The Archdiocese of Chicago’s Office for Racial Justice has announced that Fr. Michael Pfleger, the notoriously controversial priest who has been a prominent supporter of pro-abortion politicians, including President Barack Obama, will be honored at the office’s anniversary event in April. Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, who is president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, has approved of the honor and will preside at the event.
Fr. Michael Pfleger, the pastor of Saint Sabina Catholic Church in Chicago, was listed as a planned recipient of the Racial Justice Lifetime Achievement award at an event celebrating the Office for Racial Justice’s 10th anniversary and honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on April 7th.
Pfleger gained notoriety as a former member of the Catholics for Obama Committee, a voluntary advisory committee to the Obama campaign, and for having called Obama “the best thing to come across the political scene since Bobby Kennedy.”
Pfleger has also drawn criticism from the Archdiocese of Chicago for hosting and supporting various pro-abortion figures, including Rev. Al Sharpton. In 2003, Pfleger violated archdiocesan rules forbidding pro-abortion individuals to speak at the pulpit by inviting singer Harry Belafonte to speak at Sunday Mass at St. Sabina. Belafonte used the opportunity to criticize President George W. Bush for threatening a “woman’s right to abortion” with his pro-life policies. Click here to read more and then here to see this unfaithful priest offering Mass – Eucharist Prayer Number Zero…
Should “Mass” in the previous sentence be in inverted commas? And is it the clear duty of every baptised Catholic to seek a traditional Mass at the earliest opportunity? The new flexi-Mass is much too risky, surely? Click on ‘comments’ with your views now.
Tags: Cardinal, dissenter, novus ordo Mass, priest, traditional latin mass
-
This is unbelievable. I cannot believe that Cardinal George is allowing this priest to continue leading souls astray.
I watched the video of the attempted “Mass”. I don’t think that is a valid Mass. You cannot go and make things up as you go along. He even changed the words of consecration. Outrageous. Who would die for that Mass? I think I’d rather die than attend it. I prefer the Mass that the martyrs died for.
-
The problem is that guys like this bozo get promoted, but faithful priests like Fr Gruner are victimised. Two words:diabolical disorientation.
-
Petrus
Two more words : different Religion. -
Good for him! It’s good to see some Catholic clergy taking a considered and compassionate stance towards abortion and homosexuality. More power to him!
-
Lucky,
More power to him? Next time you try to criticise the Catholic clergy remember that homosexuality is intrinsically linked to paedophilia and abortion is child murder. Shame on you!
Majella,
I could think of two MORE words, one being ‘utter’. I can’t say the second word on a Catholic blog.
-
Glad NOT to hear it, Petrus!
You really hit the nail on the head when you pointed out the difference in the way Fr Gruner is treated compared to this public dissident-cum-liturgical terrorist.
Archbishop Conti wrote a letter declining to come to the Fatima Conference and making a barbed comment about “priests in good standing” being welcome in his diocese (implying that he believes the lie that Fr Gruner is not) and yet he supports the Groome lecture.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he and the other bishops like the Zero Eucharistic (non) Prayer.
-
The more I think of this shocking “liturgy” the more I just cannot believe how bad things have become. The Novus Ordo in its purest form is a departure from the theology of the Council of Trent – so how much worse is this? The liturgy must be approved and received. There are some serious question marks over the Novus Ordo being approved and received, so how much worse is this? Really, it’s a perversion of a perversion.
It’s amazing that the bishops will allow this debacle but they have a hairy fit at the thought of a Traditional Mass. If these guys want to make up the liturgy as they go along then why don’t they become Protestants? I suppose if you are honoured by your bishops for such dissent then that explains it. It just goes to show how utterly culpable the bishops are.
-
Petrus – homosexuality intrinsically linked to paedophila? Evidence, please. And your comment on abortion is simplistic, and wrong.
-
Lucky,
This thread is not about homosexuality or abortion. If you wish to have this discussion then please switch to the Question and Answer thread. We’ve had enough threads hi-jacked by bloggers forcing their own agenda.
-
Lucky go to http://www.catholictruthscotland.com and click on links. There’s research there about the link between homosexuality and paedophilia, also I posted a report of Cardinal Bertone referring to evidence that it is homoexual priests, not celibacy, that is the cause of the current sex abuse scandals. See the Ecumenism thread for that article, posted by me.
The evidence is out there – we’ve given it to you before. You just don’t accept it. As Petrus says, this is a liturgy thread.
-
Petrus
I would like to point out that it was you – not L*cky – who referred to homosexuality and abortion on this thread.
-
Cathedralman,
Wrong. Lucky’s first post praises this liturgical terrorist for his stance on abortion and homosexuality. Petrus merely responded to his comment. Now stick to the key issue.
What do you think of that “Mass” – is it likely to be valid?
-
Thank you, Cathedralman – I was about to point that out.
Ed: wrong. I’m copying here the first posts. Note who is first to mention homosexuality and abortion – you, Lucky. Lucky, you.Petrus on April 13, 2010 at 11:19 pm (edit)
This is unbelievable. I cannot believe that Cardinal George is allowing this priest to continue leading souls astray.
I watched the video of the attempted “Mass”. I don’t think that is a valid Mass. You cannot go and make things up as you go along. He even changed the words of consecration. Outrageous. Who would die for that Mass? I think I’d rather die than attend it. I prefer the Mass that the martyrs died for.
Petrus on April 13, 2010 at 11:21 pm (edit)
The problem is that guys like this bozo get promoted, but faithful priests like Fr Gruner are victimised. Two words:diabolical disorientation.
Majella on April 14, 2010 at 12:09 am (edit)
Petrus
Two more words : different Religion.Lucky on April 14, 2010 at 6:46 am (edit)
Good for him! It’s good to see some Catholic clergy taking a considered and compassionate stance towards abortion and homosexuality. More power to him!Editor to Lucky: So, stop playing silly beggars. YOU mentioned homosexuality and abortion first, not Petrus. I mean, it’s one thing to divert the thread topic, but quite another to lie about it and quite another to lie about it when it is just SOOOOO easy to prove the lie. Wake up and smell the truth.
Rest of Lucky’s post
Back on topic – I was appalled by the undertone in this statement – “Pfleger gained notoriety as a former member of the Catholics for Obama Committee, a voluntary advisory committee to the Obama campaign, and for having called Obama “the best thing to come across the political scene since Bobby Kennedy.””Why shouldn’t a progressive priest support Obama? What would you prefer- that he support the egregious policies of the Republicans, whose Vice-President contender was a known moron, racist and war-monger? At least he was supporting someone who believed that all Americans should have access to appropriate health care levels, something the rest of the civilised world takes for granted. It would be a very poor priest, indeed, that rejected the notion of universal, publicly-funded health care.
Ed: there is a bit more to it than just “universal, state funded health care but I deliberately didn’t put a post up on the topic during all the furore in the USA since it is of little import to us in the UK. This is a thread to discuss the liturgical abuses of this notorious priest plus the fact that he is being given an honour and recognition by the local Church despite his disobedience and dissent. Not really of much interest to you, as an atheist, Lucky. -
Yes, CMan, what do you think of the “Mass”? Do you think it’s likely to be valid?
-
Petrus, Editor
As I have said ad nauseam, I am tired of being harassed on this blog. If I want to make a comment, I will; otherwise I will not.
Ed: you don’t want to comment on a priest making up his own Eucharistic Prayer? That is amazing.Both of you are at it now. What was it that Ath said about the Editor?
Ed: Athanasius (who has never been a personal friend of mine and has not spent much time in my company, lucky thing) said I was of a “quarrelsome disposition”. I’m curious that you care.
Can I also point out, Editor, that it is unfair to close a thread after you have made allegations about a blogger, without giving the right to reply.
Ed: and can I point out to you, Cathedralman, that it is my decision when to open, adjust or close threads. I have found the Telegraph, London Times, Herald and Scotsman blogs all closed to comments after a string of falsehoods have been posted about me, without me having any right to reply. On the one occasion when I DID post a comment on the Times blog, they didn’t let it through moderation. All I did was answer the false allegations. Made no nasty comments about the people commenting on my character, people who do not know me at all. So, no lectures please on how to run this blog. If you don’t like it, you don’t need to blog here.
-
‘Liturgical terrorist”, Editor? How do you make that out?
-
Lucky, a priest who makes up the “prayers” as he goes along, and disobeys the Church’s rubric (rules on the Liturgy – the Mass in this instance) might (for linguistic effect) be called a “liturgical terrorist”.
Sue your English teacher…
-
Petrus I have to agree with you in thinking the attempted “Mass” being invalid. Perhaps this link might throw some light on the Novus Ordo Mass which was constructed by Archbishop Bugnini following Vatican II. There must be many perversion since then, that allow Father Pfleger to construct own version.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a051ht_IdenityofMass_Arnold.htmNow watch this video of the Tridentine Mass, there is no comparison between and Father Pfleger’s.
-
Fr Pfleger should be excommunicated. Giving him honours demonstrates that Cardinal George agrees with him. He should be excommunicated too.
Why don’t they just leave? They obviously hate the Catholic Church. Heretics have been apostacising from the Church for centuries, so why not run off and joing one of those little sects, or make up their own? Then they can indulge in all the perverted sex acts they like.
-
I agree, gloria and that Tridentine Mass was just beautiful – the dignity on the altar, compared with the circus at the novus ordo, especially Fr Pfleger’s novus ordo.
I also agree with Grignion that both the priest and the Cardinal should be excommunicated. In fact, will they not be automatically excommunicated anyway? That’s what bothers me – are we half the time attending Masses by priest who are under automatic excommunication for one thing or another? It is a terrible trial trying to live a Catholic life these days.
-
Lucky, a priest who makes up the “prayers” as he goes along, and disobeys the Church’s rubric (rules on the Liturgy – the Mass in this instance) might (for linguistic effect) be called a “liturgical terrorist”.
But editor, do you really want to support the linguistic effect of diluting the meaning of the word “terrorist” until it’s down to “anyone who does something I don’t like”?
A terrorist is someone who intimidates a populace with the threat of senseless random violence.
Ed: DSimon, this is the first time I’ve actually thought you were being silly. Any adult of average intelligence should be able to discern different use-ages of the same word, depending on context. When I sing the beautiful hymn to Our Lady which contains the sentence “And all the world is gay” I’m obviously not saying that the whole world is homosexual. But in case I have pushed your liberal tolerance a tad too far, let me tell you the joke about the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist, which is that you can negotiate with a terrorist…
Now, DSimon, I did point out on another thread that you were not in the habit of participating in discussions on the Liturgy (Mass) or devotional threads, which is why I refuse to believe you seek to deliberately disrupt. Do not prove me wrong. You’re welcome to ask serious questions if you wish, but let’s not be silly. Me being of a “quarrelsome disposition” I’ll be sending you off to the doghouse, no doubt about it, as the smokers among us will tell you…
-
Editor
Perhaps all of these newspapers’ blogs all recognised, as even Athanasius, your one-time lieutenant did, your quarrelsome disposition and decided that you are nothing more than a troublemaker, an allegation you constantly level at bloggers like my good self.
They can’t all be wrong, can they?
Ed: I ask that nobody respond to this post. Anybody who is interested in pursuing the truth, is free to trawl the blog to look for any such allegations by me against CMan. Thank you.
-
Come now folks,
Let’s not shout excommunicate him! excommunicate him! Sounds a bit like the Jewish mob.
Yes, His Eminence awarded this man an honour, but as far as I can read it had nothing to do with his priestly abilities per sae but for his work in racial equality in the society.
What is appalling is that no sooner is he recognised for those worthy attributes than he metaphorically goes and smacks the Cardinal in the teeth by his following words and deeds. I have seen a couple of videos earlier tonight where he is publicly (during a service) supporting and advocating Catholic women priests and Bishops. Add this to the invalid services in which he leads and earlier appalling public statements he has made, he is truly displaying arrogance, ignorance and wilful disobedience to his Ordinary and the Church.
However, he cannot be excommunicated without due process of Canon Law. It may be that is further down the line for him but first the Cardinal must pull him into his office, pronto! Again, following due process, the Cardinal may then exercise his authority and take sanction(s) as he sees fit.
Personally I think that unless the Cardinal acts very soon he will lose credibility, big time. Surely he knows of some remote enclosed order of monks where this errant individual may be ensconced until his judgement day arrives – whether from his Cardinal or the Vatican.
-
Benedict,
There is such a thing as excommunicating oneself and I raised that question above.
Isn’t that what they said about Archbishop Lefebvre? That for “disobeying” the Pope he was excommunicated? Isn’t Cardinal George and this priest Pfleger disobeying the Pope by messing around with the Mass? Surely a cardinal can’t give an honour for something ridiculous like racial work anyway, and I’ve seen a video where that priest was being racist, himself, but surely there are other people working against racism who are sound Catholics? Why should Fr Pfleger get rewarded when he is a public dissenter.
Your post has amazed me, Benedict. So tolerant of evil. I am astonished that you think it is right to give him an award for whatever it is he’s supposed to have done for racial equality when he’s supporting the murder of the unborn child and homosexuality, and all that on top of his liturgical abuse which is bound to invalid the Mass.
If only the clergy would get off their sofas, switch off the TV and come on here to explain whether or not the people attending that debacle, were actually present at Mass and whether what he has done bring automatic excommunication or not.
-
I agree with Rebel about the trial of trying to live a Catholic life these days. Quite honestly I’m so disgusted with the present state of the Novus Ordo that viewing this priest saying Mass would be too much. In a way I question the validity of many of the NO Masses I go to and the priests saying them are not in the least controversial and indeed are deeply loyal to the Church. I don’t know on what basis Masses might be invalid; it’s more an intuition that we have a broken covenant on our hands. Not very theologically sound as a comment, I know. I just wondered if the supreme gift we’ve been given in the Eucharist has been so debased by the laity’s casual indifference to the Mass as Sacrifice etc that the whole Body of Christ isn’t debilitated as a result. It’s as well we have a God who is infinitely patient and loving with us. With my bad temper I’d have said to the world, ‘do it your way, then!’ Just a few thoughts.
Is there a thread, Editor, where I could get some help/make comments on last Sunday’s ‘Big Questions’ on BBC and Michael Walsh’s comments on whether the Pope should resign? God bless all.
-
Editor, may I ask why my previous two posts have been summarily deleted? There was nothing in either that breached the terms of debate on this site. Should the terms be broadened to include “Any point of view which deviates from Madame Editor’s orthodoxy will be deleted”? Please, add that one to your side-bar if you feel it necessary.
Editor: you have been well warned. Unless your post sticks to the issues, they will be deleted. The two posts I deleted were outrageously nasty. I could have released them to show the world what kind of person you appear to be, but I thought it more charitable to delete them. You are disrupting this blog, so this is the very last post from you that I am releasing from moderation, unless it deals with the issues. These personal attacks are a disgrace. You can hold all the contrary views you like, and your post will be released but not if they contain personal insults. I’m too busy for this ridiculous nonsense, so if you don’t want to engage in the debate, go away. I do not care tuppence what anyone thinks of me so you are wasting your time trying to hurt my feelings. I don’t have any. -
bradders,
The issue of the Pope being arrested was discussed on the ecumenism thread, so you can post your Big Questions comment there.
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/2010/04/orange-order-after-all-this-ecumenism-lets-be-civil/#commentsI saw that edition of The Big Questions and heard Michael Walsh (ex-Jesuit) spouting his usual nonsense, so I look forward to reading your comment.
In general, you can always post off topic comments on the Question & Answers thread, linked to the lead thread, under the heading Notices.
-
Editor, were you reading the same posts I wrote? (Ed: yes). I have merely disagreed with the consensus, and pointed out my reasons for doing so. Is that a crime?
I was, as well, dealing with the issues. You’ll see that my first post on this thread was about congratulating Pfleger on his progressive stance – I continue to support that stance. If any writer here wishes to engage in debate on that point, I welcome that debate. (Editor: this thread is primarily about the Liturgy conducted by Fr Pfleger, not his support for immorality.)
Editor: I had to remove some nasty personal remarks about myself from this post. If I have to remove any more personal remarks about anyone, myself included, the entire post will be deleted in future.
-
Madame Editor – I have scrupulously avoided personal remarks. (Ed: LOL) I criticised you for what I felt was a heavy-handed response to my posts. (Ed: don’t waste your breath – it’s not your place to do that) That is not to say that I made any insulting or critical remarks about you personally. I did not. (Ed: and is that statement as true as the statement you made on the thread about Petrus being first to mention homosexuality and abortion? Rhetorical question, since we both know the answer. Stop digging)
Now, although you may wish to concentrate on the liturgical side of Fr Pfleger’s behaviour, the article did, indeed, mention his support for pro-choice in particular. I responded to that part of the article. Once again, I ask – was that inappropriate?
(Ed: it was inappropriate to continue to ask questions about those issues. Those issues are not the point. The point is that it is wrong for a Cardinal to give an award to a priest for ANYTHING when he publicly disowns the teaching of the Church on ANYTHING. We want to discuss that, not whether you agree with homosexuality or abortion, or not. Who cares. So, we are not entering into a discussion on morality here. Is that clear?) -
Editor, I did recognize that you were using the word “terrorist” metaphorically; it’s just that over-application of that word is one of my pet peeves, due to its impact on US politics.
However, you’re right that I was pushing the thread off-topic with my comment, which I promised not to do and which is bad Internet etiquette anyways; sorry about that, I’ll try to avoid it in the future.
Ed: thanks, DSimon.
-
I would also be interested, along with possibly rebel and Grignion, as to what the criteria are for “self-excommunication,” and whether those criteria could be applied to this apostate priest.
-
Torkay et al,
This is a useful synopsis of the conditions for automatic excommunication…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latae_sententiae -
Thanks, Editor – you really do come in handy on occasion…
So it seems to me that this Fr. Pfleger has pflunked the test on several counts, thereby automatically excommunicating himself pforthwith.
On the other hand, can anyone really claim that Abp. Lefebvre ordained those 4 bishops by reason of “malice or negligence”? How does “necessity,” which I believe is the standard SSPX rationale, create malice or negligence?
-
Torkay,
I almost corrected your “pforthwith” but saw the joke in time (Pfleger…pforthwith…?)
I’ve been known to say it before, Torks, but that won’t stop me saying it again…
There are more excommunicated “Catholics” – including clerics – than this world dreams of… Vatican II eat your heart out!
-
All,
Personal opinions aside, the Church has a due process and these must be followed. That was the import of my post and I purposely avoided the ranting rhetoric of some.
As to my personal view I thought it was obvious in my post. At no time did I use the word ‘Mass’ or ‘priest’ for example which, to a reasoned observer, would have indicated beyond doubt my feelings.
Self excommunication is not the topic therefore was not included in my post; perhaps the editor would like to open this up as a new thread at some point in the future.
-
Benedict, sorry, but you are wrong. The whole point of “automatic” excommunication is that one is excommunicating oneself. If I say here and now that I no longer believe in the doctrine of the Real Presence, I have excommunicated myself. That’s why it is “automatic”. There is no process for me to go through. I can recant and then confess, but I don’t seek an application form from the Diocesan Heresy Office. That would be the busiest Department in town, if it existed! The fact that you say you avoided using the terms “priest” and “Mass” indicates that you realise this priest is not offering a valid Mass. Would you attend a Mass “performed” (I am deliberately avoiding the term “offered”) by Fr Pfleger?
See the following link to yet more on Fr Pfleger from an American site reporting our thread…
http://fratres.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/the-liturgical-reincarnation-of-jim-jones-rev-pfleger/ -
Editor,
Rolling pin not withstanding you are wrong as you address the excommunicating factor in my post. I stated I would not discuss it as it was off-topic, something about which you chastise others. Nothing in your main thread article mentions self or automatic excommunication. I was, and still am, trying to stick to the import of the thread.
With respect to your question whether I would attend one of this gentleman’s services I think I have made my position quite clear in my posts.
-
hmmmm not good, quite probably invalid
FAO: Lucky
Open your eyes the majority of Paedophiles are homosexual!
-
No, Benedict, it is not off-topic to highlight the fact that this priest has excommunicated himself on a number of counts. We ‘ve demonstrated the truth of this, so we can move on but it is not off-topic – indeed, it is highly important – to bring out his status, lest readers think priests like him are priests in (truly) good standing. Not so. Just because he’s being honoured by bishops and cardinals, doesn’t change his de facto status of being an excommunicate. Benedict, I find reading between the lines rather wearing. I prefer straight talking, so why not just say what you mean and mean what you say. If, as you imply, you wouldn’t attend this scoundrel’s “Masses”, just say so. You won’t be excommunicated for that!
-
Open your eyes the majority of Paedophiles are homosexual!
Nolite Timere, that is not true. Going into detail about it somewhat off-topic to this post (although I’m willing to discuss it further on the general topics thread), but you can read more about it here, the most important section being “Typologies of Offenders”.
-
It seems Fr Pfleger has apologized for his remarks about priestesses and married men being ordained. However, he still has not retracted his statements.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/2162392,rev-michael-pfleger-apology-after-youtube-041510.article
-
DSimon,
Since there’s not a lot left to say about the Pfleger liturgy (it’s certainly not a valid Mass and it should alert even the most “in-denial” of modern Catholics to the dangers of the novus ordo,) l think it is reasonable to discuss the question which you address in response to Nolite Timere.
I checked out that link and, sorry, I didn’t find it convincing at all.
From the very first paragraph, it was unconvincing. Here’s (I think) the penultimate paragraph – certainly towards the end of the section, ‘Typologies of Offenders’.
“For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.”
I think it is to create a false dichotomy, to focus on “age” as distinct from gender. There has to be a very serious concern when a person targets a child of the same gender. That any adult would sexually assault any child is reprehensible, to say the least, but there is another level of seriousness, when the child is not of the opposite sex.
The arguments given about psychological arrest/regression etc. could well apply to opposite gender sexual assault (a male adult, e.g. who lacks confidence with adult females) but there has to be more to it, if the victim is of the same gender as the perpetrator.
I remember watching a TV documentary in which a Catholic priest who’d abused both boys and girls was interviewed. They gave him the last word. And the last word was (when asked if he had a preferred gender) “boys.”
As I say, I think the psychological arrest/regression theories make a lot of sense in the context of opposite gender abuse but they cannot be used to cover up the reality of same-sex abuse arising from same sex-attraction – and we call that “homosexuality.”
-
You can see here that Fr Pfleger is also insincere – he made an apology that he didn’t mean, he says, over his homily saying he believed in married and women priests.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10041604.html -
Here is an interesting study which may have been posted previously in another thread but still woth reading and shows meaningful support for the Editor’s viewpoint.
http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm
-
Rebel,
You just beat me to it. I was just about to post that link.
-
Benedict, thanks for that link to the Catholic League. Will check out that research later.
rebel, you beat me to it as well – I was also going to post that link to Fr Phleger’s “apology”.
-
I sent the following note to Cardinal George this morning:
Your Eminence:
I am writing to suggest that you order Father Pfleger to shut down his Facebook page. If the orthodox Father Altier in Minnesota could be ordered to shut down his internet site, which was catechetical and steadfastly faithful to the Magisterium, then surely the same can be done for a priest who is unfaithful to the Church and a danger to the faith.
As anyone can determine by perusing the adoring comments of Father’s Facebook fans, many of whom are his parishioners, this Marxist demagogue is leading souls far, far astray, and that is the worst possible crime that could ever be committed by a Catholic priest. He will have much to answer for to Our Lord, I’m afraid.
Here is Cardinal George’s email address:
-
I think it is to create a false dichotomy, to focus on “age” as distinct from gender.
The dichotomy comes from the data: as the linked document explains, child molesters are largely people who do not have any attraction to adults regardless of gender. The point is that homosexuality in adults towards other adults is not a predictor of child sexual abuse (where, to be clear, “child sexual abuse” includes abuse against children above the age of puberty but still below the age of consent).
That any adult would sexually assault any child is reprehensible, to say the least, but there is another level of seriousness, when the child is not of the opposite sex.
I’m very troubled by this statement! Why is opposite-sex child sexual assault any less traumatizing or serious than same-sex child sexual assault?
-
[...]there has to be more to it, if the victim is of the same gender as the perpetrator.
I don’t understand what you’re getting at here. Can you elaborate?
-
Torkay, great letter and thanks for the email link. I hope as many of us as possible will email Cardinal George.
DSimon,
You are only troubled by my statements because you consider homosexuality to be acceptable.
It is disgraceful that adults have adulterous affairs but there is a difference in the degree of evil in that the act itself is a natural act (unfaithful, but natural). Not so the homosexual act. So, there is an additional layer of concern, an additional level of moral gravity, when a child is assaulted by a person of the same sex because the act itself is unnatural. That’s all I meant. I emphasise, however, that paedophiles/pederasts are all committing gravely immoral and perverted acts, crimes against children because sexual activity with children is, in and by itself, perverted.
That is, by the way, why I vehemently oppose sex-education for children. To introduce them to this side of life, let alone to engage them in personal sexual activity, is perverted in the extreme.
-
Editor, since (if I understand right) your conclusion about homosexuality and/or early knowledge of sex being morally wrong is based entirely on spiritual reasoning, I can’t really contest it without getting into a general argument about spirituality.
I emphasise, however, that paedophiles/pederasts are all committing gravely immoral and perverted acts, crimes against children because sexual activity with children is, in and by itself, perverted.
My problem with adults having sexual activity with children is not that it is perverted (a very subjective judgment), but that it is harmful to children; children have no power in such situations, nor are they mature enough to meaningfully consent. Furthermore, that harm can be measured objectively (though since I assume we’re in agreement on the harmfulness of child molestation, I won’t spend the time to go look for good references right at the moment). However…
[...] I vehemently oppose sex-education for children.
I do not think that there is objective evidence to support a claim that sex-education is harmful to children, though I’d be happy to look at any evidence presented to me. (Yes, this is my usual mode of argument, but I’m quite fond of it
) -
DSimon,
Perversions (of the sexual variety) are self-evidently always harmful. Our bodies are designed in a certain way and to use the part of the body that is meant to harbour waste products, for sexual activity, is a perversion of monumental proportions. Bad enough for a child to be molested sexually by an adult, but that his/her introduction to sexual activity is via same-sex action, a perversion of the proper use of sexual organs, is way beyond “harmful.”
Sex Education – any adult who seeks to introduce children to this side of life is little better than a paedophile. Unfortunately, I gave it away, but I used to have an article from the London Times saying exactly that – actually, the writer of the article put it much stronger, saying that those people who showed a willingness to introduce children to the mechanics etc of sex, exhibited the same tendencies as a paedophile. I gave the article to a colleague at the time, a young father (not a religious person at all) who expressed concerns about his children receiving sex education. He was very interested in the article, so I told him to keep it. I wish I’d photocopied it. I’ve tried Googling but nothing appears.
As I’ve said before, DSimon, we don’t need statistics to register the harm done by sexualising children. We just need to look around us.
I know that statistics and ephemeral “objective evidence” is your “usual mode of argument” but, as I’ve already said, seeing the state of society and the breakdown in family life, the emotional and physical turmoil among young people who are so unhappy in their sexual liberation that they are turning more and more to drugs and alcohol, is “objective evidence” sufficient for me. You can produce all the statistics you like to suggest otherwise, but it is very clear indeed to any independent mind on the subject, that society is in moral meltdown, NOT because of the craze for chaste living.
-
Perversions (of the sexual variety) are self-evidently always harmful [...] Our bodies are designed in a certain way and to use the part of the body that is meant to harbour waste products, for sexual activity, is a perversion of monumental proportions.
Editor, well, both the penis and the vagina also transmit waste products. So, I assume that your direct definition of “pervision” is not about using an organ for sex that typically handles waste, but about using an organ sexually when that isn’t one of its regular biological functions. Is this correct?
Anyways, I have two major arguments against this:
First, regarding “self-evident harm”; maybe it’s self-evident to you, but I sure can’t see it. Anal sex is not harmful provided that (a) it’s consensual sex between adults, and (b) they use proper protection. These are the exact same requirements as those needed to make vaginal sex safe.
My other counter-argument is more general; what exactly is the intrinsic problem with using a part of the body in an unexpected way? For example, I wear prescription glasses, which rest on my nose. In the course of my daily life, I use my nose far more for holding up my glasses than I do for smelling things. Is this somehow harmful, since I’m not using my nose for its primary biological purpose?
As I’ve said before, DSimon, we don’t need statistics to register the harm done by sexualising children. We just need to look around us. [Paragraph break] I know that statistics and ephemeral “objective evidence” is your “usual mode of argument”[...]
(And here comes my big rant about objectivity, which I’m surprised I haven’t delivered yet.
)The big problem with “looking around us” to try and get some sense of the overall state of society is that we (you, me, everyone) tend to be biased towards confirming our own expectations.
“Looking around us” in some vaguely-defined way is actually the “ephemeral” method, because if two people conclude different things about society based on their own subjective judgement, there’s no way to tell who is actually right. Science works precisely because it is aware of these problems and circumvents them.
It’s not just “statistics” I want. What I want are statements that are demonstrably true, rather than statements I am expected to take as true merely on someone’s say-so.
For example, you state that “young people [...] are turning more and more to drugs and alcohol”. What leads you to believe this? If it’s just from “looking around you”, there are many major problems with drawing conclusions from such an approach, including but not limited to:
* You travel in different circles now than you used to, changing which people you’re observing, and how you observe them.
* Any one individual interact with a fairly small and uneven sample of the population, meaning that their observations do not necessarily apply to people at large.
* The culture has changed, meaning that trying to observe how much actual drug and alcohol usage is going on is confounded by changes in how secretive people are about their usage.
* And on that note, since you are more mentally experienced now than in the past, you are more likely to see past such secretiveness than you used to be, further distorting your observations.
* Our memories of recent events are clearer than those of the more distant past, meaning that you are more likely to remember more specific events of drinking and drug usage now than in the past regardless of whether or not the actual rate changed.
* Furthermore, memories are quite malleable, particularly more distant memories.
* Finally, and most importantly, you (like every other human being) are a biased observer: you’re more likely to remember events that confirm your hypothesis than those that don’t confirm it.Scientists trying to figure out the answer to questions like “Are young people using alcohol more than in the past?” are aware of these issues and many other potential pitfalls, and do their best to work around them.
Relying on your own seat-of-the-pants subjective call, without self-skepticism or verifiability, is like running headfirst across a rickety rope bridge with your eyes closed, instead of carefully checking each plank one at a time. You might reach the other side, but only if you’re lucky.
-
DSimon,
There’s no comparison between health hazards for normal sexual activity versus homosexual activity. There are, in fact, NO health hazards if a couple use sex the way God intended: between one man and one woman in a lifelong marriage. Safe as the house in which they raise their offspring. You want objective data, so – even though I’ve never known you to accept objective data, no matter the quality (and the link that follows contains a lot of quality data) – I’m going to try again.
Facts about homosexuality
http://www.cfsh.net/3.htmlMy observations are not subjective or personal. Personally, as far as I know, I don’t know anyone who is a drug addict. However, I’m hearing, on an almost daily basis in TV news bulletins, of various studies and research projects expressing concern at the growing problems of teenage drug addiction/teenage pregnancy and STDs in society. I’m merely repeating what I’m being told by the scientists, DSimon.
Large scale drug addiction
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1657892.stmThe Life & Times of a 21st Century Teenager…
Here’s a report dated 2008 (the first on the Google list) – will these figures have decreased, thinkest thou, or increased, DSimon?
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ReproductiveHealth/story?id=4429246&page=1 -
Without being too graphic, I must say that DSimon has a very poor knowledge and understanding of female anatomy!
-
[...]even though I’ve never known you to accept objective data, no matter the quality[...]
Editor, I think this is a little unfair. Whenever you give me data that I don’t find acceptable, I always explain in detail why I don’t accept it. And, whenever I’m given data that does seem valid to me, I say so (i.e. in an earlier thread when someone posted a survey study demonstrating a correlation between teenage sexual activity and increased risk of depression).
However, I’m hearing, on an almost daily basis in TV news bulletins, of various studies [...] I’m merely repeating what I’m being told by the scientists, DSimon.
Fair enough, but given that memory is fallible and that science news reporting can often be quite incorrect (i.e. the many many reports on every news channel several years ago that we had discovered a new “planet” beyond Pluto, when astronomers were quite clear in never calling it a planet) I prefer that scientific statements be backed up with specific evidence rather than a general recollection. I hold myself to this standard as well; before I say that “science claims such and such” I usually try to look it up and make sure.
However, I appreciate that you’ve referenced some specific articles here, so let’s take a look at them.
Regarding the “Committe on Family and Social Health” article:
This article makes a very large number of claims. I want to pull up some of its references and see whether they match the claims being made (since some of them seem odd at first glance, i.e. a study on fraternal order’s correlation with pedophilia being used to back up a claim correlating homosexuality with pedophilia), but I don’t have the time right at the moment. I promise, I’ll come back and look in more detail. One major point, however: I fully acknowledge that unsafe sex is unsafe, but don’t find that relevant to a discussion about whether gay sex done with proper protection is dangerous. For example, studies that show that unsafe anal sex is more dangerous than unsafe vaginal sex are not relevant; at first glance, I suspect that many of the references in that article are of this sort.
As a secondary point, some of the arguments in that article appear to be unrelated to homosexuality. For example, the article claims that lesbians are at higher risk than straight women for breast cancer because pregnancy decreases the risk of breast cancer. This may well be true, but isn’t relevant to a discussion of whether or not lesbianism itself is dangerous, as (a) straight women don’t necessarily get pregnant, and (b) lesbians don’t necessarily avoid pregnancy.
Regarding the BBC article:
The article is about how a prior estimate for the number of drug users in Scotland was too low. It does not say anything about trends in drug usage, nor does it say very much about drug usage specifically among youth (other then to point out which drugs are the most commonly used among youth). So, although the article seems valid in what it concludes (that 2% of the Scottish population between 15 and 54 has a drug problem), it doesn’t support your earlier statement that drug use among youth is rising.
Regarding the ABC News article:
I’m not sure why you’re bringing up this article, since it’s not related to any claims you made in your earlier comment. As with the BBC report, in terms of what it says, it seems valid, but it doesn’t say anything about trends or difference in these numbers between now and in the past. You want to know if I think the numbers have increased or decreased since 2008, and my answer is “I have no idea”.
The thing is, I find it quite plausible that drug usage and STD infection rates have risen! I’m not arguing against you because I disagree with the specific conclusions you’re making (I admit to currently being ignorant about trends in drug and alchohol usage). My major point is that I disagree with what I’ve seen of your methods of finding answers to questions about objective reality.
You have to be at least as rigorous testing your own statements as you’d expect someone who vehemently disagrees with you to be; to do otherwise is to invite confirmation bias. If you say “there’s an increasing trend in X in society”, you can’t expect anyone to believe that just from a single article showing that there’s some value of X, or based on your personal recollections of X. You need evidence directly supporting your conclusion, or there’s no reason to expect anyone to buy it.
-
Petrus, I assure you that I understand the difference between a vagina and a vulva. Don’t you consider menstrual blood a “waste product”?
-
DSimon,
The reason I don’t go in for “rigorous testing of my own statements” using alleged scientific data, is because (as you say yourself) “science reporting can often be quite incorrect” (news media) to which I would add that ALL such scientific studies are limited in their value. When my own research into an area of education was completed some years ago, my tutor told me to get it “out there” as fast as possible because tomorrow, it would be replaced by another study proving quite different conclusions. That’s why I am sceptical about your method, DSimon, of taking these alleged trends and predictions etc. as gospel truth.
As I’ve said to you before, two men or two women engaging in sexual activity is against all natural and moral law. The only evidence we need is to examine the male and female bodies and see that they have been designed for each other – that is the most modest way I can think of making the point.
That you are not going to agree with me has absolutely nothing to do with scientific studies, DSimon. You’ve told us your own situation and you are clearly “OK” with homosexual activity.
I simply don’t have the time to read millions of studies to hand you evidence of the unhealthiness of this behaviour, but I believe the fact that homosexuals have a shorter lifestyle than others and other health facts, are readily available on the internet if you wish to pursue this line of enquiry. I’ve already pointed you to the Narth website where all of this is documented.
Much as I would love to study it all myself and put various facts to you, DSimon, I just don’t have the time. I do what scientists have traditionally done. I observe (the male and female bodies) and it kind of “clicks”. I don’t need someone to tell me that I should not engage in sexual activity with animals; I wouldn’t ask for a million research studies to demonstrate that it is an immoral behaviour. And I don’t need scientific studies to tell me that homosexuality is unhealthy. It is. And if we had a more honest media, they would be reporting the facts, not the propaganda.
As for your reply to Petrus – you are being disingenuous. You do tend, DSimon, to make “apples and oranges” comparisons (as with your reference to scientific reporting/Pluto above) so allow me to answer for Petrus – no. MB is not at all “waste product” as in the waste products to which I referred.
-
When my own research into an area of education was completed some years ago, my tutor told me to get it “out there” as fast as possible because tomorrow, it would be replaced by another study proving quite different conclusions.
If two studies report contradictory results, the response should not be to throw your hands up and discard the whole pile and resort immediately to guessing, but instead to try and figure out where the difference came from.
That’s the difference between science and subjective reckoning; if two scientists disagree, they try to objectively figure out why, but if two people making subjective calls about an objective event disagree, there’s no way to resolve it.
That’s why I am sceptical about your method, DSimon, of taking these alleged trends and predictions etc. as gospel truth.
I don’t take them as gospel truth. That is, just because a trend points in a given direction doesn’t mean I think that the future will necessarily continue in that direction. However, I do have a fair amount of justified trust in scientific analysis of historical trends. The claims you were making (for example, that alchohol and drug use have been rising) are of exactly this sort, which is why I required substantiation.
The only evidence we need is to examine the male and female bodies and see that they have been designed for each other – that is the most modest way I can think of making the point.
My nose is clearly not designed for holding up my glasses. Does that make it immoral to use it for this purpose?
You do tend, DSimon, to make “apples and oranges” comparisons (as with your reference to scientific reporting/Pluto above)
My point with that was that the news is in general a poor source for scientific information. Also, it occurs to me that astronomy is, when compared to social science, relatively free of political import. That news agencies can, without exception, make major errors even when reporting politically neutral scientific information makes me very skeptical of them when it comes to social studies; I’d prefer to go to the primary source, or at least a peer-reviewed analysis.
MB is not at all “waste product” as in the waste products to which I referred.
It’s a material which the body disposes of as part of its normal functioning, and which serves no purpose in being expelled but to get rid of it. (Though, actually, I guess you could make an argument about cycle synchronization, but that is at most a very minor function). How is this different from other waste products such as urine and feces?
I observe (the male and female bodies) and it kind of “clicks”.
Here is what I believe to be the crux of our discussion, editor.
Believing in things because they kind of click is a justification that has been used for many many things that were false. The earth is not flat, though it appears so very convincingly. Slavery is not moral, but I’m certain that if you asked many people only 150 years ago they would tell you quite sincerely that it felt quite obviously to them to be the natural order of things.
That something “clicks” for you is not a good reason to believe it, as it’s because you already believe it that it “clicks”.
-
DSimon,
Wrong. My research was into the attitudes of people in certain Scottish cities to a particular form of education. It is perfectly understandable that those attitudes might change when the next researcher comes along next day. But you put your finger on the reason why such research is, as I say, of very limited use. Frankly, I couldn’t be bothered going back to the people I interviewed to ask them why they’d changed their minds. Not important. How do I know they told me the truth first time? How do I know if they are telling me the truth this time? What if another researcher comes along next week, next month, and they give different answers again? How do we “test” the hypothesis that they are like cushions – the property of the last person to sit on them. Or, in this case, the last researcher to pose questions for a scientific study.
I really do find this emphasis and trust in science amazing. I mean, have YOU ever been asked to participate in a scientific study? I haven’t. I’ve never been polled. So, I am extremely sceptical about the whole performance. Oh, not just because I’ve never been polled but I have never met anybody, ever, who has been polled. Have you?
But, rather than waste time talking about scientific studies which, as you readily admit, are of extremely limited value (if of any value) why not tell me, DSimon, if you have any evidence of any kind (anecdotal, observational of society around you, formal studies) to indicate that levels of drug and alcohol addiction are DECREASING. That would be the very best way of all, to prove that I am seeing and hearing things, when I observe a decline in society.
As for your final sentence. Wrong. It’s a very true saying, that when something doesn’t make sense, it’s usually because it’s not true. For two males or two females, to use their bodies in an unnatural way, a way that is clearly contrary to the Maker’s Instructions, to the self-evident design of the body, is manifestly wrong and is bound to lead to health problems and, in fact, certainly in the case of homosexuals, possibly premature death.
The “nose” analogy doesn’t stand up to examination. Putting specs on the bridge of one’s nose is clearly to help the body, failing eyes, to do better. Same could be true of applying bandages etc. If we tried to put those specs elsewhere, where it would be self-evidently abnormal, that we would be abusing our bodies.
Find me research, as I say, that shows society is healthy and fit, with no serious problems due to rising drug and alcohol addiction, and find me some research that shows homosexuals live into old age and are physically and emotionally as healthy as everyone else, and we’ll talk again, DSimon.
-
My research was into the attitudes of people in certain Scottish cities to a particular form of education. [...] Frankly, I couldn’t be bothered going back to the people I interviewed to ask them why they’d changed their minds.
If the same people give a different answer to a similar interview after a period of time had passed, then that means at least one of two things:
(a) There was some difference in the questions, or the context in which the questions were asked, or the degree to which the subjects were being honest during the interview
(b) The people really changed their opinionsThe latter is the thing we’re trying to measure. So the objective is to eliminate the former as much as possible. You say that you “couldn’t be bothered” to try and see whether or not (a) or (b) was the cause of changing attitudes, which is a very odd position for a researcher to take! Making sure, as much as possible, that the results are reflective of the actual thing being measured is a researcher’s primary job.
How do we “test” the hypothesis that they are like cushions – the property of the last person to sit on them.
You imply that this (figuring out the effect of an interviewer on the subject) is impossible or implausible, but it’s actually quite possible and has been done. Furthermore, there are ways of reducing interviewer bias effect (careful training of the interviewers, or using automated systems instead of people to do the polling [though that has its own issues]).
I really do find this emphasis and trust in science amazing. I mean, have YOU ever been asked to participate in a scientific study? I haven’t. I’ve never been polled.
I don’t understand what you’re getting at here. Are you saying that studies aren’t valid because you suspect the number of people interviewed is too small? As someone who has done interview research yourself, aren’t you familiar with the mathematics behind the relationship between sample size and error range?
But, rather than waste time talking about scientific studies which, as you readily admit, are of extremely limited value (if of any value)[...]
When did I admit any such thing? I did agree that social trends cannot be used to perfectly predict the future. However, we were discussing how to measure how something has changed between the past and now, not what will change in the future.
It’s a very true saying, that when something doesn’t make sense, it’s usually because it’s not true.
True enough, but there’s another saying I like better: For every question, there is an answer which is clear, logical, obvious, and wrong.
Just because something seems to make sense doesn’t mean it’s actually true; as long as an idea stays only within your own mind and never has to be exposed to possible falsifying evidence, it’s not really being tested. How often have you been certain you knew how to do something, only to find out that it was more complicated than you expected when you actually went out to try it? It happens to me all the time; I was sure I understood how toilets worked until I tried to fix one
.That’s why more abstract ideas, which can’t be tested against the real world the way you can directly test an idea about how to do some task, are due a healthy dose of skepticism.
The “nose” analogy doesn’t stand up to examination. Putting specs on the bridge of one’s nose is clearly to help the body, failing eyes, to do better.
I think this is a somewhat arbitrary expansion of the rule you stated earlier. Instead of the rule being “It’s wrong to use our bodies in a way they aren’t designed for”, now you are saying it reads “It’s wrong to use our bodies in a way they aren’t designed for, unless we’re attempting to help them function better”. Why didn’t you use this more complete version from the beginning?
Anyways, for another example: how about earrings and bracelets? That’s using our bodies in a way they aren’t designed for, and it has nothing to do with promoting health.
DSimon, if you have any evidence of any kind (anecdotal, observational of society around you, formal studies) to indicate that levels of drug and alcohol addiction are DECREASING.
As I said, I would not be surprised if levels of drug and alcohol are increasing (or level, or decreasing; until I looked myself just now, I had no reason to have any estimates in any direction). My criticism was of your method of supporting your conclusion, rather than your conclusion itself.
However, in response to your asking, here are some data from the US: this large-scale survey shows that youth use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes declined between 2002 and 2007. Here is a survey study specifically showing that usage of alcohol among eighth-graders has been decreasing steadily since 1991. Here is a survey study showing that general alcohol usage in the US has been decreasing since 1980, with specific analysis of high-school usage.
For two males or two females, to use their bodies in an unnatural way, a way that is clearly contrary to the Maker’s Instructions, to the self-evident design of the body, is manifestly wrong and is bound to lead to health problems and, in fact, certainly in the case of homosexuals, possibly premature death.
I’m unable to argue with you on the topic of “the Maker’s Instructions” without taking the conversation way off-topic. However, I do agree that practices which lead to health problems should (all other things being equal) be discouraged.
We were earlier discussing whether or not certain kinds of sex are directly shown by objective evidence to be problematic (I promise, I still have that CFSH article in mind and will take a more detailed look at it at some point). I would prefer to focus the discussion on that route rather than the more nebulous issue of what is “natural” and whether or not pursuing “unnatural” things is implicitly problematic. Do you agree?
Finally; looking back over my prior comments in this thread, I think I’ve been somewhat more curt than I usually am. It’s not my intention to be antagonistic, which is a direction I’ve been slowly edging in. So, my apologies, and I’ll keep a closer eye on my tone.
-
(Looking in the references for my latter two links on alcohol usage shows that they gather their data from the same NIH source. Therefore, although I still assert that they are valid, please don’t consider them as independent confirmations.)
-
DSimon, firstly, no need to apologise “for being more curt than usual” – I don’t find you curt at all. I know I’ve been more curt than usual, but I’m confident that you’ll allow for the fact that I am just a very bad person (you’re bound to have read the – incomplete – list of my faults submitted by various bloggers and residual trolls over time.) Anyway, forgive any curtness in my tone on the grounds that I’m just a very bad girl – but glamorous with it…
You wrote:
You say that you “couldn’t be bothered” to try and see whether or not (a) or (b) was the cause of changing attitudes, which is a very odd position for a researcher to take! Making sure, as much as possible, that the results are reflective of the actual thing being measured is a researcher’s primary job.
Perhaps I was too flippant in responding to you on this point. It’s a moot point – my research is years old and it was merely intended as a “toe in the water” to gauge opinions about a specific issue in two particular places at a particular time, to compare attitudes (of parents in Glasgow and Aberdeen, to be precise.) Actually, I don’t think attitudes will have changed much at all, because people then were keen to be seen to be broadminded and I’m sure that would be even truer today. Since I’m not hung up on statistics, you will need to forgive my failure to take them too seriously. That’s just me.
I had a quick look at your links – sorry DSimon, I just do not have the time to study them carefully enough to comment in any purely academic sense, but it’s not necessary, really, because if there has been a decrease in teenage drug and alcohol consumption somewhere, anywhere, I’m delighted.
Torkay, I think it was, once told me that there isn’t the same problem in the USA in that it would be unusual to see drunks in the street. Over here, if you didn’t see drunks in the streets most evenings, certainly at the weekends, you’d think you’d been transported to …well… America!
As a matter of fact, I’ve just finished listening to an interview on BBC Scotland, a programme called Newsnight Scotland, in which one of the election candidates responded to questions from the interviewer about “Broken Scotland” and the serious problem of drug and alcohol consumption among young people.
Nobody mentioned statistics at all. It was / is a “given” that we have a very serious problem and if you were to ask the average man-about-town for statistics to prove your assertion, they’d ask you where you’d been living for the past half-century. (I’m sure if you wanted to listen to that interview, you’d find it on the BBC website, Newsnight Scotland, 19th April, after 11.pm)
You wrote:
I would prefer to focus the discussion on that route rather than the more nebulous issue of what is “natural” and whether or not pursuing “unnatural” things is implicitly problematic. Do you agree?
Sorry, DSimon, I don’t agree. To be honest, I think all this emphasis on stats is a red herring. You actually said you agreed with my conclusion but not the method of getting there, as if we have to have statistical evidence for every statement we make. I don’t think so. Indeed, as I’ve already indicated, I don’t place a lot of trust in statistics at all and we all know the old saying that there are “lies, damned lies and statistics”. If, as I indicated above, I’ve noted (along with the rest of the population of Glasgow) an increase in young people falling over themselves in town, drunk or on drugs, I don’t need a detailed statistical analysis to tell me that we have a serious problem.
Anyway, excuse me if I disappear now – it’s gone midnight here and if I don’t make my way into town now, all the pubs and clubs will be full…
-
I found this today
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10041916.html
but not sure where to post it. Since there is a lot of talk about statistics and Fr Pfleger’s pro-gay beliefs, I’ll post it here. If it’s the wrong place, I will move it later on. -
You actually said you agreed with my conclusion but not the method of getting there[...]
Just to clarify, I did not say this. Instead, I said that I had no idea if your conclusion was correct or not. However, you’re right in that my primary disagreement was with your method of arriving at your conclusion.
[...]as if we have to have statistical evidence for every statement we make.
Certainly not every statement! But, when you said “young people [...] are turning more and more to drugs and alcohol”, that was definitely the sort of statement that requires statistical evidence, because (a) it was about a historical trend rather than something that can be directly observed in the present, and (b) it was about a general population rather than a smaller group that a single person could interact with for themselves.
It was / is a “given” that we have a very serious problem [with drug and alcohol abuse] and if you were to ask the average man-about-town for statistics to prove your assertion, they’d ask you where you’d been living for the past half-century.
Common public drunkenness is indeed a fairly obvious and straightforward piece of evidence for there being an alcohol abuse problem, but I’d still ask for statistics to back up statements about the problem getting worse (or better), or statements about the whole of Scotland as opposed to one particular city or town.
For example, you assert that there has been an “increase in young people falling over themselves in town”, but I earlier listed many reasons why using your personal experiences to make broad historical comparisons is very prone to confirmation bias. I’m willing to go out onto the street and see for myself whether or not drunkenness is a problem right then and there, but I wouldn’t trust my own memories for trying to figure out if it’s better now than it was 10 years ago.
To be honest, I think all this emphasis on stats is a red herring.
But without something objective we can both look at, there’s not much of a discussion. You can continue to assert that homosexuality is self-evidently harmful, and I can point out that it’s not at all self-evident to me, and that circle can continue going around and around forever without anything really being said.
There’s an old joke about a bunch of Greek philosophers sitting around a campfire debating about how many teeth horses have. The first philosopher says “Horses, being herbivorous, must have 38 teeth, just as other herbivorous grazers do.” The second philosopher shakes his head and replies “No, that can’t be right; horses must have 36 teeth, seeing as how domesticated dogs have fewer teeth than wolves.” The third philosopher says “No, you’re both wrong! Horses must have 40 teeth, since as larger animals than wild deer they have more space in their skull.”
The horse tender they took along with them on their trip, having listened to all of this and finally unable to restrain his impulse to join in, meekly suggests “Perhaps we can simply open one of our horses’ mouths and count the number of teeth?” There’s a brief pause… and then the philosophers continue theorizing, pointedly ignoring his clearly unintellectual suggestion.
If homosexuality is harmful, whether “self-evidently” so or subtly so, then that harm should be objectively measurable (and I still promise to take a close look at that CFSH article soon). And the question of whether or not homosexuality is immoral hinges upon whether or not it is harmful.
-
Leaving aside the Editor’s own postings to this thread, 14 of the 35 other postings (40%) so far have been made by DSimon.
Is this statistically significant, we ask ourselves?
I come to this blog to learn about the Catholic Faith, and sometimes the teaching is about the traps one should avoid, but I really do think the pendulum has swung too far in that direction and that certain parties are being given too much air space. It is now being suggested that the immorality of homosexuality is a function of its harmfulness – and harmfulness to the soul does not even get a mention.
Who knows how many people read these postings and find themselves (in the absence of any sound teachings to the contrary) led toward thinking of the possibility that it is “just an alternative and harmless lifestyle”?
I think I may have to review my reliance on this blog as the place I want to be. Oh, and I shall not be responding to any cries from the Editor to produce instances of of unsound teaching on her part – keeping bad company is sufficient demonstration.
-
For the avoidance of doubt: Postings by Dsimon = 14. Postings by others (excluding the editor) = 35.
-
And to avoid the anticipated retort from Petty (as Cathedralman refers to him), I do not consider the tax collectors et cetera with whom Jesus dined to be bad company.
-
And to avoid the anticipated retort from Petty (as Catheldreaman refers to him), I do not consider the tax collectors et cetera with whom Jesus dined to be bad company.
Incidentally, this posting spelt a certain bloggers name correctly at its first submission and was put into moderation. Does that explain why there has been a dearth of his usual penetrative observations?
-
Alright, that’s about the 3rd or 4th time someone has said that my presence isn’t compatible with the reason they visit the blog, or the blog’s purpose. I understand that by the charter of site I’m welcome here, but it’s becoming clear that much of the community doesn’t enjoy my presence.
So, I’m going to bid farewell, particularly to the many bloggers here who have demonstrated a lot of patience and understanding in engaging in long, drawn out discussions with me, even when it was clear that my purpose and the stated purpose of the site are not in alignment.
If anyone is interested in contacting me, my email address is david.mike.NARFsimon@gmail.com (remove NARF from the address, which is placed there to prevent automatic programs from gathering my address and sending me spam.)
-
DSimon,
I urge you to reconsider. Ignore the troublemakers, for that is what they truly are.
I’d like to say to Leprechaun, Athanasius, Tirocinium etc – you should all be ashamed of yourselves. Now when DSimon looks back on his experience with Catholics, all he’ll remember is that he was made unwelcome. What is it about people who cannot handle their beliefs being questions? You should welcome the opportunity to explain the faith to others. Surely THAT is the purpose of this blog? It’s some closed club where we all congratulate each other for being so well-informed.
Tirocinium,
I don’t remember you playing a leading role on this blog, so you have a right cheek coming here and spouting your immature nonsense.
-
Editor:
I quote from your side panel:
unkind/nasty personal remarks. Unless a personal remark is an obvious joke (and we have plenty of humour on this blog so such jest is easy to recognise) then that blogger will also be placed into moderation and all future posts moderated before publication.
Does Petrus have a dispensation from you to make such comments as his of 6.17pm?
I await his apology.
And I am not responsible for the state of Petrus’s memory.
-
Petrus:
Your latest regret seems to be that when DSimon looks back on his experience of meeting Catholics all he will remember is that he was made unwelcome.
I have learnt through the sound instruction I have received on this blog that being nice to people, and ensuring that they have nice memories of us, is not what the saving of souls is about.
The saving of souls requires that they be shown the way to salvation. DSimon cannot deny that numerous people have gone far beyond the call of duty to explain that to him, and I am in no doubt from his repeated denials of all matters supernatural, that he has no wish to be shown.
That is the sentiment he needs to carry away with him.In the interests of politeness, I shall refrain from rebutting your charges against me of immaturity and of spouting nonsense, but to quote a statement from the Editor: “Can you rearrange the words kettle, black, pot and calling into a well-known phrase?”
-
“Does Petrus have a dispensation from you to make such comments as his of 6.17pm?”
I haven’t made unsubstantiated personal remarks. I would point out, however, that the editor is the sole interpreter of the blog rule. If she feels I have broken those rules, then I will respect her authority and duly apologise for breaking the rules. However, YOU do not have the authority to imterpret.
“I have learnt through the sound instruction I have received on this blog that being nice to people, and ensuring that they have nice memories of us, is not what the saving of souls is about.”
Correct – but it’s a start. Wasn’t it Frank Duff who said that legionaries should leave people with a positive impression of Catholicism? Amazing that you, like Leprechaun et al cannot see that.
“In the interests of politeness, I shall refrain from rebutting your charges against me of immaturity and of spouting nonsense, but to quote a statement from the Editor: “Can you rearrange the words kettle, black, pot and calling into a well-known phrase?”
You continued to call me “Petty”. You’ve obviously been picking up on CMan’s boldness. You will have also noticed that I asked him, not once, but twice, not to call me that. The fact that you continued to was immature. Why don’t you quote something from me that was immature or an example of me “spouting nonsense”. You can’t make a sweeping statement like that and not offer evidence. I look forward to it.
-
Petrus:
Your post of 6.17pm says:
“Tirocinium,
I don’t remember you playing a leading role on this blog, so you have a right cheek coming here and spouting your immature nonsense.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but does that not read as if Petrus is accusing Tirocinium of “spouting immature nonsense”?
I haven’t needed to accuse you of spouting immature nonsense – it is obvious to the onlookers.
I have no intention of engaging in a public slanging match with you. I don’t need to and this blog is not the place. End of.
-
Tirocinium
If you get can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!
-
As a political strategist once advised:”While you’re explaining, your losing. The answer is to put the other side into a position to explain. That’s the thing.’
DSimon constantly had you all explaining except for those who had sufficient catholic faith not to participate in his questioning you have lost some good bloggers and your blog will be the worse for it.
-
Cecilia,
Your post absolutely beggars belief. You obviously know nothing about education if you decry the art of questioning. You have absolutely no right to judge DSimon’s intentions. You should be ashamed.
-
Cecilia:
Thank you for that breath of fresh air.
Petrus:
Have you heard the expression: “A man amongst boys, but a boy amongst men”? Which part of “End of” did you not understand?
-
I am dismayed to read yet more unconscionable attacks on DSimon, this time from tirocinium and Cecilia. Neither of these people has blogged on a regular basis. I found very few posts from tirocinium when I checked just now and none at all from Cecilia. If she’s ever posted here, it must have been a very long time ago. The rudeness in the posts from tirocinium, in particular, is an affront to any Catholic blog. “And the greatest of these is charity” seems to have escaped his attention.
I’m going to deal with a few points made in these nasty posts and then I am going to close down the thread. And before you complain, that’s right. You do NOT have the right to reply. Live with it.
Firstly, may I remind you both, tirocinium and Cecilia, that nobody has the right to make anyone feel unwelcome on this blog. Instead of wasting precious time churlishly counting the number of posts from DSimon and me, tirocinium, in order to play “smart Alec” you should have used your time to research and seek to answer his questions.
And as for tirocinium’s revelation that he relies on this blog to learn about the Faith – don’t. We’re not running a catechetical course here. This is a blog where people discuss the Faith and related issues. None of us is infallible. We may make mistakes, though, hopefully never when repeating Catholic Faith and morals. But, I’ve just posted a modification to my own post quoting Bishop Tissier de Mallerais on the matter of Archbishop Lefebvre’s signatures on the Council documents. Even the SSPX priests are divided on the matter. So, don’t rely on this blog, or any other blog, as if we’re running a theology degree course. We’re not.
In fact, tirocinium, here’s an idea that might appeal to you. Why not take a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and go along to your nearest Catholic Church to read and pray there until the Holy Spirit enlightens you in such a way that you don’t need to come here at all? That way, you can learn all about your Faith without any annoying atheists questioning you on it. Whatever. Just don’t come on here trying to rule the roost. Better men than you have tried and failed. Just ask caledonianpriest.
Now, tirocinium speaks about his sound formation. Well, I’m afraid, whoever “formed” him forgot to tell him that human beings can come to know God through the faculty of reason. And that truth places an obligation on us to do all we can to answer questions so that enquirers can come to see that there is no contradiction between faith and reason. But don’t take my word for it. Here’s the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the subject.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c1.htmPerhaps, too, those of you who think that once the questions have all been answered and there is, therefore, nothing to stop DSimon from entering the Church, you might reflect a bit on the experience of John Henry (Cardinal) Newman when – from his position already as a practising/devout Anglican – he was exploring the possibility of becoming a Catholic .
He went in search of the four marks of the one truth Faith – and found only three. He said he could see that the Church was “one.” He could see that the Church was “catholic” (i.e. universal) and he could trace it back to the time of the apostles so he could see that it was “apostolic”. What he couldn’t see, was that it was “holy”. And, as he well knew, the one, true Church is recognisable by those four marks – it is one, holy, catholic and apostolic.
Then, John Henry met the Passionist priest who would eventually receive him into the Church. Father (now ‘Blessed) Dominic Barberi.
Father Dominic was berated, spat upon, insulted just about every time he walked down the street. But he suffered every indignity in a spirit of humility and faith. At last, John Henry had an example of holiness in the Catholic Church. And it was this humble, holy priest that, in due course, John Henry Newman asked to receive him into the Church.
DSimon is leaving this blog without any evidence at all, of the truth that the Catholic Church is holy.
I apologise to you profusely, DSimon, for the indignity you have suffered at the hands of these people who have made you feel so unwelcome on this blog. Neither of these two latest attackers are regular bloggers here nor do I wish them to be. The nature of what they need to learn about the Faith, is not within the remit of any blog to teach. It requires a special grace from God.
DSimon, feel free to come on here and ask questions whenever you wish. I’ve already said that I don’t have time to read loads of statistics nor to search out scientific data, but if you want to ask anything at all, you are more than welcome to do so. Whatever, please do not allow the nastiness you have experienced on this blog (to my great shame) prevent you from trying to learn more about God and about the Church founded by Christ. If I can be of any help to you at all, please do not hesitate to email me on editor@catholictruthscotland.com
God bless you.
Comments are now closed.
80 comments