation was able to continue from there with her taking me a little more seriously…
It’s true this won’t happen every time, and this is not typical, it is necessary to judge a situation… just thought I’d share…
‘Do not be afraid!’…
Thanks for sharing Agnes. When we’re talking to other people who fervently believe in their own religion as much as ours, how would you do that? Both of us will be just as convinced we possess the whole truth as the other…
Methuselah’s Beard, Absolutely.
Conan, I thought as much.
Ox and JPIII, thanks for the objective truth waltkthrough scenarios. That’s the kind of thing I was talking about as I’m sure quite a few people out there reading this conversation would know a “Bob” in their lives.
After getting them to agree to the concept of objective truth, the trickier bit is getting them to accept that God and His Church are the best authority on such matters, but one step at a time.
Couldn’t agree more James!
Can I also recommend an excellent book that people will find helpful in arming them with the tools to answer objections about the existence of God and why Christ really did rise from the dead and why the fullness of truth is found in the Catholic Church.
It’s a book that every Catholic should have a copy of and it’s called “Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine” – it’s by Archbishop Michael Sheehan D.D.
It’s in three parts.
Part one covers natural apologetics (the existence of God, natural law, etc)
Part two covers Christian apologetics (Jesus’ claim to be God, etc)
Part three covers Catholic apologetics
It used to be used as an instruction book in Catholic high schools and colleges and it is excellent.
It is available in NZ from Family Life International
James you said:
“Are you saying that parents should only send their kids to schools where there are no sinners teaching.”
Like ‘Peter the First’ further up in no.29 and no.30 above, I think you may have missed the point.
Read my reply to Peter in no.31. Essentially, we must make a distinction within certain lifestyles. You see, if I were to take your (and Pete’s) point, and underlying principle (we’re all sinners, so who can judge), to its conclusion, we would have to say for any Church institution, that anybody can work there, and that we can’t say ‘no’ to anybody: pedophiles, murderers, rapists, etc…because all of us are sinners, so who are we to say that they can’t teach our kids.
“After all, we’re all sinners, and it would be impossible to find the perfect teacher who is beyond reproach, and who are we to throw stones, and who are we to say that a particular person is unfit to teach our kids.”
That’s essentially what you’re saying. Would you say that same thing for your parish priest?
I posed this question to Captain further up in no.44 to find out where the line should be drawn.
“What about this: would you have no problem for your son to be taught by a man who had anti-Semitic tendencies and was teaching your son social studies and imparting his ideas about that? What about a man who frequented a modern-day Nazi party? Or a man who was a member of Destiny Church? Or a polygamist?”
Where do we draw the line?
Maybe you don’t draw a line. Maybe your position would be, let all these people into our Catholic schools and allow them to teach our kids anything they want as long as we give them reasonable Christian education at home?
You said: “How do you measure such things? Even if you go for the easy targets (i.e. “he’s living with his partner so he’s out”) and then say “whew – that’s them all gone…”
I’m sorry but if thats the case, then what are our Catholic schools for?
Doesn’t that contradict the very idea of a Catholic school? I’m sorry but I may have missed something here. A Catholic school is for imparting the Catholic Faith and the teachings and morals that go with that, isn’t it? And it should be expected that those who represent it, should at least make an effort to live it. Otherwise we may as well just shut all the Catholic schools down and send our kids to State schools and teach the Faith at home.
Should we apply the same philosophy to our parish priests. Should we say; “All of us are sinners, so we can’t comment about how inappropriate it is for Father Jim to have a woman sleeping in his bed, or to be frequenting gay bars at night, after all, if we had him disciplined, we’d have no priests left, as they’re sinners in one way or another.”
It is one thing to tolerate minor sins in the life of a person who represents the Catholic Faith at a Catholic school, and quite another thing to tolerate serious sins in the life of someone who is supposed to uphold the Catholic Faith.
Living with ones partner deliberately, when one knows what Catholic teaching is, is to live in mortal sin, and to seriously endanger one’s salvation!
It is one thing to tolerate someone teaching opininions about the Catholic Faith, (e.g., when it is moral to wage war) and quite another thing to tolerate someone teaching heresy (against Faith and morals), e.g., that homosexuality is ok, or that it’s ok to masturbate, or sleep with your girlfriend before marriage…
That is the distinction.
There are such things in the Catholic Faith called mortal and venial sins. Not all sins have the same weight or gravity. If a teacher is living in mortal sin and refusing to change their life, then they are (1) unfit to represent the Catholic in an offical capacity, and (2) are a causing serious scandal by teaching children error with their example.
I think you’re worried about “judging another person” and you need to make the distinction bewteen judging actions and words, and juding intentions, and peoples position w.r.t God.
In the Scriptures when Christ said, “Don’t judge”, he was referring to judging people, intentions, and where people sit with God, including their eternal salvation. No-one can judge that. Only God knows someone’s intention, and where they are with respect to Him, so we can never judge a person.
However, we can judge actions and words, (not the person) and in some cases have a moral obligation to do so. For example, if you had a child, you would make a judgement whether a particular person is trustworthy to babysit him/her. If you knew that one of the people you were considering did drugs, you wouldn’t employ them to do that job would you? They would be unfit to do it. You have made a judgement about their actions in order to make a responsible decision.
That is an example of an intellectual judgement that we can and should make. We make judgements everyday about such matters.
The same judgements should be made when choosing those who will teach our children.
Now, the reality is, our Catholic schools are full of lay people, religious, and priests who teach things contrary to the Catholic Faith. This is the great scandal and moral problem of our age.
It’s the Bishop’s responsiblity to try to fix these things. However, evidence shows that they aren’t really interested in doing anything about it. That is a huge scandal also. It’s a disgrace.
If I had kids, I wouldn’t send them anywhere near our Catholic schools. The stats how that a very high percentage of students lose their Catholic Faith at our current “Catholc Schools”.
I would teach them at home and allow them to go to State school, or homeschool them.
“After all, we’re all sinners, and it would be impossible to find the perfect teacher who is beyond reproach, and who are we to throw stones, and who are we to say that a particular person is unfit to teach our kids.”
That’s essentially what you’re saying. Would you say that same thing for your parish priest?
You’ve misinterpreted what I meant there JPIII. I was simply pointing out that such a “perfect” teacher does not exist. No teacher is beyond reproach. Fact. Now, if the criteria for teaching in a Catholic school is to be beyond reproach, we’re out of luck and will never, ever have a teacher in any of our schools, until Christ Himself comes back to take up a teaching job!
I’m not saying there should be no bar, I’m just saying we need to be careful where we set that bar.
“Where do we draw the line?”
We must draw the line. And I’m not saying we shouldn’t. I’m just saying we should be careful where we draw it. A starting point would be at what a teacher can teach as this is something that is totally within the jurisdiction of the school.
“If a teacher is living in mortal sin and refusing to change their life, then they are (1) unfit to represent the Catholic in an offical capacity, and (2) are a causing serious scandal by teaching children error with their example.”
I understand where you’re coming from, but I just disagree. I learned nothing from my teachers by their example and I didn’t recognise a single one of them as representing the Church in an official capacity.
If, however, they were directly teaching heresy, then we’ve got an issue.
If Teacher A says “the Church doesn’t really think Christ is truly present in the Eucharist” or even “they do, but it’s a load of rubbish”, now you’ve got a case for action. That is in direct violation of the curriculum and would need to be addressed just like a Maths teacher teaching that “actually, 1+1=3″.
But you’ve got to be very careful with your judging. How was Joseph judged when everyone found out Mary was pregnant? And after Christ was born, applying your argument, we should assume they slept together on a regular basis, right? Using your logic, to assume that the two of them abstained from sex would be sinful.
I’m just saying, be very careful.
“It’s the Bishop’s responsiblity to try to fix these things. However, evidence shows that they aren’t really interested in doing anything about it. That is a huge scandal also. It’s a disgrace.”
I disagree. The Bishops are very interested in doing something about it – but it’s not as easy as you may think. Say the Bishop of Auckland went through all our schools finding out who was married and who was not (assuming he could get past the Privacy Act to find out) and then firing those living in sin. Employment Relations anyone? Wrongful dismissal? Human Rights Act? The Bishops are, I believe, doing the best they can with what they’ve got.
Changing the curriculum is a good idea though. Providing free education for RE teachers is also a good idea. Let’s be proactive and creative about this?
“If I had kids, I wouldn’t send them anywhere near our Catholic schools.
The stats how that a very high percentage of students lose their Catholic Faith at our current “Catholc Schools”.”
What stats? If the seeds are withering when the sun comes out, I’d check the soil they’re planted in.
“I would teach them at home and allow them to go to State school, or homeschool them.”
I agree on teaching our kids at home about their faith – my whole point from before – but I don’t agree with giving up on Catholic education and going into the State sector…where no resemblance of faith is encouraged at all and the classes don’t attend Mass together or anything! What other doctrines would you be introducing them to? God has no role in creation? Sex if for fun just wear protection?
I’m also at the other end of the spectrum ends on the homeschooling bit. I respect your stand, but I disagree with it. We need to be in the world, but not of the world. I don’t see much point sequestering our children away from the world because it’s just too scary. Better to try and change the world and make it less scary, or prep them and explain the scariness for what it is – the opposite of the truth.
You said: “I understand where you’re coming from, but I just disagree. I learned nothing from my teachers by their example and I didn’t recognise a single one of them as representing the Church in an official capacity.”
It’s not just about you. You may think you haven’t been affected, but there are plenty out there who are. Look, do you think that it is a good look to have a majority of teachers at a particular Catholic school living with their partners before marriage? Is that ok with you? Because that is what is happening.
So, what to do? Do we get rid of many of the teachers?
No, you simply take away the name Catholic from the school, because it no longer really has a Catholic identity. Why, because most of those who run it: the board, the teachers, the principle, don’t even go to Mass any more, or agree with Catholic teaching.
I know of several teachers who were telling Catholic students how to contracept. Their teaching of the kids was coming and flowing from their lifestyle – and their own lifestyle was coming from their own immoral philosophies.
Do you see now why their lifestyle is so important?
This is exactly why a Catholic school in Wellington made a Muslin head-girl – because it had lost its Catholic identity and character.
You said: “If Teacher A says “the Church doesn’t really think Christ is truly present in the Eucharist” or even “they do, but it’s a load of rubbish”, now you’ve got a case for action. That is in direct violation of the curriculum and would need to be addressed…”
This is exactly what goes on in many of our Catholic schools. Do you realise this? Our children are being taught errors and lies by our so called “Catholic religious education” teachers. Why, because many of tham are being formed at the Catholic Insititute of Theology in Auckland, and other similar places, which teach complete dribble.
If you think that our Catholic schools are teaching the Catholic Faith properly, you are living in a dream world. You should get hold of a copy of the Catholic Religion cirrulum for secondary schools. It’s appalling. The probelm also exists with those who write the cirriculum, with those who the Bishops have entrusted this to.
You said: “The Bishops are very interested in doing something about it – but it’s not as easy as you may think.”
No doubt, it’s not easy. There’s no doubt about that. It’s almost impossible to fix the schools up now, with the way the power base is structured. The Bishops almost have no control over them. In fact, it’s almost worth taking away from them the name ‘Catholic’, and starting again.
It’s not enough to be interested in doing something about it, and then doing nothing. That’s what Pontius Pilate did. We don’t praise pius desires. We praise good actions – and from what I know – the Bishops haven’t done much at all to make sure our Catholic schools actually teach the faith. Quite the contrary. When it has been pointed out to them that teachers are teaching rubbish, they don’t do anything because they’re afraid of offending people.
“What stats? If the seeds are withering when the sun comes out, I’d check the soil they’re planted in.”
That’s not what is in question here James. We both agree that education starts at home. What we’re discussing here is whether the Catholic schools are doing their job. Let me ask you, do you think that our Catholic schools do a good job of giving students the Catholic faith? Answer that for me? (the question isn’t, are parents do a good job?)
If your answer is ‘no’, then what are they doing wrong? And why is it happening?
The ‘why’ is what I am presenting.
Why? One of the reasons, is because we have many, many teachers who don’t: (1) know their faith, (2) go to Church, (3) try to live their faith, (4) or agree with the Church on faith and morals.
It’s not the only reason, but it’s one of the big reasons, and it needs to be addressed.
I think everyone agrees that our Catholic schools do a good job of giving students the Catholic faith. Part of it is the teachers as you have outlined JPIII, but the schools are also partly to blame for what they allow to be taught as “religious education”. Surely if they were tougher on the curriculum taught that would start to address the problem?
Also by the time most kids are getting RE from schools a lot of them are already disinterested about learning about it.
I’m not sure I agree with your example of making a Muslim girl head-girl at a Catholic school. How does this mean a school has lost its character and identity? Unless you’re privy to every detail behind this appointment that sounds a bit OTT. Does this mean at Catholic schools we’re allowed to discriminate against non-Catholics? What’s next? We’re not allowed to have non-Caucasian politicians because we’re a Caucasian dominated country?
Conan,
Yes, I agree with what you say about Catholic education.
With regards to the Muslim girl thing, its not about caucasian, or race, or discrimination.
Let me draw several analogies that will help illucidate this issue.
(1) Hypothetically, would the Labour Party choose a leader from the National party? Would it be acceptable to most labour party members if their caucus chose a leader who is from another party? Wouldn’t that pose a problem for most labour party people because the new National leader doesn’t hold or represent their policies? Or even worse, directly opposes their policies.
Would it be ok for labour party members to say,”This person doesn’t represent the indentity or character, or policies of our party” and then have the person stand down. Would it be discrimination to do so?
(2) Would it be ok, for your local parish council, to choose a Hindu priest to be your local parish priest in the name of religious ecumenism, or religious tolerance? Would it be ok, for the Bishop to step in and say, “This person doesn’t represent the identity and faith of the Catholic Church or parish?” Would that be racist? Or bigoted? Or anti-ecumenism?
(3) Would be ok for the Bishop to put a Budhist in charge of the university chapainlcy for Catholics, in the name of inter-religious dialogue?
Would it be wrong for the Pope to step in and say, “The Bushist, as nice as he or she is, doesn’t represent the Catholic character required of the chapliancy, therefore remover him/her and put a Catholic in there.”
(4) Would it be ok, for the Bishops to appoint a person of the Ba-hai faith as their media spokesperson?
Hopefully, you have answered ‘no’ to all of the above. Why is it ok to say ‘no’. Because, for a Catholic mission, or institution, or work, it is generally required to have Catholic person represent that. Not other faiths, who sometimes completely disagree with us, or even worse, persecute us, and kill us.
A Catholic school, who puts a Muslim girl as head girl is saying: “Anybody can represent us, because we don’t really stand for the Catholic Faith anymore.”
We have embraced a set of generic humanistic values, in place of specific Catholic values, and because we value these generic humanist values more than our Catholic values, we don’t see any problem with a Muslim representing a Catholic school.
You see, a Catholic school head-girl is supposed to be a role model. What kind of role model? A role model that leads others to see the values of the school she represents, namely to Christ.
If she is Muslim she poses a contradiction; just as a Hindu priest would pose such a contradiction if put in charge of a Catholic parish, or a budhist who was made spokesperson and media liason officer for the NZ Bishops Conference?
Do you see?
A head-girl often speaks at pulic things for a school. Would this head-girl ever speak about how she loves Jesus? Or would she perhaps get up and say the Allah is the only God and Mohummud is his only prohpet?
Do you see the contradiction?
I guess there isn’t a problem because as a Catholic school today, the head girl woudn’t be expected to speak about how she loves Jesus.
I see where you’re coming from with those analogies. But a member of the Labour Party isn’t going to be a member of the National Party, so the appointment would never happen. Just as a hindu priest would turn down the being in charge of a church.
Shouldn’t the spotlight also be on the Muslim girl? If she felt that being head of a Catholic girls school is an affront to her religion then shouldn’t she have turned it down?
Conan, you are right. And I know you’re joking too.
But just because most of our headgirls and headboys are bad at representing the Catholic Faith, doesn’t mean that we then use those failures to excuse this failure.
We don’t excuse someone’s crime by saying, “well everybody else commits crime, so its ok”, do we?
We shouldn’t justify this by the fact that many other Catholic headgirls don’t properly represent the Catholic faith either.
That would be like saying, “…because many heterosexual parents are terrible parents, lets allow gay couples to adopt, because they’ll do a better job”.
You can see how that is false reasoning.
Absolutely, she should have turned it down. But in this age of religious tolerance, she may have seen it as a chance to share her Muslim faith?
Do you see how this is a problem now. She may use it as a chance to try to pass the Muslim faith through her position. Personally I think that is bad.
Also, don’t kid yourself, that it would never happen. It does.
Conan, you said:
“I think everyone agrees that our Catholic schools do a good job of giving students the Catholic faith.”
I didn’t see this. Did you mean “don’t do a good ob” or “do a good job”.
If you mean “do”, then I can’t agree with that, obviously.
JPIII
Oops! yeah I meant don’t do a good job…
I know it’s a little late on in the piece, but I want to comment on #33, in which Peter-the-first was explaining that one can call an argument ‘valid’ without agreeing with its conclusion.
Peter said, “a “valid argument” is an argument that holds up within its own context…” He then went on, giving the example of a potato.
Anyway, I think I know what Peter was getting at and would like to have a go at articulating it. The issue in question is the distinction between a “valid argument” and a “sound argument”. Validity falls in the realm of logic, while soundness is about truth. An argument can be valid (meaning that the conclusion follows from the premises) without being sound.
For example:
Premise1) Helen Clark is a staunch National supporter.
P2) National supporters always wear blue on election day.
Conclusion) Helen Clark will wear blue on election day.
This argument is perfectly valid; perfectly logical, since the conclusion follows from the premises (if the premises are both true then the conclusion MUST be true), but since the premises are not all true the argument isn’t sound.
It is quite acceptable to say, as did Peter-the-first, that “Even if I disagree with your conclusions, at least you have constructed a logical case.” In doing so he is praising the internal consistancy of the argument, but implying that he regards one or more of the premises to be false.
Peter, I hope I have interpreted you correctly.
Monstex