Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[Abu]

Facing Reality-- the facts on the disorder of homosexual orientation.
Against the unscientific hype, the facts are:
Jeffrey Satinover, MD is a Board_Certified Psychiatrist. He holds degrees from MIT (S.B., Humanities and Science), Harvard (Ed.M., Clinical Psychology and Public Practice), the University of Texas (M.D.) and Yale (M.S., Physics.) He completed his residency in Psychiatry at Yale with a year as Fellow of The Yale Child Study Center. He holds a Diploma in Analytical Psychology from the C. G. Jung Institute of Zurich. Dr. Satinover has practiced psychotherapy and/or psychiatry since 1974.
On April 28, 2004, psychiatrist Dr. Jeffrey Satinover testified before the Massachusetts Senate Judicial Committee on various issues surrounding the subject homosexuality and the future of the family in America.
A summary of important conclusions follow:

Claim1. That homosexuality has been repeatedly demonstrated to be, and is in fact, an innate, genetically determined condition.

Simon LeVay, a neuroanatomist at The Salk Institute in San Diego, founded the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Education in San Francisco after researching and publishing the study of hypothalamic structures in men most widely cited as confirming innate brain differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, as he himself initially argued. He later acknowledged: “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”
Dr. Mark Breedlove at the University of California at Berkeley, referring to his own research: "[My] findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it. t is possible that differences in sexual behavior cause (rather than are caused) by differences in the brain."

Prominent research teams Byne & Parsons, and Friedman & Downey, both concluded that there was no evidence to support a biologic theory, but rather that homosexuality could be best explained by an alternative model where “temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual’s sexuality emerges.”

Claim 2. That homosexuality is an immutable state of an individual.

Dr. Robert Spitzer, the prominent psychiatrist and researcher at Columbia University has been the chief architect of the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic manual and he was the chief decision-maker in the 1973 removal of homosexuality from the diagnostic manual. He considers himself a gay-affirmative psychiatrist, and a long time supporter of gay rights. He has long been convinced that homosexuality is neither a disorder nor changeable. Because of the increasingly heated debate over the latter point within the professional community, Spitzer decided to conduct his own study of the matter.

He concluded:
“I’m convinced from the people I have interviewed, that for many of them, they have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual…I think that’s news…I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes can be sustained.” When he presented his results to the Gay and Lesbian committees of the APA, anticipating a scientific debate, he was shocked to be met with intense pressure to withhold his findings for political reasons. Dr. Spitzer has subsequently received considerable “hate mail” and complaints from his colleagues because of his research. Douglas C. Haldeman, Ph.D., an independent practitioner in Seattle, WA, is a prominent gay-affirmative theorist. He comments, “From the perspective of gay theorists and activists. . . the question of conversion therapy’s efficacy, or lack thereof, is irrelevant. It has been seen as a social phenomenon, one that is driven by anti-gay prejudice in society…”

 

[verum_peto_1]

1. LeVay’s research is about 20 years old. He is in the eugenics camp, and heavily influenced by the luminaries in that field. While his opinions on sexuality are on the fringe of mainstream thinking, he does raise some interesting questions. His name entered the media when he discovered some possible structural differences related to sexuality in the hypothalmus.Nobody really knew what the significance of his findings might be.
2. I doubt that anyone would claim that sexuality is immutable. However the confusion between sexuality and sexual behavior persists in religious talk on the topic.

The large issue here is that the Church becomes less relevant in educated countries every year. Given its shameful history in relation to scientific discovery, the faster the rate of change in science accelerates, the faster the role of the Church declines.

This is sad, because the more scientific and technological change we need to cope with, the more we need a moral anchor. Yet, the Church chooses to be increasingly irrelevant. Other churches and religions will fill the void left behind.

 

[momor]

1. LeVay’s research is about 20 years old. He is in the eugenics camp, and heavily influenced by the luminaries in that field. While his opinions on sexuality are on the fringe of mainstream thinking, he does raise some interesting questions. His name entered the media when he discovered some possible structural differences related to sexuality in the hypothalmus.Nobody really knew what the significance of his findings might be.
2. I doubt that anyone would claim that sexuality is immutable. However the confusion between sexuality and sexual behavior persists in religious talk on the topic.

The large issue here is that the Church becomes less relevant in educated countries every year. Given its shameful history in relation to scientific discovery, the faster the rate of change in science accelerates, the faster the role of the Church declines.

This is sad, because the more scientific and technological change we need to cope with, the more we need a moral anchor. Yet, the Church chooses to be increasingly irrelevant. Other churches and religions will fill the void left behind.

The Church is not irrelevant in the scientific moral and ethical debates of the day. The moral relativists simply refuse to accept what the Church has to say. What started as a slide down a slippery slope is turning into an avalanche of advancing any means to an end.

 

[verum_peto_1]

My hope would be that the Church could provide an important moral compass, which is very necessary, particularly since the hallmark of science and technology is that it is not merely growing, but that the rate of growth is growing.

In other words, more has changed in the past 100 years than in the previous 1,000 years. More than changed in the past 15 years than in the 50 years preceding it. In the next 50 years, we will see more change than has every been seen in all of history, in terms of technology and science.

When the Church takes an untenable position, as it has in the past on the structure of the universe, or on evolution - to name a couple of the big ones, then it makes itself irrelevant to the discussion. It seems at times to be unable to differentiate between moral issues and scientific issues.

The reason that this is relevant to this thread, is that the Church will become as irrelevant to discussions of sexuality as it is about gravitation or evolution, unless it gets its act together. For example, one constantly hears religious apologists confusing sexuality with sexual behavior, and condemning both, when the former is becoming accepted as human nature and not volitional. If this line of thinking persists, then such apologists will find themselves to be strident voices with nobody listening, because society has moved on.

This is true “generationally.” Studies clearly show that the majority of Americans under the age of 35-40 are in favor of gay marriage, while the majority over the age of 45-50 are opposed to gay marriage. The reason for this is that younger people are better informed with respect to the nature of sexuality.

But this is only one issue. If people laugh when the Pope speaks, because he seems so out of touch with both reality and modernity, then what he says will be dismissed, and regardless of the importance of his message - it will not be heard. The history of the Church on social issues, such as Nazism, or pederasty, more recently, does not enhance its image or its credibility. It’s history with respect to scientific findings in physics, astronomy, biology, psychology, and so forth is truly abominable.

While JP II was able to maintain a conservative religious view, while appearing to be connected to the modern world, I fear that things do not bode well for B XI’s, based on his inauspicious beginnings. He seems incapable of bridging the gap. He needs to be more than a scholar and a Church bureaucrat.

 

[davidv]

.David V quote - Your position is quite clear. Based on one example of one apparently happy relationship you have declared same sex intimacy “not wrong”. The points made are a direct rebutal of this conclusion, and is based a far greater number of cases

Not one - lots! Not ‘apparently’ happy - actually happy.
And, if I am correct in my arguments showing that gay sex between faithful couples is morally acceptable, the number of gay people who are promiscuous is quite irrelevant.

Laure

You are not correct. You arguments have not shown that gay sex is morally acceptable. That gay sex is morally unacceptable has been quite ably demonstrated.

 

[Abu]

**Facing Reality on the disorder of homosexuality **
As pragmatist William James found: many who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices - typical of verum peto.

Of course the disorder is part of the baggage of Original Sin, but the refusal to face reality results in homomania, noticeably in those who label as homophobic all who do not accept the disorder as “natural”.

The two appendices in Fr Harvey’s book, written by one, a male doctor and two, a female doctor, explain the psychological influences and the practicality of healing for many who want to be healed, and Fr Harvey’s Courage Groups operate on this principle.

This healing has been confirmed by Dr Satinover among others, and the American Psychological Association in 2008 had to backtrack on its 1998 statement that heredity played a “significant role in homosexuality.

In 2008 it stated that “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…”
[narth.com/docs/deemphasizes.html]](http://www.narth.com/docs/deemphasizes.html])

They are still unwilling to recognise the work done by Fr Harvey, Dr Satinover and Dr Spitzer in healing the disorder. It is reminiscent of the climate change hype in which many were gored by a bull.

Of the Spitzer research, psychologist Dr. Scott Hershberger (who is a philosophical essentialist on questions of sexual orientation) conducted a Guttman analysis of the study sample, and declared:
“The orderly, law-like pattern of changes in homosexual behavior, homosexual self-identification, and homosexual attraction and fantasy observed in Spitzer’s study is strong evidence that reparative therapy can assist individuals in changing their homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one.”

This has been a God-send to those so afflicted and many are doing a great work of real love.

 

[Abu]

Facing Reality – there is no one who can replace the natural moral law
In Making Men Moral, his 1995 book, Professor Robert P George questioned the central doctrines of liberal jurisprudence and political theory. In his new work he extends his critique of liberalism, and also goes beyond it to show how contemporary natural law theory provides a superior way of thinking about basic problems of justice and political morality. Students as well as scholars in law, political science, and philosophy will find George’s arguments stimulating, challenging, and compelling.

“These essays by one of America’s leading legal and political theorists bring freshness, intellectual rigor and moral seriousness to the analysis of the great issues of the day–from abortion to religious freedom to the relations among nations . . . *In Defense of Natural Law *is a must read for anyone in search of a better public philosophy.”–Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard University.

Catholic Medical Association in Homosexuality and Hope, November 2000:
This report counters the myth that same-sex attraction is genetically predetermined and unchangeable and offers hope for prevention and treatment.

1. NOT BORN THAT WAY
   A number of researchers have sought to find a biological cause for same-sexual attraction. The media has promoted the idea that a “gay gene” has already been discovered (Burr 1996 3 ), but in spite of several attempts none of the much publicized studies (Hamer 1993 4 ; LeVay 1991 5 ) have been scientifically replicated. (Gadd 1998) A number of authors have carefully reviewed these studies and found that they not only do not prove a genetic basis for same-sex attraction, they do not even claim to have scientific evidence for such a claim. (Byne 1993 6 ; Crewdson 1995 7 ; Goldberg 1992; Horgan 1995 8 ; McGuire 1995 9 ; Porter 1996; Rice 1999 10

Researchers Peter Bearman and Hannah Brückner, from Columbia and Yale respectively, studied data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, and found even lower concordance rates of only 6.7% for male and 5.3% for female identical twins. In fact, their study neatly refuted several of the biological theories for the origin of homosexuality, finding social experiences in childhood to be far more significant

If it was not clear in the 1990’s, it certainly is now—no one is “born gay.”
[Peter S. Bearman and Hannah Brückner, “Opposite-Sex Twins and Adolescent Same-Sex Attraction,” American Journal of Sociology Vol. 107, No. 5, (March 2002), 1179-1205].

BTW, the insanity of treating science as a god, and scientists as gods – “the notion of ‘natural law’ in our society is moving away from the view of the Church in that respect, based on the growing scientific evidence” (verum peto) – and Christ’s Church as having a mere “view”, is once again demolished in the climategate affair:
blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
The scientists also appeared to work actively to stop the publication of rivals’ work in peer-reviewed papers. Hans von Storch of the KGSS Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, told the newspaper that trust had been damaged by the affair:
‘’People now find it conceivable that scientists cheat and manipulate, and understand that scientists need societal supervision as any other societal institution,’’ he said…

Judith Curry, of the Georgia Institute of Technology, the scientist who has worked hard to try to reconcile warring factions, said the idea of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists as ‘’self-appointed oracles, enhanced by the Nobel prize, is now in tatters’’…

The furore had laid bare ‘’the seamy side of peer review and consensus building in the IPCC assessment reports.’’

 

[djeter]

But you have ignored my central question. Why am I condemned for making a mistake over the evidence/reasons/backing/justification [call it what you like] for existence of God - if indeed I have made such a mistake?
Laurie

I don’t understand that you think you have been condemned. That makes no sense to me, why would you say or think that? Certainly your inability to use your human reason to realize in the words of Dei Filius: “The one and true God, our Creator and Lord, can be known through the creation by the natural light of human reason.” has brought about its own punishment in many ways. But that stems from your hardened heart, not God.

Michael Novak has written: "Gathering force over many years, one discovery has hit me with the force of a law: If you make mistakes about your own nature, you will make as many mistakes about God, and quite properly then, reject what your inquiries put before you. The god you fantasize will appear to you not very great, a delusion, a snare from which others ought to be freed. You will despise this god."

dj

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

I don’t understand that you think you have been condemned. That makes no sense to me, why would you say or think that? Certainly your inability to use your human reason to realize in the words of Dei Filius: “The one and true God, our Creator and Lord, can be known through the creation by the natural light of human reason.” has brought about its own punishment in many ways. But that stems from your hardened heart, not God.

Michael Novak has written: "Gathering force over many years, one discovery has hit me with the force of a law: If you make mistakes about your own nature, you will make as many mistakes about God, and quite properly then, reject what your inquiries put before you. The god you fantasize will appear to you not very great, a delusion, a snare from which others ought to be freed. You will despise this god."

dj

Hi D/J

Perhaps I have misunderstood. I thought that as a person who does not believe, has sinned and not asked God for forgiveness [because they do not think there is such a being]; that therefore unless matters altered, would be condemned to go to Hell. No doubt you will clarify the matter.

As for a 'hardened heart '‘not guilty’! I would actually like there to be a Christian God. However I do not think that that is enough to show that he exists. My honest opinion is that the evidence/justification/backing…[call it what you will] is insufficient - accordingly I cannot believe. Could you, assuming you had looked at the evidence for the Loch Ness Monster and finding it inadequate, force yourself to belief in its existence?

Laurie

 

[djeter]

Laurie wrote: “Perhaps I have misunderstood. I thought that as a person who does not believe, has sinned and not asked God for forgiveness [because they do not think there is such a being]; that therefore unless matters altered, would be condemned to go to Hell. No doubt you will clarify the matter.”​

God doesn’t condemn anyone to hell, people choose hell. You, for example have “chosen” hell just by this confession above. For a complete review of the Old and New Testaments and the differing visions of hell contained therein along with Church teachings:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/09/28/the-population-of-hell-avery-cardinal-dulles/

The Loch Ness Monster, Santa Claus, etc. are in no way analogous to God, nor do they correspond to the ground of being for which there is overwhelming evidence that exists in His creation for His existence. Pardon my bluntness but to suggest otherwise is stupidity on your part. The whole scientism shtick you’re selling here works for Christopher Hitchens because, for him anyways, it sells books to those who can’t think on their own. I give him a little credit, at least he’s making money on it.

But what are you getting out of it, Laurie?

Robert Browning wrote his longest and most difficult work, “The Ring and the Book,” precisely to show human beings failing to interpret correctly the actions and motives of one another.

They fail not because they are dim-witted, but because their moral compromises limit their vision. Pride – and its concomitant assumption that everyone must be just like oneself, only not quite so intelligent or strong-willed – is the problem. Not only does this problem concern dealings with other humans but with God as well. This is your problem and you need only to recognize a kind of irony to correct it. Happily (with an assist from Anthony Esalen) I have provided an answer for you here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/07/06/robert-browning-and-the-irony-of-humility/

---

Laurie also wrote: I would actually like there to be a Christian God.

---

Careful for what you may idly wish for. Fr. Barron tells us here of the "awful holiness of God"

An experience of God always changes us; it never fails to shake the foundations on which we stand and rattle the walls that we trust will protect us. The true God, when he breaks into our lives, drives us out of our complacency, reconfigures us, knocks us to the ground. He is — to borrow just a few biblical images — a whirlwind, an earthquake, a conquering army, a thief in the night.

Now why does Isaiah speak of smoke? Smoke not only obscures a visible object but also undermines the very act of seeing, causing a viewer to shut his eyes and blink back tears. “The one who is” cannot even in principle appear as an object to be studied, and his very presence confounds and frustrates every attempt to look, study, and analyze.

This is why Joseph Ratzinger commented that Christian doctrines of God function at the intellectual level like the incense used at the liturgy: to some degree, they obscure the object to be known and frustrate the subject who tries to know.

After the vision, the angelic song, the shaking, and the smoke, Isaiah cries out, “Woe is me, I am doomed! For I am a man of unclean lips, living among a people of unclean lips.” G. K. Chesterton observed that a saint is someone who knows that he is a sinner. He implies that the closer one gets to God, the more aware he becomes of his own sin, just as the spots and imperfections on a windshield appear more clearly when the sunlight shines directly on it.

Isaiah’s self-accusation in the presence of God is almost exactly echoed in the New Testament story of the miraculous draught of fishes. In the wake of the miracle, as it begins to dawn on him just who Jesus is, Peter exclaims: “Leave me, Lord, I am a sinful man.” We are always humbled in the presence of the true God, convicted of our sin, less cocky and sure of ourselves. But this is all to the good, for what is being stripped away in that process is the false self, that perverted person who has compromised the image of God, the “man of unclean lips.”

dj

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hi D/J
Thanks for reply – below are my comments.

God doesn’t condemn anyone to hell, people choose hell. You, for example have “chosen” hell just by this confession above. :

But I have not chosen hell in anything that I have said. I have not found a reason to believe in God. You say nevertheless God, assuming he exists, will place me in Hell. Firstly I do not think that a good God would condemn me for not being skilful in Philosophy and secondly, realising my mistake after death I would repent. And a good God would accept it too.

The Loch Ness Monster, Santa Claus, etc. are in no way analogous to God, nor do they correspond to the ground of being for which there is overwhelming evidence that exists in His creation for His existence.

You are quite right to say that God and the Loch Ness Monster are not similar and I do not for one minute think that they are and apologise for upsetting you by appearing to suggest it. However, for me, they are similar in ONE respect only. That is the evidence, for each, in my humble opinion is insufficient. Of course you, as you say, think that there is overwhelming evidence for God. Fine – you may be correct – but we are discussing my view which is that the evidence is not overwhelming at all: in fact it is flimsy. I repeat, of course I could be wrong but, given that is my view, (1) HOW could I make myself believe differently and (2) how is this morally culpable?

The whole scientism shtick you’re selling here works for Christopher Hitchens because, for him anyways, it sells books to those who can’t think on their own. I give him a little credit, at least he’s making money on it.

Actually I haven’t much time for Hitchins or Hawkins who are far too strident and, in places, poorly argued for my taste so please do not tar me with their brush! Also I just do not know what you mean by scientism or why I should be thought guilty of it. If somebody says that they believe in X and commends the belief to you, a natural response is to ask them why they think their belief is true. This question is even more apposite if you knew that a large number of people commended A, B and C instead.
To label this reasonable question with some pejorative tag is called the straw man manoeuvre. So please deal with me rather than Hitchins, Hawkins or Uncle Tom Cobley! [Joke]

You also accuse me of ‘pride’ but with no evidence. I cannot see how honestly seeking for truth is pride. Unless you think that, because I have come to what you reckon is the incorrect answer, therefore I MUST be proud, I cannot think why you assert it.

Yes I would like there to be a God, Love and like a Father… and obviously experiencing him would be an ‘awful’ experience –using the word literally. By the way, God is welcome to give me an experience of himself of any type, whenever he wishes.

Regards

Laurie

 

[edwest2]

As a person who works in the media, I have watched its gradual decline over the last 40 years. With the internet, I have noticed the creation of Internet Opinion Culture, and the use of the ‘insistence argument’ which does not prove anything.

Regarding the OP, it is apparent that in 1973, political pressure, not scientific research, led to a vote to remove Homosexuality as a disorder from the Diagnostic and Statiscal Manual. The American Psychiatric Association was influenced by the GayPA, a group of homosexual activists.

traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php

The Catholic Church has published clear information about homosexuality, the behavior.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

God bless,
Ed

 

[antunesaa]

My hope would be that the Church could provide an important moral compass.

In other words, more has changed in the past 100 years than in the previous 1,000 years. More than changed in the past 15 years than in the 50 years preceding it. In the next 50 years, we will see more change than has every been seen in all of history, in terms of technology and science.

Here you would have to define what you mean by “change”. Do you mean things like Moore’s Law, which states that the number of transistors in a silicon chip doubles every 18 months? Because if you mean change in human behavior, or perhaps even more deeply, human nature, then you will be surprised by how little we have changed in the last 100 years, or in the last 1000 years, or perhaps even in the last 5000 years. Have we become more altruistic? Have we become less vengeful? More sympathetic to the poor? Less selfish? Etc. You know the answer is “no” to these questions, so I would be led to say that the accessory changed a lot, but the fundamental remained the same.

Also, this view that our times are times of change has plagued all ages. You don’t have to go further than the 18th century literature. Numerous books talk about the wonders of TSF, electricity, motor cars, modern skyscrapers, elevators, you name it. Those writers also thought that their was the time of change. And then, as always, everything changed a little less than they thought. Human nature, of course, didn’t change a iota. Do you remember Space 1999, a tv show of the 80s? 1999 came and, 10 years later, we seem centuries away from the feats described in Space 1999… It’s a curious bias that each generation has when it peeks at the future.

When the Church takes an untenable position, as it has in the past on the structure of the universe, or on evolution - to name a couple of the big ones, then it makes itself irrelevant to the discussion.

I strongly disagree with this. By and large, the dominant position of the Church regarding scientific problems over the centuries is to let science to scientists, some of whom from its own ranks. In some cases the Church tried to have a more deep look at matters thought to have serious theological implications. True, the structure of the universe was thought to be Aristotelian for too long, but you also have to acknowledge that a new cosmology emerged from the Church’s own ranks, through the great Copernicus, himself a priest. The Galileo episode only delayed the inevitable: acceptance of an already prestigious theory, which had been previously presented and understood in the Vatican. And another example is the Big Bang theory, an original idea from a Catholic physicist and priest, Georges Lemaître. As for evolution, even very old general diffusion books like the Catholic Encyclopedia give a rather precise and fair description of Darwin’s theory on evolution, laying down the theological implications of it and, in the end, leaving adherence to it to the reader’s discretion.

So I think your point is unfair and incorrect.

This is true “generationally.” Studies clearly show that the majority of Americans under the age of 35-40 are in favor of gay marriage, while the majority over the age of 45-50 are opposed to gay marriage. The reason for this is that younger people are better informed with respect to the nature of sexuality.

There are two flaws in this paragraph. First, a large part of the difference in support for gay marriage is due to the fact that older people (now and 300 years ago) are more conservative than young people. Here in Europe people used to say: “If under 30 you haven’t been a communist, you have no heart; if over 30 you’re still a communist, you have no brain”. I doubt they are “more informed wrt the nature of sexuality”.

The second flaw is the extreme West-centrism of the affirmation. These are cultural questions; they are second-order questions both in terms of people who really are affected and also in terms of the welfare of people. Yet they raise passions in the hearts of millions. But you cannot forget that, once you take your nose out of the US and some countries in Europe, you find virtually no support for gay marriage. You find support for death penalty abolition; you find support for eliminating poverty; you find support for a common sense of human rights; you find support for democracy. But you don’t find support for gay marriage. So it seems to be arrogant from our part, as Westerners, to tell people - look, gay marriage is good for you, even if you don’t like it.

(continued)

 

[antunesaa]

If people laugh when the Pope speaks, because he seems so out of touch with both reality and modernity, then what he says will be dismissed, and regardless of the importance of his message - it will not be heard.

I don’t laugh when the Pope speaks. Perhaps what he says will be dismissed. Personally I don’t think it is dismissed as you say. For instance, why do people say: “well, the Catholic Church would be much better if it allowed abortion and contraception.” Yet, we hear references to that all the time. This means that the Church’s position bothers and questions the conscience of the people. In a sense, that is her mission.

The history of the Church on social issues, such as Nazism, or pederasty, more recently, does not enhance its image or its credibility. It’s history with respect to scientific findings in physics, astronomy, biology, psychology, and so forth is truly abominable.

Again, I dispute all these assertions thoroughly. I see that you have fallen prey of Hitchens and the like. Nazism? Thousands of members of the clergy killed, millions of Catholics killed… Are you kidding me? As for pederasty, a recent study by a researcher at Stanford found that the incidence of sexual abuse among the priesthood in the US was about half of the population at large. While I don’t think this is good (I would expect at least an order of magnitude below the average incidence), it helps to frame the problem in its correct amplitude. As for your absurd references to the “history” of the Church with respect to scientific findings, I can only refer you to previous examples and, perhaps, to Mendel, Pascal, Pasteur, just to mention other catholic major contributors to the fields you mentioned. They were either clerics, or mystics, or extremely devout people in full communion with the Church.

Your pop-atheistic prejudices, informed with random pop science tidbits, have to be vigorously contested. I won’t comment on your opinions about JPII and BXVI because they are personal. Yet I tend to agree with you, while at the same time realizing that, in a strange and perhaps inspired way, the simplicity and almost ethereal figure of BXVI has drawn me more to the Church teachings than the great JPII ever did.

 

[edwest2]

A brief digression. Change is not always good or beneficial. To assume it is always so is to ignore history. Karl Marx suggested a reordering of society.

Hope in the future is not a bad thing and the young receive the greater impact of living in a world that is very new to them. I study the history of science and technology. The basic human being has not changed in 2,000 years. That’s why we can watch ancient Greek plays today and understand them.

Societies do not progress as a unit. Each of us can decide the degree to which we participate unless we live in totalitarian countries where the police state controls activities.

The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr, wrote about guided missiles in the hands of misguided men. Unless we, as a people, promote reasonable behaviors and the family as the foundational unit of society, then we risk breaking other fundamental rules. Such a disordered society will lead to anarchy.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Abu]

verum peto
When the Church takes an untenable position, as it has in the past on the structure of the universe, or on evolution - to name a couple of the big ones, then it makes itself irrelevant to the discussion.

Where ignorance is bliss ‘tis folly to be wise.

catholicleague.org/research/catholicism_and_science.htm
*Catholicism and Science *by Rodney Stark (from Catalyst 9/2004)
Popular lore, movies, and children’s stories hold that in 1492 Christopher Columbus proved the world is round and in the process defeated years of dogged opposition from the Roman Catholic Church, which insisted that the earth is flat. These tales are rooted in books like A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, an influential reference by Andrew Dickson White, founder and first president of Cornell University. White claimed that even after Columbus’ return “the Church by its highest authority solemnly stumbled and persisted in going astray.”

The trouble is, almost every word of White’s account of the Columbus story is a lie. All educated persons of Columbus’ day, very much including the Roman Catholic prelates, knew the earth was round. The Venerable Bede (c. 673-735) taught that the world was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (c. 720-784), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224-74). All four ended up saints. Sphere was the title of the most popular medieval textbook on astronomy, written by the English scholastic John of Sacrobosco (c. 1200-1256). It informed that not only the earth but all heavenly bodies are spherical.

So, why does the fable of the Catholic Church’s ignorance and opposition to the truth persist? Because the claim of an inevitable and bitter warfare between religion and science has, for more than three centuries, been the primary polemical device used in the atheist attack on faith.
The truth is, there is no inherent conflict between religion and science. Indeed, the fundamental reality is that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science—a fact little appreciated outside the ranks of academic specialists.

 

[antunesaa]

These tales are rooted in books like A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, an influential reference by Andrew Dickson White, founder and first president of Cornell University. White claimed that even after Columbus’ return “the Church by its highest authority solemnly stumbled and persisted in going astray.”

…

The trouble is, almost every word of White’s account of the Columbus story is a lie. All educated persons of Columbus’ day, very much including the Roman Catholic prelates, knew the earth was round.

Thanks for these details. I didn’t know about this gentleman’s theory on Columbus and the roundness of the Earth. Still, he must have been pretty thick because Columbus’ initial offering to the king of Portugal (which was rejected because the Portuguese probably were already aware of the existence of land to the west of the Cape Verde Islands) was to sail to India westward. This would be impossible were the Earth flat. This has been basic historical knowledge ever since Columbus’ time.

 

[djeter]

Hi D/J
Thanks for reply – below are my comments.

God doesn’t condemn anyone to hell, people choose hell. You, for example have “chosen” hell just by this confession above. :

But I have not chosen hell in anything that I have said. I have not found a reason to believe in God. You say nevertheless God, assuming he exists, will place me in Hell. Firstly I do not think that a good God would condemn me for not being skilful in Philosophy and secondly, realising my mistake after death I would repent. And a good God would accept it too.

The Loch Ness Monster, Santa Claus, etc. are in no way analogous to God, nor do they correspond to the ground of being for which there is overwhelming evidence that exists in His creation for His existence.

You are quite right to say that God and the Loch Ness Monster are not similar and I do not for one minute think that they are and apologise for upsetting you by appearing to suggest it. However, for me, they are similar in ONE respect only. That is the evidence, for each, in my humble opinion is insufficient. Of course you, as you say, think that there is overwhelming evidence for God. Fine – you may be correct – but we are discussing my view which is that the evidence is not overwhelming at all: in fact it is flimsy. I repeat, of course I could be wrong but, given that is my view, (1) HOW could I make myself believe differently and (2) how is this morally culpable?

The whole scientism shtick you’re selling here works for Christopher Hitchens because, for him anyways, it sells books to those who can’t think on their own. I give him a little credit, at least he’s making money on it.

Actually I haven’t much time for Hitchins or Hawkins who are far too strident and, in places, poorly argued for my taste so please do not tar me with their brush! Also I just do not know what you mean by scientism or why I should be thought guilty of it. If somebody says that they believe in X and commends the belief to you, a natural response is to ask them why they think their belief is true. This question is even more apposite if you knew that a large number of people commended A, B and C instead.
To label this reasonable question with some pejorative tag is called the straw man manoeuvre. So please deal with me rather than Hitchins, Hawkins or Uncle Tom Cobley! [Joke]

You also accuse me of ‘pride’ but with no evidence. I cannot see how honestly seeking for truth is pride. Unless you think that, because I have come to what you reckon is the incorrect answer, therefore I MUST be proud, I cannot think why you assert it.

Yes I would like there to be a God, Love and like a Father… and obviously experiencing him would be an ‘awful’ experience –using the word literally. By the way, God is welcome to give me an experience of himself of any type, whenever he wishes.

Regards

Laurie

Laurie wrote: But I have not chosen hell in anything that I have said. I have not found a reason to believe in God. You say nevertheless God, assuming he exists, will place me in Hell. Firstly I do not think that a good God would condemn me for not being skilful in Philosophy and secondly, realising my mistake after death I would repent. And a good God would accept it too.​

You said that you had sinned and not asked forgiveness. I never said God would “place you in hell” I said that your actions and beliefs have placed you in hell. You’ve done it all on your one-sies You made the choice. So naturally you are morally culpable, why wouldn’t you be?

Also it is not up to you to decide what a “good” God is or not. Don’t you think that’s **obvious **if not a little **prideful **on your part? You cannot willy-nilly assign truth to your own opinions and condemn God because he doesn’t seem to take your side.

We are, in our Catholic beliefs, embodied souls or ensouled bodies. Maybe you don’t believe that, maybe your body is of no concern to you and the notion that it will rise after death is just another fairy tale. Catholics are people dedicated to living in the truth, because Jesus described himself as the Truth (John 14:6).

In John Paul II’s Theology of the Body we learn that “body expresses person.” Fr. Noriega, who is the Vice-Chancellor of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome and specializes in sexual ethics and is a professor of moral theology, walks us through the homosexual relationship and the nature of the intimacy lived out between two people in a homosexual relationship.

“Because the sexual difference is not included as a constitutive element of the persons’ identity, or of the possibility for personal communion, it is in reality only the semblance of real intimacy. It opens up a space for the other, a space that is also physical, but within a false complementarity, because it is not built on the significance of the bodily differences (which are structurally denied from the beginning), but on the satisfaction the two may attain through genital activity.”

False complementarity….a semblance of real intimacy: Christians are called upon to be truth-tellers and Fr. Noriega explains what the truth of homosexuality is here.

If you have a legitimate reaction to Dr. Noriega, I’d love to hear it.

dj

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hi D/J

You said that you had sinned and not asked forgiveness. I never said God would “place you in hell” I said that your actions and beliefs have placed you in hell. You’ve done it all on your one-sies You made the choice. So naturally you are morally culpable, why wouldn’t you be?

I have done wrong, like everybody, and am sorry for it. As I do not believe there is a God I cannot say sorry to him, Because of this, you say I have chosen Hell. How so? I have not made such a choice!
But my sins condemn me, Not so, I have repented.
I have not done so formally to God. Does not matter God sees my heart and knows my sorrow.
I do not think there is a God. **But why is an honest error morally culpable? **

So, I repeat, I do not think I have chosen or merit eternal pain,

 

[momor]

Hi D/J

You said that you had sinned and not asked forgiveness. I never said God would “place you in hell” I said that your actions and beliefs have placed you in hell. You’ve done it all on your one-sies You made the choice. So naturally you are morally culpable, why wouldn’t you be?

I have done wrong, like everybody, and am sorry for it. As I do not believe there is a God I cannot say sorry to him, Because of this, you say I have chosen Hell. How so? I have not made such a choice!
But my sins condemn me, Not so, I have repented.
I have not done so formally to God. Does not matter God sees my heart and knows my sorrow.
I do not think there is a God. **But why is an honest error morally culpable? **

So, I repeat, I do not think I have chosen or merit eternal pain,

You do not believe in God but you presume His mercy and forgiveness when you die (if needed ). Sounds like you are trying to hedge your bets and “fool” God.