The Pope and Gay Marriage

Via Drudge comes this MSNBC report in which Pope John Paul II suggests (or "may have suggested") that gay marriage may reflect "an ideology of evil."

The published text now segues from the "ideologies of evil" that drove the Holocaust and Stalin's massacres to abortion: "the legal extermination of human beings conceived but unborn" decreed by "democratically elected parliaments." The European Parliament's inclination to recognize homosexual unions as "an alternative type of family, with the right to adopt children," says the book, may be the work of another "ideology of evil."

Whole thing here.

Please. If it's evil to enter into a committed relationship--and to adopt and raise children--the pope's whole "culture of death" rap strikes me as incoherent and morally opaque at best. Granted, I say this as a recovering Catholic.

Years ago for Suck, I followed the John Paul II on his big North American tour and took the papal bull by the horns. Online here.

Comments

[SPD]

And which kind of ideology involves, say, shuffling pedophile priests from parish to parish?

Yes, I am also a recovering Catholic.

[xray]

Hey BillyRay: Goodmorning! Care to set us all straight on why gay marriage is the mostest evilest ideology around today? I mean, it's pretty much just you and the pope standing between civilization and evilization, isn't it?

[Akira MacKenzie]

Senile old fool. Just die already!

[Akira MacKenzie]

Oh... and I'm also a recovering Catholic/born-again atheist.

[_]

Meanwhile it's perfectly fine and dandy for the church to cover up the "moral lapses" of Father O'Groper when he goes after the boys choir... at least until the cover-up gets made public.

What did it say in the good book? "Hypocrites! Remove thy plank in thine own eye before concerning about the splinter in thine neighbor's eye."

[Akira MacKenzie]

But _, don't you know that there is a shortage of preists? They need as many Men Of The Cloth as they can find! So what if they fondled a few kids, that will all come off in Confession. Besides, didn't Jesus say "let the little children come on to me"?

It not like allowing priest to marry, ordaining already married men, or even ordaining (shudder, gasp) WOMEN will help. I mean, what would the Giant Queen Spider say?

[Akira MacKenzie]

Ick... bad blog, need coffee.

[gaius marius]

speaking as a recovering catholic-turned-recovering atheist (now an agnostic, which is the only position i can reconcile with empiricism), the papacy is betwixt a rock and a hard place.

catholicism clearly sees (and should see, as an institution with a far longer lineage and horizon) the empire of liberty as the passing self-defeating phase it is. the institution is doing what has preserved it for the better part of two millennia: defending its tradition.

that tradition has a much narrower tolerance for what constitutes a sustainable society than our flavor of the century. unchecked individuality is something the church sees (rightly, imo) as the antithesis of a functioning cooperative society, and the personal prerogative to kill (for example) is rather the last step before anarchy. i am not at all surprised to see them oppose this 'culture of death' more than the psychopathic dictatorships of the 20th c; those could be rationalized as horrid one-offs, whereas abortion and euthanasia are the broad-based adoption of killing by choice by the mass of men.

i think what the catholic church means when it says 'ideologies of evil' is not only this death trip, but rather the underlying ethic that individuals making such terrifying choices for themselves alone is right. their point of view, as a force designed for social stability and continuity above all things, must be that it is not. what is the total emancipation of the human animal if it is not the rejection of civilization for total chaos?

are they right? i think probably so. does that set them against the intellectual current? certainly -- though i think it is slowly coming back around their way. this is, after all, an institution borne from the most intense age of antisocial individualism in the western memory.

[Anonymous]

xray

I don't think BillyRay will have any good words for His Holiness. The Klan hates Catholics too!

[c]

gm, your tie-in of the catholic idea of "ideology of evil" to your Grand Unifying Theory of Pernicious Individualism notwithstanding, how do you figure His Holiness is including homosexual marriage (or homosexuality in general) in an ideology of evil (or culture of death) in the first place? Abortion is one thing, but are we to prosecute homosexual marriage as murder for the death of these people's potential offspring? Or has the old coot simply lost it?

[gaius marius]

i haven't read his book and don't know, mr c. and its surely not to say he's right -- i personally have nothing bad to about for the idea of codependent relationships, regardless of sex.

in reading some of what the church has issued, it seems to me that its the catholic conception of marriage and family such as embodied in genesis they are trying to defend, more than it is any explicit antigay agenda. they make arguments against gay marriage from the standpoints of natural law, biology and anthropology, and the maintenance of social order and legal authority -- but not from prima facie bigotry and intolerance. their words:

Homosexual acts "close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved".(4)

Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts "as a serious depravity... (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered".(5) This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.

Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies "must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided".(7) They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.(8) The homosexual inclination is however "objectively disordered"(9) and homosexual practices are "sins gravely contrary to chastity".(10)

and further

Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.

hardly a ringing call to burn them all.

[gaius marius]

i haven't read his book and don't know, mr c. and its surely not to say he's right -- i personally have nothing bad to about for the idea of codependent relationships, regardless of sex.

in reading some of what the church has issued, it seems to me that its the catholic conception of marriage and family such as embodied in genesis they are trying to defend, more than it is any explicit antigay agenda. they make arguments against gay marriage from the standpoints of natural law, biology and anthropology, and the maintenance of social order and legal authority -- but not from prima facie bigotry and intolerance. their words:

Homosexual acts "close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved".(4)

Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts "as a serious depravity... (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered".(5) This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.

Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies "must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided".(7) They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.(8) The homosexual inclination is however "objectively disordered"(9) and homosexual practices are "sins gravely contrary to chastity".(10)

and further

Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.

hardly a ringing call to burn them all.

[Akira MacKenzie]

"Abortion is one thing, but are we to prosecute homosexual marriage as murder for the death of these people's potential offspring?"

Sing along with me:

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

"Or has the old coot simply lost it?"

The entire religion "lost it" when that pesky Yousha fellow (along with all the other "Messiahs" wandering around the Middle East at the time) started claiming he was the offspring of the Great Invisible Sky Tryrant.

[SPD]

"Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons."

So, you're condemned if you do and condemned if you don't. Sounds more like Calvinism to me!

[joe]

The only possible answer, c, is that the important term in "culture of life" is not life, but culture. Actual killings are less important than the unacceptable social structures that are alleged to abet them.

The more you look at "cuture of lifers," the more sense this makes. How can stopping the implantation of a blastocyst be said to be equally evil as an 8th month D and X? Only if the real problem isn't the killing itself, but the freedom from birth (that painful punishment God gave to Eve) and from motherhood (that glorious inconvenience that is so effective in maintaining gender segregation and social/economic inequality).

Gay people don't kill anybody by getting married. But they do demonstrate that the old partriarchal system of social relationships is not universal. THAT'S the real threat.

[c]

So it's not just that homosexual acts close the sexual act to the gift of life but also that the act are sins gravely contrary to chastity. I am curious whether they're more gravely contrary to chastity than heterosexual non-procreative sex, but FWIW, I was never really under the impression that the Catholic church was suggesting that we consign these sodomites to the cleansing fires.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts "as a serious depravity... (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10).

They're conveniently leaving out the dictates of Leviticus--or any of the Old Testament--as a good PR move, I'm sure. However, if the Bible is the revealed word of "God," and that deity is infallible, then you can't throw out the parts you don't like just to look good on camera. So what's it going to be Larry? Love them, or stone them?

"Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons."

Oh, that's bullshit. The entire I-love-the-sinner-but-hate-the-sin crap is arrogant and condescending at best, and a smoke screen for unspoken bigotry at worst. Just come out and say you hate homosexuals and be done with it. Spare me the Christian double-think.

[raymond]

The Catholic Church is hardly the only one rejecting homosexual acts. The Primates of the Anglican Communion just did a pretty good job of it, too.

This "tolerance" Westerners have for homosexuality swings back and forth historically. We think we're moving forward as a society, but we're just zigzagging along. The Pope is where society will be in 50 years. Except maybe less vicious.

[c]

I'm with you in spirit, joe, but -- just this once -- could you not shoot until you see the whites of their eyes?

[Warren]

This just confirms my 'The Pope died years ago, Weekend-at-Bernie's, hospitalized to upgrade the robotics' theory. See, the real power behind the throne (Mafia?) would be threatened by a new, and presumable younger, Pope. But an undead Pope, is only a necessary but not sufficient condition for retaining power. Ordinary Political forces become even more acute forcing a coalition with the homophobes.

[gaius marius]

lol -- i think, mr spd, that instead they try to walk a middle line of tolerance without persecution or acceptance.

Actual killings are less important than the unacceptable social structures that are alleged to abet them.

i think that part of the truth, mr joe -- maybe moreso as "just as important". certainly, the rcc stands for an antirelativist view. but that isn't malicious in nature, regardless of how secularists may want to characterize it.

the rcc can be seen as an institution formed in the cauldron of roman individualist decadence, making it particularly opposed to the chaotic potential of unlimited choice not from a malicious desire to control but a benevolent will to secure society for the good of us all. i know few here see total emancipation in that light -- but the church has a point of view much older than the enlightenment.

[gaius marius]

Spare me the Christian double-think.

spoken like one who does not appreciate the difficult true complexity of society, mr mackenzie. 🙂

[gaius marius]

However, if the Bible is the revealed word of "God," and that deity is infallible, then you can't throw out the parts you don't like just to look good on camera.

fwiw, mr mackenzie, the rcc is not protestant and does not leave open to its followers their own interpretation of the bible. a protestant reads the bible for himself; a catholic listens to the church.

you can debate the relative merits of each, but the diaspora of wacko biblical reinterpreters sabotaging society in america leaves me thinking that the entire exercize is a convincing argument for the rcc against unlimited choice as the absolute good.

[R C Dean]

gaius, a question:

If "unchecked individuality is . . . the antithesis of a functioning cooperative society"

then it would seem to follow that the key to a functioning cooperative society is placing checks on individuality.

But aren't externally imposed "checks" on "individuality" the antithesis of cooperation?

[TM Lutas]

In fact, it is the coherency of the culture of life which is the problem for libertarians. Western sexuality, in the Catholic view, is like a person with alcohol, narcotic, gambling, and sex addictions. While the Church is trying to get the person into AA, our intrepid Reason libertarians are crying hypocrisy that they're not pushing for an entry into NA. When the situation is reversed, the criticism is reversed, why no AA cry out the Reason libertarians.

Catholic teaching on sexuality isn't easy. It's just that crying inconsistency is much more likely to show ignorance on the part of the author than actual inconsistency on the part of the Church.

SPD - The Pope is not supposed to reach down through several layers of hierarchy and involve himself in local issues like bad priests (who come in all varieties of evil, just like every other sinner on this planet). He's only supposed to do that when the lower levels screw things up so badly that his involvement is unavoidable. The US hierarchy screwed up, the Pope got involved, and what he said was essentially, stop it, stop it now, fix it, fix it for good.

If you look at the issue of pedophile priests, the vast majority of the progress that was made was done after the Pope spoke on the issue. That's a pretty sad commentary on the local hierarchy but the emergency pressure release that is the papace actually worked.

Akira Mackenzie - The Catholic Church has always had married priests. They're called Eastern Catholics. Same pope, same universal church, different rules. It's called variety, something that the Church has had since almost the beginning and is documented in the book of Acts.

The different varieties are organized into rites and some include married priests, others do not. If you were a Catholic and did not know that, perhaps those who taught you your Catholicism didn't do a very good job of it. Before coming to final conclusions, you might want to actually know the organization that you're condemning as it exists, not as some limited subset that never actually existed in the world. Your commentary on Leviticus shows your education to be seriously in deficit as regards longstanding Catholic doctrine.

[Daniel Montiel]

I speak as a recently-out gay Catholic, and so my conflicts are pretty deep. Nonetheless, I still feel a place for myself in my faith, regardless of the current worldwide obsession with homesexuality and its place in our daily lives (sidebar:I wonder how much of this is really an obsession or simply the only reporting the media does on the Church, i.e., when it speaks out against homesexual acts). That said, I offer no defense or self-hating justification for the Church's stance on homesexuality especially re:marriage or adoption. I disagree (for reasons both self-serving and theological) with the Church's stance on this.
My main point for this point is to reply to Akira's aggravating post. I truly hate discussing or debating anything with telepathic people. You know, those people who in the absence of all proof or facts tell you that when a person says 'A' what they "really mean" is "B". How do they know this? Well, because they know what that person is thinking, of course! They don't need to debate the facts or what the person has said or done--they just magically "know" what's in that person's mind. Cause they're telepathic, you see.
Crap.
Akira, you have every right to judge or condemn the Church for its action and policy on this issue. Furthermore, any honest-to-God bigots or homophobes you happen to know who (in your opinion) use religious decrees as justification or smokescreen for their hatred are equally deserving of your wrath--but DON'T pretend that you can make some sweeping statement of "Oh, they all really do hate gays or are being arrogant (?)" without acknowledging that you are a) speaking for millions with no knowledge of what's in their heads and b) making it up out of whole cloth. You don't know what they think--you can't. Your post is, amusingly, accusing them of a thought-crime; one that you just "know" they are guilty of.
It seems akin to claiming that all Muslims currently unhappy with what is viewed as Western culture's attack in their own are "really" (you can tell cause of the, you know, telepathy) just America-haters, using religion as an excuse. Are there some killers out there hiding behind Islam? Yes. Are all faithful Muslims using religion to hide their hate? Of course not. And no more should all Christians have their faith and culture insulted by an attempt to reduce it to "double-speak." It may be easier, Akira, to reduce all of your social policy opponents to "haters" and dismiss them as such, but it gains you no friends, puts you no closer to a solution and does nothing to convince some of these faithful and loving people why they should turn away from the Church's policy. Nothing could convince someone of the wrongness of their actions less than "Oh, you don't really believe in what you say--you just hate people."

[c]

All very nice TM, but nobody said "hypocrisy" until you did. Who are you arguing with?

[Rhywun]

hardly a ringing call to burn them all.

They are not allowed--ever--to have sex. I can't think of a worse punishment than that. For religion to fuck with people's heads like that is criminal in my eyes.

[dhex]

"the rcc can be seen as an institution formed in the cauldron of roman individualist decadence, making it particularly opposed to the chaotic potential of unlimited choice not from a malicious desire to control but a benevolent will to secure society for the good of us all."

methinks you've taken your own kool-aid, dear.

the historical "good of us all" is hard to differentiate from the will to control. you attribute your sense of purpose to something which has operated in a reverse direction. the only reason such tolerance is espoused is because the vatican no longer commands an army or has any military force. they have been defanged by the competition of history, settling into the sort of cute old man routine one suspects pol pot's house arrest devolved into.

on the other hand, i am curious about something unrelated: what's your opinion of julius evola?

[kwais]

Raymond

"The Pope is where society will be in 50 years."

How do you figure?

[c]

he means "nearly dead."

[gaius marius]

But aren't externally imposed "checks" on "individuality" the antithesis of cooperation?

how, mr dean? the antithesis of cooperation by choice alone, perhaps -- but cooperation by choice alone is simply a description of another kind of individualism, isn't it?

there's a current of militant narcissism in this view -- that i shouldn't be obligated to anything ever -- that is the obvious death of society, imo. this is understood across a spectrum from the rcc to machiavelli to hobbes to locke. every society forces some level of interaction, and rightfully. if people were left the right to opt out of all the things they find uncomfortable, i think we'd quickly be living hand-to-mouth. we're just animals, after all, in many respects.

[gaius marius]

what's your opinion of julius evola?

i don't really have one, mr dhex, except to nebulously think of him as a more mystical spengler.

the only reason such tolerance is espoused is because the vatican no longer commands an army or has any military force. they have been defanged by the competition of history, settling into the sort of cute old man routine one suspects pol pot's house arrest devolved into.

not to get too far into defending the rcc (which i don't really pray to) but their institution abrogated its philosophy and became a tool of some italian families for a few centuries. i think holding the corrupted behavior of the borgia popes to be the defining characteristic of the catholic institution isn't quite honest. the church had existed for a thousand years before that episode. did it experience a decadence and decline? yes. is that all there is to know about it? no.

[thoreau]

Speaking as a still-faithful Catholic, I can only say that there is so much more to our faith than teachings on homosexuality. A lot of Catholics couldn't care less about homosexuality.

And I have to ask, Akira, what did you mean by

I mean, what would the Giant Queen Spider say?

Is this a Tolkien reference? Cuz I thought that Ungoliant devoured herself.

[BillyRay]

Nick writes:Years ago for Suck, I followed the John Paul II on his big North American tour and took the papal bull by the horns

Geeshhhh. Wonkette's old gig. Pretty bad. Now I know why I don't subscribe to the mag any more. For serious libertarians and classic liberals

PsGood for the Pope

[Ken Shultz]

"wiw, mr mackenzie, the rcc is not protestant and does not leave open to its followers their own interpretation of the bible. a protestant reads the bible for himself; a catholic listens to the church."

The central message of Christianity, Magister Marius, is that the creator of the universe sacrificed himself for every individual. Treating other individuals badly, therefore, is a form of blasphemy because it belittles the value of Christ's sacrifice.

"Your freedom ends where another's freedom begins" sounds much like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", does it not? This has been the kernel of our mores for a long time. If we strip Christianity of its individualism, don't we strip it of its cultural impetus too?

[BillyRay]

Reason staff writes:xray

I don't think BillyRay will have any good words for His Holiness. The Klan hates Catholics too!

Comment by: at February 28, 2005 09:46 AM

FYI, I am a Catholic. A guess the Reason staff thinks if you're opposed to gay marriage it means you're in the Klan. Sad day. What a pitiful statement. Bad management. Bad magazine.

[dhex]

"i think holding the corrupted behavior of the borgia popes to be the defining characteristic of the catholic institution isn't quite honest."

who said anything about the borgias? they're just a brick in the wall.

we can run down the list of heretical movements and their ends, or talk about the two popes period, and so on. the rcc starts being respectable in the mother theresa/MLK/gandhi sense of the word when it loses its ability to set people on fire in other countries.

the funny kicker being, especially in america, that has fuck-all to do with individual catholics, who more often than not were its only victims. i think often of the cathars, whose main crime, it would seem, was being too old school.

[dhex]

in this respect of "respect" i should mention, they share quite a bit with the tibetan buddhist hierarchy before the chinese invasion.

[Ken Shultz]

"FYI, I am a Catholic. A guess the Reason staff thinks if you're opposed to gay marriage it means you're in the Klan. Sad day. What a pitiful statement. Bad management. Bad magazine."

I don't think anyone on the Reason staff posted the comment you cited, but whoever did post that comment owes you an apology. Of course, if none of the Reason staff posted the comment you cited, then maybe you should apologize to the Reason staff.

...By the way, you should beware of the commandment, "Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain." It's one of the reasons why so many of the devout don't speak of themselves in public.

[gaius marius]

the rcc starts being respectable in the mother theresa/MLK/gandhi sense of the word when it loses its ability to set people on fire in other countries.

i'm not going to defend the counterreformation block, stock and tackle -- but is flexibility the only dimension of virtue, mr dhex? or can being the ethical and philosophical system that kept alive some form of civilization in the aftermath of rome also be?

it should be noted too that, just as it was the monastic tradition that kept alive western learning in some measure, the renaissance started with the rcc -- it was the schoolmen and aquinas who began the dialectics between observation and revelation that encouraged men to ask about how things are and came to be. the rcc was not all mystery; it was also empirical in its measure, within a completely different conception of matter and spirit. and they did this with the encouragement, not repression, of the rcc.

i feel you are absurdly reducing two millennia of catholicism, mr dhex, for convenience in framing it as a target of attack. the institution and its history are more complex than any one person can grasp.

[BillyRay]

Try posting a reply without adding your name. I don't think you can. That's why I suspect it's a staffer. If you can, then okay, apologize to the staff. Sorry.

[Eric the .5b]

I have to say, whoever wrote this "ideology of evil" remark about gay parents adopting probably wouldn't know evil if it came up and molested a choir boy in front of him.

[R C Dean]

gaius asks:

how, mr dean? the antithesis of cooperation by choice alone, perhaps -- but cooperation by choice alone is simply a description of another kind of individualism, isn't it?

Well, yeah, that was kind of my point - you seem to be saying that individualism is the antithesis of cooperation, and that externally imposed controls on individuals are the key to cooperation, which seems rather Orwellian to me.

See, I thought the only kind of cooperation was voluntary cooperation, or "cooperation by choice alone." Enforced or coerced cooperation is kind of an oxymoron. Cooperation means willing acquiescence, no?

[a]

Here's a post without a name--just use a tag for the name and viola!

[a]

Didn't work.

[dhex]

"is flexibility the only dimension of virtue"

no, but if you command the ability to control others, it's certainly high on the list.

"i feel you are absurdly reducing two millennia of catholicism, mr dhex, for convenience in framing it as a target of attack. the institution and its history are more complex than any one person can grasp."

this would be true, were i speaking of catholicism as a religion rather than catholicism as a political entity. it speaks of tolerance now because it can no longer act as it once did - if anything this should sit very well with your particular philosophical bent, since the individual with power leads to a lot of bad things. i'm not very sure that if you took me as i am now, and plucked me down in place of a medieval pope, i would act any better than they did. nor did certain periods of decentralization between the papacy and parishes in certain parts of europe help alleviate the lesser - or to be less kind, more batshit crazy - aspects of medieval catholicism.

my main point being, that the pope can speak - or rather, his handlers can speak - of tolerance because they no longer have the mechanical means to continue as they once did politically.

[Anonymous]

test post

[c]

They didn't leave the name field blank, they put only a space in it.

[thoreau]

If the concept of "ideology of evil" bears any resemblance to the "axis of evil" then I expect the Swiss Guard to invade Massachusettes any day now.

That's right, a bunch of men in flamboyantly colored costumes and carrying long poles will send a message against gay marriage! 😉

joe, are you guys ready to fight them off? Maybe Kerry can assemble his old swift boat crew to mount a defense of Boston harbor. And then posters on this forum can explain how those pike wounds were self-inflicted 😉

[Anonymous]

Sorry, BillyRay,

I was going by the fact that you spout the Klans version of american history all the time.

[Anonymous]

Not a staffer. But think BillyRay is a troll.

[BillyRay]

No, I talk about factual history

[BillyRay]

Lets try that again. Link didn't work

I talk about factual history

[gaius marius]

The central message of Christianity, Magister Marius, is that the creator of the universe sacrificed himself for every individual. Treating other individuals badly, therefore, is a form of blasphemy because it belittles the value of Christ's sacrifice.

we could talk a long time about this, mr schultz, but i would submit that your interpretation is inflected by our times. christ sacrificed himself for mankind, not men.

"Your freedom ends where another's freedom begins" sounds much like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", does it not?

the kantian statement of ending and beginning demarcates (or tries to demarcate) the boundaries between us -- inherently individual and different.

do unto others, however, implies a like kind, a uniformity of type. these two statements are actually little alike, imo, and actually highlight the break which kant's ethics of autonomous morality represent.

[gaius marius]

Enforced or coerced cooperation is kind of an oxymoron. Cooperation means willing acquiescence, no?

i would say no, mr dean -- or perhaps, cooperation is not limited to that, and in civilized society must not be.

i have a friend who attends a new-age church, which he selected for its comportment with his views. he's changed churches several times because he didn't like the pastor or the message or something. he professes to be very faithful, and certainly sees himself a reborn christian.

but i ask him, "faithful in what?" when one selects their church like their mcdo order -- to suit their taste -- that's not faith in anything external whatsoever. it's faith in your individual judgement of what god and religion is supposed to be. i'm sorry, but that has nothing to do with religious faith. (which is why, imo, new protestant sects are forced to kowtow to their congregation -- they'll leave at the drop of a hat. so no ceremony, no elite, no castigation and no alienation. moreover, they rely on personality and music to invoke religious feeling without anything so inconvenient as guilt or shame.) it's the difference between religion and cult, i think.

so it is with any society. if one can select their interaction, self-identify and engage to suit their comfort, are they really a part of anything that could be called a society? utterly not, i think. a society must be compulsory on some level to be binding and durable -- anything else is a transient collection of nomads, readying to flee at the first real threat to their individual prerogative. as individuals realize that they possess this power -- become more self-conscious -- they eventually bond to no thing that obligates them in any way they do not desire.

when this finally comes to include the rule of law -- as it is now in america, imo -- chaos ensues and civilization recedes into barbarity.

in this way, the pursuit of kantian moral autonomy to its logical end effectively destroys society.

[joe]

Well, yeah, but name a philosophy that "taken to its logical ends," doesn't make the streets run with blood.

[Ectoterrestrial]

"without anything so inconvenient as guilt or shame.) it's the difference between religion and cult, i think."

[Gary Gunnels]

Anyone suggesting that the Borgia popes were some sort of "exception" in Catholic history is seriously deluded.

[John Kerry]

If the Swiss Guard wants to invade my home state I have 3 words for them that I know they'll understand:

apportez-le dessus!

[gaius marius]

Anyone suggesting that the Borgia popes were some sort of "exception" in Catholic history is seriously deluded.

lol -- mr gunnels, please commence to tell us how catholicism from origen to vatican 2 has been worse than useless at every step. 🙂

[Gary Gunnels]

Indeed, what is so interesting about the RCC is just how "average" its reactions were to events. There is nothing to mark it out as special from the aspect of advancing human freedom; it did - as an institution - all the evil crap we expect of overarching, powerful government bureaucracies. Here are a few examples:

* Persecution of the pagans once Christians/Catholics got the upper hand.

* Long-standing persecution of the Jews.

* Numerous examples of aggressive religious wars.

* Resisted the end of slavery when marginalized Christian groups like the Quakers - who had nothing to gain from the institution's end in the Americas - were some of the primary instigators in its demise (you know the fact that the RCC was one of the primary defenders of slavery has got to bite till to today).

* Innumerable examples of resistance to religious freedom.

Despite claims to the contrary, its hard for me to see the RCC as a source of moral wisdom.

[Gary Gunnels]

gauis marius,

I am curious, where did I use the following?: "worse than useless."

[Gary Gunnels]

gaius marius,

I think I've been pretty clear. The RCC isn't parituclarly special re: its various atrocities, and that's what is so damning about the RCC. If it were indeed the church of the one true God one would expect something more than the average.

[joe]

OTOH, Gary, you don't see very many soup kitchens run by "brights."

[Gary Gunnels]

gauis marius,

John XII is one of my favorite Popes (955-964 CE), BTW. Was he a Borgia? 🙂

[Gary Gunnels]

joe,

Maybe, but atheists aren't claiming the sort of "moral authority" that Catholics are either.

Indeed, being left alone is the primary concern of atheists because self-preservation has historically been our primary concern.

[gaius marius]

You are indeed arguing with the bedrock principle of a capitalist society

locke, mr gunnels, was of course primarily a moral philosopher and a christian. he knew (even as many have forgotten) that capitalism can function only within a moral society. those morals may be christian or classical or otherwise. but they must be there and be compulsory or the whole system -- rule of law, enforcable contract, trust -- collapses, and with it capitalism.

i am not inveighing against individuality with an aim at total conformity. i am simply trying to explain how unaccountable, irresponsible individualism is undesirable -- one of the tenets of philosophy the rcc and i have in common, i think, to some extent -- and the fundamental need for each of us to be beholden to something beyond our choosing.

Well, yeah, but name a philosophy that "taken to its logical ends," doesn't make the streets run with blood.

agreed, mr joe -- which is why it is frightening to live in a society that believes to such a deep degree that each of us is an artist in waiting; that rules are made to be broken in the search for self-fulfillment; that each of us is best left to decide for ourselves what is right; that freedom is an absolute good; that has so convincingly acquiesced to nieztsche.

i agree that an unobligated society of irresponsible heroes of the type nietzsche envisioned is an abstraction which cannot be reached. but i think the romans proved that simply making it the ideal is enough to erode even the greatest ancient society built upon ironclad patria.

passing this off as just the fault of a few Italian families is the worst sort of ahistoricism.

did i really say that? obviously not. i know you hate fantastic mischaracterizations, mr gunnels. please do not subject me to that which you so hate.

it is utterly incomplete to say so -- this is a message board, after all -- but far from ahistorical, mr gunnels. it is indeed a part of what happened. i agree with you that the truth of the rcc's history is as complex as that of modern western civilization itself and maybe moreso. which is specifically why it is asinine to denounce it, just as it is to denounce islam or modernity; and yet, too many western secularists (for reasons of insecurity, imo) are all too willing to do so.

Despite claims to the contrary, its hard for me to see the RCC as a source of moral wisdom.

of course it is precisely that, mr gunnels -- a source of a moral wisdom, though not the only one -- even as it is also a source of great tragedy and horror. is the west to be universally dismissed and derided for having produced napoleon and hitler? is classical civilization to be written off for having produced alcibiades and caligula? this is too myopic an interpretation of catholicism to represent anything at all. your list of atrocities is proof of what? that the rcc is an institution of men? when did i claim otherwise? 🙂 remember, i am not a practicing catholic.

[Gary Gunnels]

gaius marius,

John Huss learned in 1415 just what a RCC promise of safety means. It meant being burnt at the stake of course.

[gaius marius]

again, mr gunnels, what of it? it means what? that because the rcc is a human institution replete with the failings of men that there is no virtue in catholicism? even you cannot believe something so hyperbolic and reductive can retain any merit, regardless of its utility to your argument.

[joe]

Gary,

"Maybe, but atheists aren't claiming the sort of "moral authority" that Catholics are either."

I see atheists claiming moral authority above and beyond barbaric, oppressive "theists" all the time. See, no religion, no war, hatred, or misery. Didn't you get the memo?

If you, as an individual, are making the statement that you don't believe atheism puts one on a loftier moral plane, than that's one point for you.

[thoreau]

gaius, as always, I have to ask, what is the point that you are trying to make?

Personally, as a practicing Catholic, I would say that the contemporary Church is mostly a positive force when it tries to teach people, but a miserable failure when it tries to govern people. Most American Catholics (with all exceptions duly noted) seem to understand this fact.

So what else would you like us to know about the Roman Catholic Church?

[Gary Gunnels]

gaius marius,

locke, mr gunnels, was of course primarily a moral philosopher and a christian.

And Locke - like the RCC - defended slavery. But I was referring to an actual capitalist philosopher; I was referring to Adam Smith.

Indeed, it is interesting to compare Locke's theories with contemporary capitalism; there is little similarity. Locke defended slavery (chattel and wage), very limited access to government, mercantilism, and legally-embedded social priorities which benefit a select part of society. This is indeed not capitalism, it is the legally-constructed and enforced class-based society that is the exact opposite of capitalism.

You are confusing Locke's promotion of a two-tiered system of checks and balances (Montesquieu introduced the third - the judiciary) with capitalism.

i am simply trying to explain how unaccountable, irresponsible individualism is undesirable

Nice strawman. No one here is arguing against accountability.

...and the fundamental need for each of us to be beholden to something beyond our choosing.

Your state enforced God, perhaps?

did i really say that?

Yes, you did. You tried to fob off any problems that the RCC might have had historically as limited exclusively to the Borgias. Review your comments.

which is specifically why it is asinine to denounce it, just as it is to denounce islam or modernity; and yet, too many western secularists (for reasons of insecurity, imo) are all too willing to do so.

If calling the RCC an "average" institution is denouncing it, then so be it. If stating that it is no special source of moral authority is denouncing it, so be it. If it is indeed denouncing the RCC, then it has more to do with the puffed up airs of Catholics than the reality of the situation.

of course it is precisely that, mr gunnels -- a source of a moral wisdom, though not the only one -- even as it is also a source of great tragedy and horror.

Its not a source of moral authority, except as perhaps a signpost stating "Do Not Go Here" or "Do Not Do This." But that's essentially a negative sort of moral authority.

is the west to be universally dismissed and derided for having produced napoleon and hitler?

Well, the West has actually produced some good over the years, hasn't it? And let's note that the improvements that the West has created were almost to a point opposed by the RCC. What can you say of an institution that has opposed nearly all of the good fruits of Western civilization?

[Gary Gunnels]

Its interesting to note that most of the slowest to develop states in Europe were Catholic states. Indeed, those states that were Catholic and did develop quickly had neutered the authority of the Church (namely France and the southern German Princedoms). Finally, those Protestant countries which adopted Catholic-like one church states also developed very slowly (the primary examples of this are Transylvania and Scotland).

If Catholic rule were so beneficial it would seem that the opposite would be true.

[Gary Gunnels]

joe,

I see atheists claiming moral authority above and beyond barbaric, oppressive "theists" all the time.

I think this is a misunderstanding of the statements of atheists. Sure theists are irrational individuals, but I and other atheists as a rule don't claim any moral authority over theists. Theists can be as irrational as they want to be, so long as they aren't putting their irrationalities into law. The latter part is what atheists are mostly concerned with, and that concern is largely tied to self-preservation. Atheists as a rule understand their precarious place in society and understand the potential for persecution.

[dhex]

where can i find this society which has acquiesced to nietzche?

there's plenty for you to love in nietzche, mr. marius, most forward his assertion that democracy was a hideous beast doomed to failure because of its reliance on the general public to be able to make decisions for itself.

he's a poor symbol for your particular demon - i would suggest 50 Cent, perhaps.

regarding the RCC, history had to happen the way it happened because that's how it happened. it has very little if anything to do with individual catholics, who have my sympathy in light of what their party bosses have been doing to them in america.

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

I think gaius marius has come to the rather silly conclusion that "accountability" comes largely from the state, when in fact in a capitalist society its largely meted out by private actors. His is the typical "market failure" analysis we get to see from the left from time to time.

[gaius marius]

what is the point that you are trying to make?

my point, mr thoreau, is to argue that

1) the rcc is not evil a priori, and indeed much philosophy and teaching of benefit can be found in the catholic tradition; and
2) individualism is not good a priori, and is in fact singularly destructive to civilization if exercized outside of a solid moral framework of unchosen obligation, be it christian or otherwise;
3) the nietzschean development of kantian moral autonomy represents the rejction of obligation and therefore is the destructive antisocial mode;
4) the rcc's stand against moral relativism is, in this context, best understood by secularists (like myself) as a stand in the defense of civilization by anchoring morality to a fixed point.

i feel that stand is futile, and that this society is failing irretrievably. but i think that the rcc's efforts are borne of an optimism that i do not share, even as i desperately wish it to succeed.

[raymond]

"The Pope is where society will be in 50 years."

How do you figure?

(I offer the following to back up my contention that Western attitudes towards homosexual behaviour have varied significantly over the centuries.)

?In the 1600s and into the 1700s, the term "sodomite" applied to a practicioner of any form of non-reproductive sex, whether between members of the same sex or not.? Despite the threat of the death penalty, sexual acts between adult males and adolescent males and females were commonplace and--during the 1600s--generally socially accepted.? About 1700, gender lines and cultural expectations regarding sexual preferences became more rigid. (Homosexuality and the Law in England)

?Gay Subculture in Early Eighteenth-Century London

?The nineteenth century was a golden age for those people known variously as sodomites, Uranians, monosexuals, and homosexuals. Long before Stonewall and Gay Pride, there was such a thing as gay culture, and it was recognized throughout Europe and America.

Graham Robb, brilliant biographer of Balzac, Hugo, and Rimbaud, examines how homosexuals were treated by society and finds a tale of surprising tolerance. (review of Strangers: Homosexual Love in the Nineteenth Century)

In my opinion, modern tolerance for "homosexuals" will not be any longer-lasting than the tolerance of the 17th, 18th, 19th centuries was.

The only reason I have for holding this opinion is history.

Moreover, while there may now be some tolerance, I'm not sure there's much acceptance. Statistics show that young people are more open? Well, 40 years ago young people were singing about love. They were an integral part of the anti-war movement. They smoked dope. Today, they've got the power. And what do they present us with? Torture, hatred, war, and the war on drugs.

The Catechism teaches:

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 circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. 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.

This teaching is not going to change any time soon. It is anchored in "natural law", and an infallible pope will think very carefully before he corrects what a former infallible pope has taught.

In 50 years, if homosexuals are lucky, this teaching will be the worst of their problems.

I offer the following to show that the Church's "problem" is not with homosexuality so much as it is with non-proCREATive sex.

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action." "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."

Finally...

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. (Colossians 3:22)

Next time someone offers a Scriptural condemnation of homosexual acts, quote that at them. Because Paul wrote that, too.

[gaius marius]

I think gaius marius has come to the rather silly conclusion that "accountability" comes largely from the state, when in fact in a capitalist society its largely meted out by private actors. His is the typical "market failure" analysis we get to see from the left from time to time.

utterly not, gg -- we've entirely miscommunicated. what i am saying is this: common social obligation is the remedy to social decline.

it matters less where that obligation is; i think the state is a horrid place for it, in fact, being the genesis of fascism. but some significant degree of common belief and dedication in something -- something not of one's choosing -- is essential for social maintenance.

the rcc offers its vision of that, which is as good or better than any other available. the neocons believe that nationalist fascism is that potential social glue; i disagree. but what cannot endure is irresponsible individualism -- not lockean capitalism, which is based upon assumptions of a moral society, but irresponsible emancipated individualism.

i can't believe that these views are new to people here. what do you all think the intellectual development of fascism and neoconservatism represents? the neocons themselves talk about it openly!

[Gary Gunnels]

The Christian resolve to find the world evil and ugly, has made the world evil and ugly. ? Friedrich Nietzsche

gaius marius,

1) the rcc is not evil a priori, and indeed much philosophy and teaching of benefit can be found in the catholic tradition; and

No one has claimed that it is of course. You are arguing against positions I have yet to see anyone actually make.

2) individualism is not good a priori, and is in fact singularly destructive to civilization if exercized outside of a solid moral framework of unchosen obligation, be it christian or otherwise;

Why is "chosen obligation" so bad? Because human beings can't be trusted?

3) the nietzschean development of kantian moral autonomy represents the rejction of obligation and therefore is the destructive antisocial mode;

Actually, Nietzsche never rejected obligation. I wish you would stop repeating the vulgar interpretations you learned of philosophers from some secondary source.

There is a lot of discussion re: obligation in Zarathustra & Beyond Good and Evil and it in no way supports your silly bastardization of Nietzsche's arguments. People always stupidly confuse Nietzsche rejection of Christian values and obligations with a rejection of internal restraints and obligations.

4) the rcc's stand against moral relativism is, in this context, best understood by secularists (like myself) as a stand in the defense of civilization by anchoring morality to a fixed point.

A fixed irrational point you mean.

[Gary Gunnels]

gaius marius,

what i am saying is this: common social obligation is the remedy to social decline.

Social obligation is largely created by the actions of independent actors. I don't see what the problem is. Now, the RCC wants to mandate its bigotry into law, and that is a problem; it becomes a menace by trying to govern.

but what cannot endure is irresponsible individualism

Individuals who are irresponsible will largely be sorted out by the individual interactions they have with others.

not lockean capitalism

Locke wasn't a capitalist.

which is based upon assumptions of a moral society, but irresponsible emancipated individualism.

Locke envisioned a society where privilege was given to legally-mandated elites. There is nothing remotely moral or individualist about such a society.

[gaius marius]

This is indeed not capitalism, it is the legally-constructed and enforced class-based society that is the exact opposite of capitalism.

mr gunnels, you may believe that smith's conception of capitalism was without morality, but if you do you have as firm a grasp on the intellectual environment of post-puritan scottish philosophy as the neoconservatives have of the events of the american tax revolt.

i am simply trying to explain how unaccountable, irresponsible individualism is undesirable

Nice strawman. No one here is arguing against accountability.

indeed, i know i am not arguing against responsible individuality, mr gunnels -- so what are you arguing for?

did i really say that?

Yes, you did. You tried to fob off any problems that the RCC might have had historically as limited exclusively to the Borgias. Review your comments.

no i did not -- read more carefully. shall i go back and cite it again for you? this is a sad misrepresentation you make -- i expect better of one who argues so often against such methods.

[Gary Gunnels]

raymond,

Well, the evils of racism, slavery, religious persecution and the like might also return; but the historical record does not require it.

[Gary Gunnels]

gaius marius,

mr gunnels, you may believe that smith's conception of capitalism was without morality...

I never claimed that it was. What it was without in the main was the government mandates that you are now defending by defending the loathesome efforts of the RCC in its attempt to keep bigotry against homosexuals as part of the law. Locke's economic ideas were riven with all manner of government meddling. The contrast between the two should be readily apparent to an honest reader.

no i did not -- read more carefully. shall i go back and cite it again for you? this is a sad misrepresentation you make -- i expect better of one who argues so often against such methods.

Its not a misrepresentation.

[gaius marius]

Social obligation is largely created by the actions of independent actors. I don't see what the problem is. Now, the RCC wants to mandate its bigotry into law, and that is a problem; it becomes a menace by trying to govern.

if obligation is created by the individual, is the individual obligated? plainly not -- he made a choice, and he could unmake it.

this is what i mean, and what you have not yet understood about my position. the pursuit of kantian moral autonomy by free will necessarily and progressively leads to the rejection of the rule of law with the growth of self-consciousness -- and we are living with the consequences of that every day in the west with the end of marriage contracts (meaning divorce).

Locke wasn't a capitalist.

this is disingenuous. read more locke more deeply.

Locke envisioned a society where privilege was given to legally-mandated elites. There is nothing remotely moral or individualist about such a society.

wrong. locke is not plebiscitarian, i agree -- but he is a mercantile capitalist by virtue of being elitist. or have you too closely conflated capitalism with the french revolution? and locke is intensely moral, though you may not share his morals.

Individuals who are irresponsible will largely be sorted out by the individual interactions they have with others.

if people are rational, which they are not.

[gaius marius]

Because human beings can't be trusted?

precisely. only in the most arrogantly idealist of individualist times do people imagine that we are rational, moral and trustworthy by nature. all of history indicates that civility inded takes massive amounts of maintenance and leadership. de maistre was closer to the truth on this point than rousseau, i submit.

people need law precisely because they cannot be trusted. law is what limits us from destroying ourselves in fits of passion. this is why the rule of law and divided power -- so central to locke -- is central to civility and capitalism. locke's ideas became central to westenr capitalism in this way, which is why it is entirely shallow to say that locke was not a capitalist. his philosophy made modern capitalism possible.

[Gary Gunnels]

Nietzsche on obligation:

But thus do as I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!

What is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil.

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.

[Gary Gunnels]

gaius marius,

if obligation is created by the individual, is the individual obligated? plainly not -- he made a choice, and he could unmake it.

And in unmaking he suffers the consequences and that is where accountability arises. There are consequences to actions after all.

the pursuit of kantian moral autonomy by free will necessarily and progressively leads to the rejection of the rule of law with the growth of self-consciousness

No, it leads to the rejection of some laws, not all laws.

this is disingenuous. read more locke more deeply.

I've read the First and Second Treatises more than you likely ever had. And I know how Locke actually practiced his life. Locke was not a capitalist. He was a mercantilist and favored a class-based society dictated by law.

locke is not plebiscitarian, i agree -- but he is a mercantile capitalist by virtue of being elitist.

He was not a capitalism. He didn't favor open markets, free trade, or any of the other hallmarks of a capitalist thinker. His ideas re: economics were rather pedestrian for his time, were mercantilist in nature, depended on a vision of a society where economies do not grow and did not reflect the later capitalist notions of the physiocrats, Smith, Bastiat, etc.

only in the most arrogantly idealist of individualist times do people imagine that we are rational, moral and trustworthy by nature.

Which is exactly what those claiming the need for a state religion always claim.

all of history indicates that civility inded takes massive amounts of maintenance and leadership.

And yet the most capitalist societies on the planet lack all these formal rules you want to put into place.

[Gary Gunnels]

gauis marius,

If anything we have learned over the past few centuries is that your Hobbesian view of the world is not correct.

BTW, if Locke was a capitalist, then so was Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

[gaius marius]

Its not a misrepresentation.

if you force me to treat you as a child, gg, i can.

what i said was

not to get too far into defending the rcc (which i don't really pray to) but their institution abrogated its philosophy and became a tool of some italian families for a few centuries. i think holding the corrupted behavior of the borgia popes to be the defining characteristic of the catholic institution isn't quite honest. the church had existed for a thousand years before that episode. did it experience a decadence and decline? yes. is that all there is to know about it? no.

what you believe that to mean is

You tried to fob off any problems that the RCC might have had historically as limited exclusively to the Borgias.

now, you're plainly reducing and misrepresenting the first in the second for the sake of argumentation. go sit in the corner and take a time out -- if your ego allows you. 🙂

i must say, this puts the cant in your constant insistence on accurate interpretation. disappointing, especially considering the virtue of the point.

[Gary Gunnels]

gaius marius,

BTW, I suggest you read Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments.

[gaius marius]

If anything we have learned over the past few centuries is that your Hobbesian view of the world is not correct.

have we indeed, mr gunnels? i submit that we may be in the slow process of learning that it has some merit. i would not think that the natural law assumptions which hobbes held are necessarily true -- hobbes is far from complete -- but the concept that man has anarchy to fear as well as tyranny is a lesson some wish we would take closer to heart.

[Gary Gunnels]

gaius marius,

If you force me to treat you like a lying prat, well so be it:

not to get too far into defending the rcc (which i don't really pray to) but their institution abrogated its philosophy and became a tool of some italian families for a few centuries.

Thereby implying that there was only a short period of RCC corruption, atrocities, etc. Clearly it was more than just a "few Italian" families at issue.

[Gary Gunnels]

gauis marius,

Indeed, let's note that your response was to a much more expansive criticism of RCC history by dhex.

the only reason such tolerance is espoused is because the vatican no longer commands an army or has any military force. they have been defanged by the competition of history, settling into the sort of cute old man routine one suspects pol pot's house arrest devolved into.

You then reduced the period of inspection down to the Borgia Papacy, when clearly dhex wasn't discussing merely that Papacy.

[Gary Gunnels]

gaius marius,

Indeed, by way of analogy, let's look at this way. If I were to claim that the USSR's history was riven with evil and you were to discount that by focusing exclusively on the period of Stalin's reign, what would that say about you as a poster?

I think one can make a pretty damn clear inference that you were trying to cover over a much broader period of evil, misrule, etc. than you are willing to admit. Yours is a well known fallacy; its the fallacy of underinclusion.

[Gary Gunnels]

gaius marius,

Now, if you have a remotely honest bone in your body you'll admit that my interpretation of your actions is perfectly acceptable. You took a broad claim re: the history of the Papacy reduced it down by response to a short period of the Papacy's history. I can only view this as a fairly deceitful attempt to deflect criticism away from the RCC.

[Gary Gunnels]

gauis marius,

And if you try to make some BS claim about the Papacy only having an army, etc. under the Borgia's note that the Papacy was committed to fighting wars of booty and aggrandizement as long ago as at least the the 8th century.

[gaius marius]

i have, gg. do you purport that smith's empiricist method makes him unchristian a priori? indeed, his advocacy of sympathy and benevolence are entirely christian, as he was a man of his times. juxtapose his moral viewpoint with the example of the ancient moral system as forwarded in machiavelli.

this goes ot the heart of a fallacy to which you apparently subscribe:

I think this is a misunderstanding of the statements of atheists. Sure theists are irrational individuals, but I and other atheists as a rule don't claim any moral authority over theists. Theists can be as irrational as they want to be, so long as they aren't putting their irrationalities into law. The latter part is what atheists are mostly concerned with, and that concern is largely tied to self-preservation. Atheists as a rule understand their precarious place in society and understand the potential for persecution.

the implication that atheism is rational is bizarre. indeed, the greatest empiricist showed that induction by enumeration is not a valid line of reason. agnosticism is rational -- the acceptance of not knowing -- but atheism is a faith in the negative proof, with as much or less credence as zoroastrianism and the other odds and ends of religion.

and what of it? faith is intrinsic to the human animal -- in a world void of causation, what is not taken ultimately on faith alone? faith is essential to living in a complex and chaotic world, even if it is the faith in the few probabilities we understand falling as they usually should. we are constructed to be faithful, not rational, because rationality is, when rigorously adhered to, of such limited use.

i say this as a great believer in rationality and enlightenment principles. but the empiricist has honestly to say that they have strict limits.

[gaius marius]

not to get too far into defending the rcc (which i don't really pray to) but their institution abrogated its philosophy and became a tool of some italian families for a few centuries.

Thereby implying that there was only a short period of RCC corruption, atrocities, etc. Clearly it was more than just a "few Italian" families at issue.

obviously, gg. which is why the implication does not exist in the original, where i further state

i think holding the corrupted behavior of the borgia popes to be the defining characteristic of the catholic institution isn't quite honest.

which is extremely far from blaming the counterreformation, for example, on the borgia.

i can debate the point, mr gunnels, but i can't help you read what i write for content. why are you trying to cling to an obvious error in interpretation?

[gaius marius]

if you have a remotely honest bone in your body you'll admit that my interpretation of your actions is perfectly acceptable.

your temerity is making me chuckle, gg. you're an apt debater -- very bold.

[Ken Shultz]

G. Marius,

At some point, I would like to see you elaborate on the topic of Locke, his understanding of religion and its relationship to your ideas about the dangers of individualism.

My understanding is that Locke rejected the idea of original sin and encouraged people to find their own path to salvation. When I see someone who seems to treat Locke with some reverence, turn around and decry the overabundance of individualism it's...surprising for want of a better term.

...To my eye, it's like seeing Hitchens--a disciple of the man who wrote "Killing an Elephant"--embrace imperialism. I'm not saying it can't be done, and I'm not pretending to have found an undiscovered contradiction--I just don't get it.

[Gary Gunnels]

gauis marius,

i think holding the corrupted behavior of the borgia popes to be the defining characteristic of the catholic institution isn't quite honest.

Of course no one was specifically holding the Borgia popes to such; dhex was discussing the overall history of the RCC. You responded to such by narrowly focusing on the Borgia's; that tactic makes no sense in light of dhex's comments.

Anyway, if you are going to irrationally cling to your effort to discount the meaning of your statements I can't really do anything about it. Now that you've committed yourself to the path of BrillyBray there is very little I can do for you.

do you purport that smith's empiricist method makes him unchristian a priori?

I've not claimed that he was unchristian. Care to misrepresent my comments even further?

Smith clearly believed that human interactions are largely (and rightly) controlled by human self-interest. He didn't view this as being incompatable with Christianity or good society.

indeed, his advocacy of sympathy and benevolence are entirely christian, as he was a man of his times. juxtapose his moral viewpoint with the example of the ancient moral system as forwarded in machiavelli.

Machiavelli of course also believed in sympathy and benevolence. You are making a basic confusion of the untutored between external and the internal in the political realm of Machiavelli. Machiavelli, like Cicero and other classical philosophers before him, differentiated between the external world where enemies could be treated mercilessly and the internal world (the citizens of the Republic) where enemies were to be treated with mercy and benevolence. Note that this perspective clashes with the medieval perspective that only members of the Christian polity (if we are to use Augustine's city of God metaphor) deserve mercy. There are a couple of books on ancient and medeival Christian political philosophy that I could point you to if you are interested.

the implication that atheism is rational is bizarre.

Only to an irrational theist. 🙂

agnosticism is rational -- the acceptance of not knowing -- but atheism is a faith in the negative proof...

Now you show yourself to be untutored again. Atheism comes in several flavors; you assume from the outset that I am an atheist who claims that I can demonstrate the non-existance of God(s). Yet on any number of occasions - some of which you have surely seen - I have eschewed such a belief. Maybe some research into the diversity of thought which represents atheism might be helpful for you to pursue.

faith is intrinsic to the human animal...

Based on what? Can you name the gene which makes faith intrinsic?

...in a world void of causation...

My world isn't void of causation; maybe yours is. 🙂

we are constructed to be faithful

Demonstrate it. You make a whole series of a priori truth claims that should largely be treated with incredulity.

[Gary Gunnels]

Ken Shultz,

gaius marius is largel plastering about the blog - as far as I can tell - Book IV of Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. However, despite this, he fails to understand Locke's true understanding of "faith" and "reason." Locke doesn't claim - as gaius marius implies - that faith is something beyond reason, indeed Locke clearly states that truthfulness or at least probability of truthfulness of faith can be measured by reason.

[Gary Gunnels]

Ken Shultz,

Indeed, let me quote Locke:

One who:

...takes away Reason to make way for Revelation, puts out the Light of both, and does much what the same, as if he would perswade a Man to put out his eyes, the better to receive the remote Light of an invisible Star by a Telescope.

Accordingly, he tears asunder the notion that faith is beyond reason.

[Jennifer]

Gary-
I think what the Pope is saying is this: the area between your legs can be used for procreation, urination, or defecation ONLY. Anything else is pure evil which glorifies a culture of death.

[Jennifer]

Nope, nothing irrational about THAT.

[kmw]

General Lowercase sez:

"the implication that atheism is rational is bizarre. indeed, the greatest empiricist showed that induction by enumeration is not a valid line of reason. agnosticism is rational -- the acceptance of not knowing -- but atheism is a faith in the negative proof, with as much or less credence as zoroastrianism and the other odds and ends of religion."

I don't claim that no gods exist, or even that it isn't possible that one can exist. I just acknowledge that thus far, all deities posited collapse under their own illogical weight.

If that's what you call agnosticism, fine. I call it weak atheism.

If you claim that the CHRISTIAN deity can't be proven or disproved, I call bullshit. I have plenty of proof.

[Jadagul]

Gaius Marius, I have a question for you: have you read Erich Fromm's Escape from Freedom? It seems to cover much of what you usually talk about--people's inability to properly handle a life of total license and unrestraint, and their desires to escape into fascism or some other un-autonomous state to avoid the pressures of freedom. If you haven't read it, I think you'd be interested; if you have, I'd like to know what you think of it.

Also, I'm curious about something else. I think I agree with you that no free society can exist stably without some sort of basic moral framework. The place I tend to disagree with you--and this may be only inexact wording, and not a substantive dispute--is your insistance that this moral framework must be based on "unchosen obligations." Would this include strict obligations to one's self? My personal moral code, for instance, puts me first--I live for my own happiness--but isn't a moral code of "I can do whatever I want." Instead I claim that several types of actions--lying, theft, unprovoked violence, etc.--are wrong, not because of an abstract obligation to others, but because they're bad for me. Does this fall into the category you refer to as "unchosen obligations"?

[crimethink]

At the risk of returning to the topic (gasp), I think the pope is saying that there is much more to the "culture of life" than its opposition to killing (ie, abortion, euthanasia, etc).

He is also pointing out what the COL must support, the raising and education of children. He has often spoken and written of the West's "contraceptive mentality", that is, the unwillingness to make the sacrifices of time and wealth required to bring children into the world. It is by nurturing the contraceptive mentality that he argues contraception encourages abortion, rather than prevents it.

I suspect in his view, that a gay marriage can even be considered a marriage at all, shows how much we misunderstand what marriage is all about -- producing children. It is this misunderstanding that leads to the below-replacement fertility rates common in W. Europe (and soon in the US).

[Gary Gunnels]

Jadagul,

As I pointed out, that is exactly where gaius marius' argument falls apart. Indeed, one has to ask, is it possible to have an "unchosen obligation?" Who is giving us an obligation aside from us? It seems to me that choice - at one level or another - is going to be involved in any obligation, even if that choice is minimal or otherwise ill-considered.

crimethink,

..I think the pope is saying that there is much more to the "culture of life" than its opposition to killing (ie, abortion, euthanasia, etc).

The COL of being the idea that we are mere factories of procreation for God.

He is also pointing out what the COL must support, the raising and education of children.

That we are factories for procreation in other words.

He has often spoken and written of the West's "contraceptive mentality", that is, the unwillingness to make the sacrifices of time and wealth required to bring children into the world.

Because are factories of procreation. Procreation being our sole role on this planet.

I suspect in his view, that a gay marriage can even be considered a marriage at all, shows how much we misunderstand what marriage is all about -- producing children.

Why is marraige all about producing children? Why can't it be about what individuals want it to be about?

[Gary Gunnels]

If crimethink is right, its amazing how many similarities there are between the Nazi ideology of marraige and procreation and the Catholic ideology of marraige and procreation.

[Gary Gunnels]

Of course it wouldn't be the first time that the Papacy and Catholics generally hooked up with the Nazis. 🙂

[Gary Gunnels]

Nazis: People must procreate to serve the state.

Pope: People must procreate to serve God.

[Gary Gunnels]

crimethink,

It is this misunderstanding that leads to the below-replacement fertility rates common in W. Europe (and soon in the US).

That's of course if you buy into 50-100 year population predictions. From my POV they are less valid than climate change predictions are.

[Stevo Darkly]

Mike Godwin, clean-up in Aisle 14! 🙂

[crimethink]

Gary Gunnels,

I'm talking about fertility rates, which are based on current data, not predictions of the future. If a population's birth rate is less than its death rate, that population will decline. On that you can rely.

[crimethink]

If the pope believes that procreation is our sole purpose on this earth, then why has he so conspicuously failed in this duty? This is either a glaring contradiction at the heart of his philosophy, or an indication that his message is more complex than you suppose. I would lean towards the latter.

[crimethink]

Why is marraige all about producing children? Why can't it be about what individuals want it to be about?

Because individuals (and groups of individuals) are not always right. That there are individuals who want the world to be flat does not make it so.

[crimethink]

Of course, keep in mind that I don't subscribe to all of JP2's political views, and contrary to popular belief, his teaching authority in the Church does not include matters of politics, only faith and morals.

Thus, I find myself in disagreement with him on whether modern states should practice capital punishment, legalize drugs, provide assistance to the poor, and a host of economic issues. In other words, if you're going to attack me, do so for my political views, not his. GG, I'm talking to you... 🙂

[Gary Gunnels]

crimethink,

I'm talking about fertility rates, which are based on current data, not predictions of the future. If a population's birth rate is less than its death rate, that population will decline.

Note that according to population forecasters China at this date is supposed to have 200-300 people million in it than it does today.

But the predictions of the future are based on *current* fertility rates. All a current fertility rate tells you is what is happening now, not what will happen in the future. Given the rapid changes in fertility rates we've seen in the world over the past few hundred years it would be foolish to assume that past fertility rates can predict future ones. I hope you are less confused now.

If the pope believes that procreation is our sole purpose on this earth, then why has he so conspicuously failed in this duty? This is either a glaring contradiction at the heart of his philosophy, or an indication that his message is more complex than you suppose. I would lean towards the latter.

Our = the non-clergy of course.

Because individuals (and groups of individuals) are not always right. That there are individuals who want the world to be flat does not make it so.

*yawn* This is a non-answer answer. Try again. You are making a claim here, try to substantiate with something more than an extended version of "I am right and you are wrong. Enough said." Shit, you are sounding like BrillyBray.

...his teaching authority in the Church does not include matters of politics, only faith and morals.

Bullshit; Popes have always claimed a role and authority in matters political.

[kmw]

General Lowercase,

At any rate, here?s my summary on the matter:

Collectivists and Individualists both believe in individualism. Collectivists believe in individualism for a few at the top, Individualists believe in individualism for everybody.

Which is why you find Collectivist movements eventually collapsing under their own bureaucratic weight. Some just take longer than others. Be they Popes or Premiers.

[crimethink]

All a current fertility rate tells you is what is happening now, not what will happen in the future.

True, but what I'm saying is that fertility rates are not merely low, but declining; and if indeed a contraceptive mentality is to blame for this trend, it will have to be shed for them to rise above the minimum to stave off depopulation.

You are making a claim here, try to substantiate with something more than an extended version of "I am right and you are wrong. Enough said."

Nick's original post purported to show a contradiction between the pope's COL/COD "rap" and his opposition to gay marriage. I am merely pointing out that these are not necessarily inconsistent. I'm not trying to convince anyone of their veracity at this time, so there's no need to produce evidence for my view of the purpose of marriage.

And I never said that I was right or you wrong, just that "it is whatever individuals want it to be" is not an appropriate response to every issue. I believe that individuals should be free to seek out and find the truth in their own way, but ultimately it is what it is, regardless of what they want it to be.

[crimethink]

Bullshit; Popes have always claimed a role and authority in matters political.

For most of the history of the Church since Constantine, this is true, though certainly not always. Yet, a claim to authority is not authority itself. And the relevant doctrine, the much-maligned papal infallibility, posits that the pope's teaching is guaranteed to be free from error only on matters of faith and morals (and only under other specific conditions).

Of course, JP2 has tried to use his influence to sway political decisions, both in the areas of capital punishment and the Iraq war; but he never claimed the authority to lay down the law in those areas, as he has on the issues of women in the priesthood and abortion.

[Stevo Darkly]

I'm neither particularly inclined nor particularly well-equipped to serve as an apologist on the Pope's views here, and I don't want to expend much energy on it, but I'll toss in a few things.

The Pope does not believe people are factories for procreation. He does, however, believe our reproductive organs are factories for procreation. (What in fact is their biological purpose? Are they actually factories for pleasure?)

It has always been the official view of the RCC hierarchy (and a dwindling number of rank-and-file Catholics) that people should only have sex if they are at least open to the possibility that the act may result in a child. Given the effectiveness of contraceptives over most of history, this is not an unreasonable expectation.

(There is some real-world basis for being concerned about this. If a couple engages in sex for pleasure only, and actively don't want it to result in a kid, then if a kid does result, they are less likely to be willing and capable of providing the right upbringing. In other words, the little bastard is more likely to be unloved and poor. Or aborted.)

Therefore, engaging in sex for pleasure only is seen as selfish.

The combination of sex + selfishness is seen as unhealthy, and posing a danger to the person's morals and possibly making them more likely to mistreat (use) someone else. If you've ever known someone who pursues sex selfishly, you know there may be some basis to this.

The Pope's view of engaging in sex for something other than procreation is a little like the view of someone eating for something other than nourishment. In the extreme case, consider someone who is a glutton who loves indulging in rich foods, but then pukes it all up to avoid weight gain. Many people would see that as wasteful and unhealthy.
-----------------

I don't subscribe to the point of view I just described. I think it contains a certain amount of sense, but is a string of increasingly attenuated slippery slopes (bad metaphor). It also leaves out the possibility of having sex, in part, to give pleasure to the other person, which I can't see as selfish, even if you don't want a kid to result. (I think the papal view is that it's still selfish because you're really just "using" each other.)

Even though I disagree with it, I believe it is an error to think the papal view is just simple-minded or hate-driven. If you assume it's only that, you'll make very little headway against it.

[Gary Gunnels]

crimethink,

True, but what I'm saying is that fertility rates are not merely low, but declining; and if indeed a contraceptive mentality is to blame for this trend, it will have to be shed for them to rise above the minimum to stave off depopulation.

I doubt that its a contraceptive mentality; I suspect that its due to education and prosperity. China's birth rate only started dropping rapidly as it has when prosperity hit. You see this throughout human history. More prosperous society tend to have lower birth rates.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of their veracity at this time, so there's no need to produce evidence for my view of the purpose of marriage.

Yeah, that explains your claim that some individuals are just deluded about the issue. What a cop out. Here you make a fact claim and you try to explain away as mere procedural issue.

For most of the history of the Church since Constantine, this is true, though certainly not always.

Well, since the Church started with Constantine that takes up most of its history; even the Papacy today claims political control in places like Spain where it has tried to enforce government mandated Catholic religion classes in Spanish public schools (if that doesn't disgust people I don't know what will).

Yet, a claim to authority is not authority itself. And the relevant doctrine, the much-maligned papal infallibility, posits that the pope's teaching is guaranteed to be free from error only on matters of faith and morals (and only under other specific conditions).

Apparently the doctrine doesn't keep Popes from trying to exercise political power; whether it was meant to or not thus doesn't appear to make much of a difference.

...but he never claimed the authority to lay down the law in those areas, as he has on the issues of women in the priesthood and abortion.

Actually, as I recall, during the Oregon referendums on euthanasia (note that Oregonians voted twice in favor of an assisted-suicide law, the second coming after a challenge by the RCC, etc.) the RCC put out bold ads claiming that Catholics were ordered by the papacy to vote against these referendums. If that isn't a claim of political authority I don't know what is.

[Stevo Darkly]

I would like to make an edit:

Change "If you've ever known someone who pursues sex selfishly, you know there may be some basis to this." to "If you've ever known someone who truly does have a selfish attitude about sex, you know there may be some basis to this." I don't mean "selfish" necessarily as the Pope defines it, but in general.

[Gary Gunnels]

Stevo Darkly,

(What in fact is their biological purpose? Are they actually factories for pleasure?)

Clearly they serve some sort of pleasure purpose. Let's note that in many species sex isn't pleasureable; its often painful and sometimes even deadly.

...that people should only have sex if they are at least open to the possibility that the act may result in a child. Given the effectiveness of contraceptives over most of history, this is not an unreasonable expectation.

Whether it is reasonable depends on one's viewpoint; why the RCC should be mandated by law as the RCC claims is another matter.

(In other words, the little bastard is more likely to be unloved and poor. Or aborted.)

Well, since human beings do often primarily engage in sex for pleasure, all the better to have the option of contraceptives, abortion, etc. The RCC option is a bit like hiding one's head in the sand.

If you've ever known someone who pursues sex selfishly, you know there may be some basis to this.

Well, that is that individual's problem of course.

Many people would see that as wasteful and unhealthy.

But again, that is that individual's problem.

And what of the RCC's position? Doesn't it create all manner of psychological problems?

Even though I disagree with it, I believe it is an error to think the papal view is just simple-minded or hate-driven.

As I've learned from reading a great on the subject, the NAZI ideology was hardly simple-minded or exclusively driven by hate; nevertheless, I find it despicable. Similarly, I find the Pope's bigotry loathesome.

Complexity of position doesn't save that position from ridicule.

[Gary Gunnels]

Anyway, at base the Pope wants everyone to think as he does and to use the coercive power of the state to do so if necessary. He's like any other petty despot.

[raymond]

Well, the evils of racism, slavery, religious persecution and the like might also return; but the historical record does not require it.

You think they've disappeared then?

Read your newspaper.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"? Wake up.

Nazis: People must procreate to serve the state.

Pope: People must procreate to serve God.

The Church does not say that.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. (Catechism)

I haven't read the Pope's latest book. (I doubt anyone else here has, either.) But I presume it's consistent with Church teaching, and far more subtly argued than most people here are giving it credit for.

imo, Arguments like "pope=hitler" and "die old man" are counterproductive. All they can do is convince believers that we (eg, libertarians) are part of a "culture of evil".

I believe that individuals should be free to seek out and find the truth in their own way, but ultimately it is what it is, regardless of what they want it to be.

I believe that absolute truth is what it is, but that it's irrelevant to how we live our lives.

Finally...

"Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again."

"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

Book I, Chapter 2 LOTR

[Gary Gunnels]

raymond,

Well, the evils of racism, slavery, religious persecution and the like might also return; but the historical record does not require it.

Quite obviously I was referring to state-sponsored racism, etc. Don't decontextualize my statements.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. (Catechism)

Which is besides the point; it doesn't actually address my point re: humans being reproductive vehicles. Something on point would be helpful. 🙂

...and far more subtly argued than most people here are giving it credit for.

It can be as subtle as it wants to be; its still discriminatory towards homosexuals.

imo, Arguments like "pope=hitler" and "die old man" are counterproductive. All they can do is convince believers that we (eg, libertarians) are part of a "culture of evil".

No one claimed that the Pope=Hitler. I did draw out the similarity between the Pope's apparent notion of what human beings are for and the Nazi notion of what human beings are for.

Yeah, the shadow takes the shape of the RCC this time.

[kevrob]

They (homosexuals) are not allowed--ever--to have sex. - Rhywun

I'm a straight, single guy, so until some woman suffers enough brain damage to agree to marry me, I'm not supposed to have any sex either.

Yet another good reason that I turned in my altar boy's cassock. 🙂

As for chosen v. unchosen obligations, following convention regarding capitalization and grammar is not coerced, but it is good manners. Is e e cummings as much a harbinger of rampant unconstrained individualism as Nietzsche?

Kevin

[raymond]

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."

1800 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.

These come from the Catechism.

One of the jobs the Church thinks it's got is to help in the formation of that conscience.

(I suggest you go check out the Catechism. It's interesting. For example, the sections on chastity and marriage.)

it doesn't actually address my point re: humans being reproductive vehicles. Something on point would be helpful.

Oh, it does. According to the Church, celibacy is a noble state. But it's not for everyone. As Paul said: "It is better to marry than to burn."

(You have to remember that the early Church thought Judgment Day was just around the corner.)

It can be as subtle as it wants to be; its still discriminatory towards homosexuals.

Baloney. It's not any more discriminatory towards homosexuals than it is to heterosexual fellators (to orgasm) or masturbators.

Yeah, the shadow takes the shape of the RCC this time.

Oh, I hardly think so.

The "Shadow" takes the form of those who would deny the following:

1789 Some rules apply in every case:

- One may never do evil so that good may result from it;

- the Golden Rule: "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."

- charity always proceeds by way of respect for one's neighbor and his conscience: "Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ." Therefore "it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble."

[Stevo Darkly]

Yo, Gary G:

Clearly [reproductive organs] serve some sort of pleasure purpose.

They provide pleasure as a side effect, but is that what they're for?

Let's note that in many species sex isn't pleasureable; its often painful and sometimes even deadly.

Those would be species driven strongly by instinct, which allows (or drives) them to overcome the disincentives. (The smartest animal I know of that has really painful sex is the cat -- barbed penises.) In animals where behavior is more conscious and less stereotyped, like humans, I think evolution had to make it pleasurable or else we wouldn't choose to get ourselves into such awkward and vulnerable positions. But again, that's a side effect, not what sex evolved for.

Well, since human beings do often primarily engage in sex for pleasure, all the better to have the option of contraceptives, abortion, etc. The RCC option is a bit like hiding one's head in the sand.

I tend to agree, about contraception anyway, although in that statement there's an element of "since a lot of people are going to do 'A' anyway, even though they should do 'B,' we should reshape the rules to they can't be adhered to," which is kind of nonsensical. I would say the RCC has high expectations that most human beings will never actually reach, but that's kind of a religion's job (unlike secular law, which has a more pragmatic function).

(Darkly) Many people would see that [gluttony + bulimia] as wasteful and unhealthy.

(GG) But again, that is that individual's problem.

Yeah, but a doctor would see it as his/her job to speak out against it. Similarly, the Pope sees his job as speaking out on issues like this, to members of the RCC (and anyone else who will listen). You may well respond, rightly, that you are not in any obligation to listen, nor can acceptance of the Pope's view be compelled by force.

And what of the RCC's position? Doesn't it create all manner of psychological problems?

I think you have a point there. But I think it is more likely to cause problems among people who try to follow it without understanding the reasoning behind it.

Complexity of position doesn't save that position from ridicule.

But do you think ridicule is the most effective way of persuading people to change their minds? Especially about their religious views? Or are you interested in persuasion? Does your ridicule have another purpose?

Anyway, at base the Pope wants everyone to think as he does and to use the coercive power of the state to do so if necessary. He's like any other petty despot.

Actually, he's like almost any other (non-libertarian) social activist.

Actually, as I recall, during the Oregon referendums on euthanasia (note that Oregonians voted twice in favor of an assisted-suicide law, the second coming after a challenge by the RCC, etc.) the RCC put out bold ads claiming that Catholics were ordered by the papacy to vote against these referendums. If that isn't a claim of political authority I don't know what is.

It's not a claim of political authority, and you don't know what one is. 🙂 It's actually a claim of moral authority, and it's only directed at members of the Pope's flock, which is his proper sphere of authority. It's only indirectly aimed at the political structure. The Pope isn't trying to get a papal edict made directly into law. He is trying to tell Catholics how to make a decision.

That Catholics have the ability to take that decisio into a voting booth, and use the force of the State to keep people from taking part in a consensual act, is wrong -- but that's not a flaw of the Pope or anything most people would recognize as a religion. It's an intrinsic moral flaw of making decisions by "democratic" (majoritarchy) vote, whether the voter bases his decision on what the Pope says, or Noam Chomsky says, or the Rev. Martin Luther King says, or Anyn Rand says, or Michael Moore says, or whatever.

[Stevo Darkly]

Dammit, I previewed.

In the parag. that begins "I tend to agree," the part "we should reshape the rules to they can't be adhered to" should have been "we should reshape the rules to assume they can't be adhered to"

Also, last two sentence of the 2nd-to-last paragraph: "The Pope isn't trying to get a papal edict made directly into law. He is trying to tell Catholics how to make a decision."

Let's clarify that: "The Pope isn't trying to subvert or change the political system to get a papal edict made directly into law. He is trying to tell Catholics how to make a decision that has been put into their hands by the political system."

[Stevo Darkly]

Crap, I can't type. I hereby resign as "pope's advocate" and am going to bed.

[Gary Gunnels]

Stevo Darkly,

They provide pleasure as a side effect, but is that what they're for?

Isn't that a matter of wholly subjective opinion? For some people they may be for reproduction, for others pleasure, for others both equally, etc.

In animals where behavior is more conscious and less stereotyped, like humans, I think evolution had to make it pleasurable or else we wouldn't choose to get ourselves into such awkward and vulnerable positions. But again, that's a side effect, not what sex evolved for.

Who is to say that our biology is our master? Clearly it isn't. We change our biology all the time. So, even if you are right, this argument seems to falter when it comes to conscience choice to ignore or bypass our biology.

...which is kind of nonsensical.

Not if you view individual liberty as the primary locus of decision making.

I would say the RCC has high expectations that most human beings will never actually reach, but that's kind of a religion's job (unlike secular law, which has a more pragmatic function).

The RCC's opinions on the matter shouldn't be allowed to hold sway over my options unless I want them to.

You may well respond, rightly, that you are not in any obligation to listen, nor can acceptance of the Pope's view be compelled by force.

As long as the Pope understands that, well that's fine. I've never argued for freedom from criticism; I argue for freedom from coercion.

I think you have a point there. But I think it is more likely to cause problems among people who try to follow it without understanding the reasoning behind it.

May or maybe not. But there certainly are a shitload of fucked up ex-Catholics as far as I can tell. 🙂

But do you think ridicule is the most effective way of persuading people to change their minds? Especially about their religious views? Or are you interested in persuasion? Does your ridicule have another purpose?

I think you change opinions generationally; that's why I see ridicule as a good thing. Those who have bought into the system aren't likely to move away from it, but their kids are because their opinions aren't yet set.

It's not a claim of political authority, and you don't know what one is.

Sure it is. Its a claim that the RCC has the ability to tell people how to vote. That's a claim of political authority. Note that authority means the power to give orders; here he claims the power to give orders in political matters. That the political matters have some sort of moral dimension is another issue. You appear to be using the term to mean set in government or some such.

[Gary Gunnels]

...seat in government...

[Stevo Darkly]

PS:

Kevin, tomorrow I hope to hear more about that Nietzschean despoiler of order, e e cummings.

-------------
Interesting arguments, people.

[Gary Gunnels]

Stevo Darkly,

Yes, they are interesting.

[kevrob]

They provide pleasure as a side effect, but is that what they're for? - Stevo D.

Isn't that a matter of wholly subjective opinion? For some people they may be for reproduction, for others pleasure, for others both equally, etc. - Gary G.

Perhaps, at least for men, sex is an anti-carcinogen.

Results were striking: Men having the most orgasms reduced their prostate cancer risk by a full third compared with those men reporting the fewest orgasms. The same pattern held true for those who landed in between the extremes, including an 11 percent reduced cancer risk for those estimating eight to 12 monthly ejaculations and a 14 percent decrease for those in the 13- to-20 ejaculation group. - Carl T. Hall in The San Francisco Chronicle, reporting on a National Cancer Institute study, April 7, 2004

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/04/07/MNGS161ML91.DTL

All you celibates and unmarried guys: Chastity causes cancer!

Stevo: I'm awaiting gaius' explanation that he has myasthenia gravis in his pinkies. 🙂

Kevin

[Gary Gunnels]

kevrob,

Fucking as a way fight disease. Interesting. 🙂

I need to rent more pr0n I guess. 🙂

[crimethink]

So, GG, if I understand you correctly, if the Church tells Catholics how it thinks they should vote in a referendum*, it's exercising undue political authority? I'm curious, would you apply this standard to labor unions and other non-religious organizations that routinely tell their members how they should vote? If not, I suggest that you take a look at your own bigotry.

* of course, the Church could never explicitly advocate or oppose a candidate for office, without jeopardizing its tax-exempt status.

[crimethink]

Apparently the doctrine doesn't keep Popes from trying to exercise political power

Outside of the Vatican City, the pope has zero direct political power. Just like any other international figure, he has to work through the power of persuasion. Again, is there some reason why the Church, alone among international organizations, shouldn't advocate for its interests?

My point about the infallibility doctrine was that, whatever the behavior of individual popes, Catholics are not required to adhere to their purely political views, insofar as they do not touch on matters of faith and morals. Hence my disagreement with JP2 on a host of political issues. Actually, I'm still undecided on the question of legalizing euthanasia.

[dhex]

"All they can do is convince believers that we (eg, libertarians) are part of a "culture of evil."

you are right, in some sense.

however...what do you do when that "culture of evil" is a large part of one's political goals? i want abortion legal, i want drugs legalized, some form of gay marriage if we cannot drive the state from the business entirely, i want to eliminate laws against porn and vibrators and other forms of consensual adult sexuality, and so forth.

this is clearly not in the goalbook for many religious (and non religious, of course) organization, especially in the united states. outside of eliminating the death penalty, which is one area catholicism has been fairly straightforward in (and again, this is largely because they no longer have the political ability to enforce it themselves, P2/opus dei conspiracy theories aside)

it's definitely a bit creepy to discuss with friends of varying degrees of faith their religious education backgrounds. to see their neuroses regarding golgotha illustrations or severe misconceptions about condoms (and i mean fucking severe)

mine ended long before confirmation, and was hindered by a variety of lucky factors. theirs, including my wife's, included a whole host of insane, counterproductive and ultimately evil positions.

i feel if you teach a child that masturbation is evil, you're a child abuser - and a fucking asshole.

they're part of the problem of humanity's inhumanity, and instead of being a man or woman about it and taking on adults, they have to pick on children whose critical reasoning skills haven't necessarily congealed yet. i understand it's a bedrock or a cornerstone, but at the same time they're churning out a number of half-convinced neurotics who have to go through years of self-doubt - or worse, a black metal phase - in order to get someplace decent with it.

gross.

[Stevo Darkly]

Kevin: Perhaps, at least for men, sex is an anti-carcinogen.... All you celibates and unmarried guys: Chastity causes cancer!

I self-medicate a lot.

[Stevo Darkly]

By the way, maybe I can clear something that is widely misunderstood about the notion of "papal infallibility." Contrary to what some may think, not everything that droobles out of the Pope's mouth is held to be "infallible" by the RCC. The Pope is considered to be infallible only when speaking on matters of faith, doctrine and morals, and even then only when speaking in very limited and formal circumstances, ex cathedra ("from the chair").

E.g., if the Pope says, "It's wrong to masturbate" he is not held to be "infallible."

Only if the Pope says, "Ay yo trip, I am now speaking ex cathedra here, y'all: It's wrong to masturbate," then he is held to be infallible.

What most people, even most Catholics, do not know is that in the entire history of the Roman Catholic Church, popes have only spoken ex cathedra a grand total of ...

(drum roll)

... TWO freakin' times. And I believe both times were to designate feast days in honor of Mary.

The Pope does not quite clamp down on Catholics' conscience and reasoning as much as some people appear to assume.

By the way, I first learned the facts about papal infallibility by reading the book Last of the Moe Haircuts: The Influence of the Three Stooges on Twentieth-Century Culture. It's a pretty good satire of academic writing, or any kind of writing that assumes a thesis and then cherry-picks, forces and tortures the data to support it. But the chapter on "The Influence of the Three Stooges on the Papacy" was quite insightful, as well as funny.

See, there are basically three types of popes: "Moe popes" (authoritarians), "Curly popes" (reformers and upsetters of the establishment and reformers) and "Larry popes" (reconcilers). "The Pope knew the world was ready for a message, and that message was, 'Nyuk-nyuk-nyuk.' "...

[kevrob]

The Stooge-Pope Theory sounds like the Church of The SubGenius, to me.

http://www.geocities.com/bloodstar84/3stooges_stang.html

Get thee slack, brother!

Kevin