Post for August 20, 2009
Last term I gave a course called the Christian Understanding of God at Concordia University. One of the weeks was dedicated to a comparison between the Christian and Muslim perspectives on God, and it was very well received — the Muslim students in my class in particular said that I was able to accurately reflect their faith.
Fast forward to last May, when I was on retreat with the Recluses Missionnaires: the superior of the monastery heard about my course and asked if I could come in and give that particular lecture as part of their in-house continuing education. I accepted, and today was the day.
The sisters also invited the current retreatants staying at the monastery to attend, so there were about 25-30 people. The lecture was in French, and lasted about two hours (with a break in the middle). Judging from the reactions over coffee it was very well received. For those who know a bit of French, you can listen to the talks here (part 1, part 2). I apologize for the accent and the occasional grammatical errors.
Many thanks to the sisters for making me feel so welcome, and in particular for feeding me some lunch! Here’s hoping this first time won’t be the last.
» Filed Under Nature of God, Theology | Leave a Comment
Post for November 21, 2007
…and after supper with the monks, I headed to Upstairs to have a drink with a fellow named Vincent, who had recently posted some comments on the Adventus website about a conference I had given. I hadn’t really quite understood the points he was trying to make, and I felt that we risked getting very frustrated in having an exchange merely over internet, so I proposed we meet in person and he accepted.
Unfortunately Upstairs was totally booked due to a show, so we headed to a local coffee shop where it would be a bit quieter. I was quickly impressed with Vincent’s intelligence — he is clearly brilliant — and by his earnest desire to live in truth, whatever it might be. I also realised why I felt we were not connecting over the comments: while he speaks English very well, it is not Vincent’s mother tongue, and I know all about the frustrations that can come from trying to capture nuance in another language. Dear readers, you would have been amused to hear us speaking: Vincent speaking mainly French, me responding mainly in English, and each of us throwing in sentences in the other languages from time to time. A classic Montreal mish-mash.
In terms of the intellectual content of our discussion, I am not sure we came to any real resolution of our philosophical perspectives, but I do believe the we managed to define the differences a bit better. At least, that is what I came away with. Vincent’s thought, it seems to me, is very much in line with the 20th century developments of Enlightenment thought, which is itself drawn directly from the issues raised by Descartes. My own thought, on the other hand, is very Aristotelico-Thomist — my 20th century hero philosophical is Maritain, for example.
One interesting thing about these sorts of discussions, mind you, is that even if we don’t manage to convince the other person of anything it can help clarify our own thoughts on a subject. In my case, what emerged was a clearer grasp on the levels of nature (i.e. the natural, the preternatural, and the supernatural) and their respective sciences (empirical science, philosophy, and theology). Vincent argued that theology often refuses to respect the independence of the empirical sciences, for example, by continuing to make comments about matters related to the empirical sciences. My point was that, because the supernatural is a higher order of existence than the natural, theology cannot help but take the natural into consideration as it reflects on its own data. The empirical sciences rely on data obtained through observation, the philosophical sciences on data obtained through abstraction, and theology on data obtained through revelation. Some revelation is found written in creation, however, not just in the Bible, and so theology cannot help but consider the discoveries of the natural sciences, and to simply avoid it would be a betrayal of theology’s own nature and mission.
Anyway, I enjoyed my evening, even if it had its moments of frustration. I hope Vincent and I can get together again, and perhaps even use the Internet conversation more effectively as well.
» Filed Under Theology | 2 Comments
Post for September 8, 2006
The debate within Canada on same-sex marriage has been launched once again, this time by none other than Pope Benedict XVI. Get the scoop here, even before it appears on the CBC web site:
Pope calls gay marriage “folly,” warns politicians
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – Pope Benedict said on Friday Catholic politicians could not be swayed by opinion polls and social trends into supporting practices such as abortion and the “folly” of gay marriage.
The Pope repeated his opposition to abortion and gay marriage in a toughly worded address to visiting bishops from Canada.
“In the name of tolerance’ your country has had to endure the folly of the redefinition of spouse, and in the name of freedom of choice’ it is confronted with the daily destruction of unborn children,” the Pope said.
“When the Creator’s divine plan is ignored the truth of human nature is lost,” he said.
Canada legalized gay marriage last year but its parliament will hold a vote later this year on whether to start the process of scrapping the law, which is opposed by conservatives.
Since his election last year, the Pope has often condemned gay marriage and last June a Vatican document called it one sign of “the eclipse of God” in modern times.
In his address to the bishops, the Pope also touched on the highly sensitive issue of whether Catholic politicians can back legislation allowing practices such as gay marriage and abortion even if they are personally opposed to them.
The Pope condemned such behavior by politicians as “false dichotomies.”
“They are particularly damaging when Christian civic leaders sacrifice the unity of faith and sanction the disintegration of reason and the principles of natural ethics, by yielding to ephemeral social trends and the spurious demands of opinion polls,” he said.
“They are particularly damaging when Christian civic leaders sacrifice the unity of faith and sanction the disintegration of reason and the principles of natural ethics, by yielding to ephemeral social trends and the spurious demands of opinion polls,” he said.
“Democracy succeeds only to the extent that it is based on truth and a correct understanding of the human person. Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle…,” he said.
The Church, particularly in developed countries such as the United States, has been divided over the issue of whether Catholic politicians who support abortion should be allowed to receive communion.
The issue divided U.S. Catholics and their bishops during the 2004 presidential campaign of John Kerry, a Democrat and a Catholic who supports abortion rights.
Some Catholic politicians say they are personally opposed to abortion but, in pluralistic societies such as the United States, feel obliged to support a woman’s right to choose.
Last June, a task force of the U.S. Catholic bishops conference left the decision of whether Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should be denied communion with local bishops.
President George W. Bush, a Protestant and a Republican, opposes abortion and gay marriage.
Gay marriage is expected to be an issue in November elections when control of the Republican-led U.S. Congress will be at stake.
Here is a brief version in French:
Le pape Benoît XVI critique le mariage homosexuel et l’avortement au Canada
CITE DU VATICAN (PC) – Le pape Benoît XVI a critiqué vendredi le Canada qui a permis le mariage de conjoints de même sexe et le recours à l’avortement.
En s’adressant à un groupe d’évêques ontariens, le Saint-Père a fait valoir que la classe politique canadienne avait cédé aux tendances sociales éphémères et aux sondages d’opinion.
Il a déploré que de nombreux hommes et femmes continuent de s’éloigner de la demeure de Dieu pour vivre dans le désert de l’isolement individuel, de la fracture sociale et de la perte d’identité culturelle.
I can’t wait to read the editorials tomorrow.
» Filed Under News and upcoming events, Sexuality, Social commentary | 37 Comments
Post for July 29, 2006
A reader asked the following question:
I have a practically non-practicing Catholic friend who asked me how Jesus could have the phrase “and lead us not into temptation” included in the
perfect prayer. Why would God ever lead us there in the first place? It
got me to thinking and I didn’t know the proper answer. What do you say and what can we tell him? Thx and God bless.
I thought I might share my reply:
This particular petition in the Our Father is very different to translate into English. It can also be translated as “do not bring us to the time of trial” or “do not put us to the test”.
Don’t forget that Jesus came to bring the good news and salvation to sinners (tax collectors, prostitutes, etc.) While many began to lead a new life of discipleship, they knew themselves to be morally fragile. They therefore threw themselves before the mercy of the risen Jesus, knowing that they could never pass “the test/trial” of judgement.
To pray “lead us not into temptation” is therefore twofold: “Keep temptation far away from us, as we know we are weak, and if we should fall please remember your great promise of mercy and spare us.”
Any other insights from my readers?
» Filed Under Theology | Leave a Comment
Post for May 4, 2006
I was recently asked to outline what I thought should be the priorities of our new West Island Pastoral Council (an entity grouping the 11 English-speaking parishes of the West Island, whose charter I helped to draft). I thought a lot about how to answer that, and I realised that whatever answers I would come up with would be necessarily coloured by whatever latent or overt vision I had of the Church. Since my licentiate is actually in ecclesiology this is a question I have already thought about somewhat, but still the exercise was interesting. For what it’s worth, here is my take.
The Church was born on Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended upon the 120 gathered in the upper room. The presence of the one Holy Spirit in the hearts of all those believers united them, taking them from being a mere gang of individuals to being one Body.
A particularly significant point from that day is that the 120 included the 12 Apostles (11 originals + Matthias, elected to replace Judas). 120/12 = 10, an important number in Judaism, as it represents a minyan, the minimum number of Jewish men necessary for a prayer gathering to truly be not just a group of people praying, but an act of the people of Israel in their worship of God. So the Church, while one, simultaneously contained within it 12 minyanim, each headed by an Apostle. In other words, from the very origins of the Church, the Apostles were not merely free agents but were, by their very office, in communion with a local expression of the Church. This was expressed in later years by the idea that a bishop without a local church can’t really be considered a bishop in the fullest sense, and a local church without a bishop can’t really be a local church.
The Apostles went out preaching the Good News of Jesus as Messiah, teaching in the Temple area and visiting synagogues. Some Jews accepted this news, and soon new “Christian minyans” were sprouting up. Each required its own “apostle” as its head, so the Twelve began to appoint others to share the ministry with them, people today known as bishops (and who even today still retain the ancient title “successors to the Apostles”). Assisting these apostles were men appointed to act as “elders”, who were vicars of the apostles and bishops and who could act in their place in certain circumstances (today known as priests), and other men appointed as deacons, given the task of organizing the practical life of the Church and of what we would call today the “apostolate of the laity”.
So what was a “local church” in the earliest days? It would have been urban, with the bishop presiding the main Sunday eucharist, with the priests either concelebrating with him or being sent out to celebrate in the “sub-urbs” (i.e. surrounding smaller towns), and with the deacons taking communion to those who could not attend the Eucharist. The Eucharist would have defined the life of this local church: all missionary action was oriented towards it, and all authority flowed from it. The bishop, for example, because he presided the Eucharist (and because the priests had to work in communion with him), had the ultimate spiritual power: the power to “ex-communicate” someone, i.e. to deny them participation in the Eucharist (and by extension, in the communion of the church) for serious transgressions. The purpose, of course, was not to lord it over others, but to protect the integrity of the faith of the Apostles handed down to the churches.
Parishes began when the Church faced the situation of having large numbers of believers in the suburbs and rural areas, such that they deserved to have the permanent presence of a presider who could shepherd them, but who (at the same time) were not large enough that they could provide the necessary education and infrastructure to guarantee the excellence of their ministers and ministries. Some sort of intermediate, semi-autonomous entity was needed, somewhere between the diocese and a chapel — and the parish was born. Part of a diocese, yet also with some local autonomy, the parish became the basic structural element of the local church.
So what is a parish, then? At its basic level it is a Christian minyan, i.e. a stable grouping of the Lord’s faithful, shephered by a priest acting as the “vicar” of the bishop in that area, who come together on a regular basis for the Eucharist. Beyond this, however, the autonomy the parish is meant to enjoy means that a parish also must possess a minimum vitality. Ideally, it should: (1) be motivated to always be on the lookout for new vocations to the priesthood, to ensure that the link with the original apostlic life and faith is never broken; (2) place the celebration of the liturgy at the centre of the life of the community, keeping in mind that it bears a “treasure of Tradition” in that liturgy that cannot be lightly tampered with; (3) possess an active program of Christian initiation (baptism, confirmation, Eucharist) and re-initiation (reconciliation), so that people who desire to be full participants in the work of Christ in the liturgy can receive the fullness of initiation necessary (along with the accompanying formation); (4) be financially prosperous, able to rely on the good stewardship of the members of the parish (i.e. no need to beg for money), and capable of making its proper contribution to its sister churches by means of a full contribution to the diocese + other special collections; (5) have a way to coordinate the works of the apostolate based on the gifts of talent the Holy Spirit has distributed to the members of the community; and (6) realize that the parish is itself a communion of smaller churches, in this case “domestic churches” (i.e. families/households) who need to be helped to become the centres of holiness that God intended them to be.
That’s pretty much my vision: active and co-responsible vocations ministry, liturgical fidelity and renewal, catechesis designed for constant initiation into the Mysteries of God, a good sense of stewardship, a vibrant lay apostolate, and spiritual leadership to and within families. I think those need to be our priorities for our parishes — not because they sound good, but because they are part of how the Church itself is constituted on a local level. These priorities, in other words, fit the paradigm set up by the Apostles themselves in the earliest days of the Church. There is a lot more that can be said on this, of course, such as expanding on the specifics of each point, but I’ve given the general picture. Parishes like this can change the world.
» Filed Under Theology | 3 Comments
Post for February 27, 2006
A number of people have contact me regarding the “manifesto” published by 19 Quebec priests in the Montreal newspaper La Presse, condemning the Catholic Church for its teaching on same-sex marriage and its policy regarding the admission (or not) of homosexual persons to seminary. “What do think, Fr. Tom?”
For starters, do I really have to say what I think? I mean, have I been with you all this time and still you do not know me? 
I do my best to think with the mind of the Church (sentire cum ecclesia), to wit:
Chastity and homosexuality
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,140 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”141 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.
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.
The above quotes are taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Now, with regards to my thoughts on how the bishops should react, I again apply the same principle:
Can. 1369 A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.
This is taken from the Code of Canon Law. And before people get all upset because the bishops are not leaping to excommunicate these 19 priests, or who get all upset because I am not myself calling for the immediate excommunication of these priests, please read my comments on the use of ecclesiastical penalties, my reflections on frustration, and this other extract from the Code of Canon Law:
Can. 1344.1 Even if the law uses preceptive words, the judge can, according to his own conscience and prudence defer the imposition of the penalty to a more opportune time if it is foreseen that greater evils will result from an offerly hasty punishment of the offender. (minor editing for the sake of clarity — Fr. Tom)
Now all the English-language media articles on this story that I have seen deal with this issue second-hand, as they do not actually contain the text of the manifesto (which was published in French). Well I have read this manifesto, and I can certify that it is about as deep as a birdbath (intellectually speaking, of course). And the signing of the document by 19 priests is not all that impressive, when we consider this is 19 priests *from all across Quebec*. Honestly, if this is the best they can do, those of us who are a bit more “orthodox” in our thinking on this topic really have nothing to worry about.
Still, I suppose some sort of response is in order, if only to help guide those who might be led astray by the line of thought of my brother priests. I’d say a good first step would be to publish a really good fisking of the manifesto (something that should be about as difficult as shooting fish in a barrel). Then, it might be nice for a coaltion of, say, 5 times as many priests to publish a manifesto of their own, not as an angry response to the first group, but simply to put forward a joyful and hopeful presentation of the Catholic faith on these questions. Apart from that, lots of prayer and fasting is in order for these brother priests, in the spirit of Christ on the cross: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” Clearly.
» Filed Under Sexuality, Theology | Leave a Comment
Post for February 22, 2006
Last July I had a most interesting exchange with “valiantmauz”, a self-described woman Canadian supporter of same-sex marriage who is gay (terms in order of importance). In reply to a comment she left in a comment box I wrote a post to suggest 5 ways that the supporters of same-sex marriage might nevertheless help create an atmosphere in which “religious rights and gay rights” (her terms) might be able to co-exist. She in turn wrote a reply on her own blog, in a desire for a sincere dialogue.
And then I dropped off the face of the earth.
Well, not quite. Her post was written on July 28, just as I was in last minute preparations to go to World Youth Day in Germany. Then, as soon as I got back, I was packing for my move to a new parish and a new ministry (which, in turn, took a couple of months to get used to). Then I started to feel unwell, which really took the edge off my concentration. Yadda yadda yadda all this to say that it just wasn’t possible to find the time to re-engage the discussion with valiantmauz — until now.
Why start all this up again? There are a few reasons. (1) As a sign of respect for her. (2) I am close to coming up with a final “road map” for “dot #5″ of the series on same-sex marriage that I wrote last year, and I want to tie up any loose ends before publishing that piece. And (3) same-sex marriage will likely become a legislative issue here in Canada once again, and so all of us need to sharp and ready to engage in civilized debate — something that I hope valiantmauz and I can model.
Yeah, she is an “opponent” in the strictest sense of the term. But I assume she, like all people of good faith, is genuinely seeking the Good — we just disagree on some elements of that Good. It gives us a basis for discussion, at the very least.
So before reading the rest of this post, brush up on our July 28 articles, and then keep going below.
Defending freedom of speech
Valiantmauz states that she and I are in fundamental agreement on this issue. She states: “That I may not like to hear that my lifestyle is offensive or sinful to many is not grounds to silence the people who hold these opinions.” I agree completely, and indeed I would defend the same principle. Hooray!
Valiantmauz then points out some gray areas that would need to be “negotiated” further, to specify exactly how the two opposing sides in this debate can live together in a practical way. They key issue is the presentation of sexually-related topics to children in school. She supports giving a broad discretion to parents to make these decisions, with a few caveats: the presentation of the biological realities of sexuality and reproduction, and the creation of GLBT clubs in schools to support teenagers experiencing same-sex attraction (not to encourage sexual activity, but to prevent their possible suicide).
I have three comments on these points:
- I have no problem with ensuring that children receive a proper education regarding human sexuality. Indeed, the Second Vatican Council declared that education normally should contain a prudent curriculum regarding sexuality. This being said, limiting things to the presentation of the biological realities of sex is not as simple as you may propose. The sexual relation between human beings is not called “mating”, but “intercourse”. This word refers, first and foremost, to *communication*. In other words, human sexual acts — performed as they are by rational beings — constitute a kind of primitive proto-language that communicates *meaning*. This is one reason why people are generally disturbed by the idea of sexual acts being performed upon children, the comatose, and those who are seriously mentally ill and/or handicapped. The fact that the measure of morality in these cases is consent implies that human sexuality, for it to be truly human, necessarily requires an act of reason. Yes, human sexuality truly involves the whole human person, body and soul; and given this, it is very difficult to teach the mere biology of sexuality without then having to address the meaning and morality of sexual activity. One necessarily calls upon the other, or else we are limited to teaching children how to mate — and that itself is a pedagogical choice that many find objectionable.
- Valiantmauz proposes the creation of GLBT clubs in public schools in order to provide necessary “oases of compassion” where kids experiencing same-sex attraction can find support to that, basically, they don’t kill themselves. She also provides some compelling examples (including one she herself experienced) that show the need for such clubs. This being said, while I obviously don’t want kids killing themselves, I question this particular approach to helping them. First of all, just as the priest she speaks of did not, in fact, respect the pastoral approach of his own church, there is no guarantee that the teachers responsible for monitoring such clubs would respect proper limits themselves. Adolescent sexuality is still in a certain amount of flux; such clubs could easily be, not a place for genuine questioning, but a mechanism to manipulate kids to make one particular decision. How could such a thing be monitored?
But beyond all this there is the simple reality that the creation of such clubs involves the institutionalizing of a fundamental philosophy regarding the anxiety that surrounds the experience of same-sex attraction: that it is the fault of “others”. Sexual identity conflict is a brutal thing, as my pastoral experience (limited as it is) has already shown me. The person is wrapped up in the question “Am I ok?” And since sex has a lot to do with the communication of meaning, particularly that of genuine human love, the fundamental existential question behind it all is “Am I lovable?” To be sure, the negative experiences of “gay bashing” (verbal or physical) reinforces a negative response — something that, in my opinion, is diabolical, as the image of God in each human being can never be erased and must be celebrated. But there is the compelling reality that sexual identity anxiety does lead to suicide in a higher proportion than the overall population (something valiantmauz herself states). This reality is not limited to bewildered adolescents: the rate of suicide (as well as other mental illnesses) is much higher among homosexual populations than among the population-at-large, despite such persons having already found a “community of acceptance”. The fact that black kids don’t commit suicide after being called “nigger” and Jewish kids don’t commit suicide after being beaten up for being a supposed “Christ-killer”, no matter how painful these situations might be, leads to the conclusion that part of the extreme reactions of the adolescent kids (and adults) with same-sex attraction is attributable to something on the “inside”.
I believe in surrounding homosexual persons with love and acceptance. I despise and denounce violence against such persons. And I do believe that creating a community of compassion would go a long way to helping people through a difficult period of life (a general enough statement that it could apply to a lot more than struggles around same-sex attraction). But I just don’t buy that the anxiety and interior disturbances that the homosexual population seems to feel in a higher proportion is entirely the fault of “society”. The evidence you yourself cite points to this truth.
- Valiantmauz, I laud your public acceptance of the principles of free speech, including the freedom to hold and express opinions with which you disagree. But while I do not doubt your willingness to speak out in defense of free speech — even free speech which you find objectionable — I unfortunately have a feeling that I’ll have to wait a long time before the leadership of the gay community will embrace your approach. This is because of the embrace of an ideologically-defined category of “homophobia” among this leadership. The word “homophobia” actually means “an irrational fear of homosexuality/homosexuals/homosexual acts”. I suspect that, on a percentage basis, very few people actually experience homophobia according to this strict definition. So the definition of the word gets gradually expanded to mean an “unease” with such things, and then expanded further to mean a refusal to offer a morally-neutral evaluation of such things, and then expanded even further to mean a refusal to accept and even celebrate a same-sex orientation as a moral good. I have seen the word used to bludgeon people into silence, such that the real fear some feel is “homophobiaphobia” — the fear of being called a homophobe!
This push to create a culture of acceptance and celebration of same-sex attraction is necessarily driven by mentality that the problems experienced by many gays and lesbians is necessarily the fault, as I mentioned before, of the “others”. There is a difference between having been a victim, and creating a culture of perpetual victimhood. I have no doubt that there are many individual gays and lesbians who have been victims of harsh words and harsher acts. But what I see building on top of this is a culture of victimhood, because I see a gay sub-culture that rejects any offer of criticism (even constructive) as being maliciously “hurtful”, and so is never properly evaluated. For example, given the incredible spread of AIDS among gay men (something that is making a comeback, despite massive education efforts), one might suggest that repeatedly engaging in known life-threatening behaviour is a sign of a disordered appetite. And even if one is unwilling to declare anal sex (for example) as a disordered practice, surely it is not too much to declare that, at the very least, the pursuit of anonymous sex in bathhouses and public restrooms *despite the risks* is definitely a sign of disorder. But no! The guardians of the gay lobby repeatedly defend their rights to, effectively, risk committing slow suicide through such practices. Well, if this leadership group will not rest until people accept and even celebrate such libidinous behaviour, I say they are betraying the real good of homosexuals everywhere. It is no longer about keeping the State out of the bedroom, it is about the creation and maintenance of a social mentality that is self-destructive in the extreme. I look forward to Svend Robinson standing up at a gay pride parage and speaking out against bathhouses as an evil social institution within the gay sub-culture. I have a feeling, though, I’ll have to wait a long time.
And so, valiantmauz, while I have no doubt you, and many others with you, would defend my right to write these words (as hard as they may be to stomach), my honest feeling is that I risk genuine persecution for writing them. My discordant voice is not merely unpleasant to some, it is absolutely intolerable those who have bought into the culture of victimhood. And so my free speech — and that of those who think the same way as me — must be silenced. It is the inescapable logic of the situation at hand. I suspect, indeed, that yours will be a very lonely voice within the gay community. People will perhaps be polite, and make pleasant noises in your direction, and even offer quiet encouragement — but I have a feeling that, once again, it will be a long time before the editorial board of Xtra endorses your/our stance.
Support gays and lesbians who wish to live chastely
Again, valiantmauz and I agree on this one. Indeed, she proposes expanding this to supporting *anyone* who wants to live chastely, and her understanding of chastity is really wonderfully presented. I’m in awe, really: she really “gets it”, in a way I wish so many more people did. If you want to read more of my own thoughts on the matter, you can read this and this.
Join the pro-life movement
Valiantmauz declares that this is an obstacle in our dialogue (she called it a “roadblock”). But as I read further, I don’t see this as insurmountable. You see, valiantmauz, the whole concept of pro-life is actually on a continuum. I’m not saying it should be, but the reality is that it is.
On one end is the camp of those who state that abortion should never happen, ever, not even in cases of rape or threats to the life/health of the mother. I happen to agree with this position, taking into account the possibility of situations where the moral principle of “double-effect” comes into play.
On the other end of the spectrum is the camp of those that states that an unborn human should not possess any legal right to life until it has exited entirely from the body of the mother. In other words, even procedures like partial-birth abortion, should not be subject to any restrictions whatsoever. Let me add that this is the current state of affairs in Canada, as Canada in fact has absolutely no abortion law in place.
So, valiantmauz, if you support the creation of any kind of law, no matter how loose, to create any form of restriction to access to abortion, no matter how narrow, you are automatically “pro-life” in relation to the current Canadian situation. And it doesn’t even need to be a law related to the act of abortion itself. Would you support a law that states that statistics for abortions performed on minors should be collected and investigated for potential cases of child abuse? Would you support a law that states that parents of unemancipated minors should be informed if their children are seeking such a procedure? Would you support a law that requires a doctor to inform a mother of the potential physical and mental health risks of an abortion? If so, you are automatically supporting the creation of a legal environment that is more restrictive than the one we have now. It isn’t exactly “pro-life”, but it definitely is “pro-er-life”.
Now perhaps you don’t want to see legal restrictions put in place, simply because you don’t believe that legal restrictions are the answer. But I think that we can both agree that we need a society that is more of a “culture of life” than what we have now. The so-called “choice” of the pro-choice movement, because of the way our culture is increasingly becoming structured, often doesn’t really offer a realistic choice at all — because of the paucity of support offered to pregnant women. The little one growing in the womb is often experienced by a women as a risk and a burden, not for reasons of health, but for reasons of personal goals and lifestyle. These are cultural choices, made in part because of how we are socialized regarding behaviour and expectations in our Western culture today. A person who is truly “pro-choice” (or at least not as pro-life as I am) should, if they really want to be more than just be reactionary defenders of permissiveness without regard for consequence, work on promoting a “culture of life” so that people really *do* have a genuine choice.
Finally, I’d like to mention one dark little secret that the pro-choice movement is terrified to acknowledge: many post-abortive women suffer short and long-term damage to their sense of self-worth and happiness. I’ve had a lot of women come and see me who acknowledge they lost a piece of themselves in the process of obtaining an abortion — even though they saw no problem with it at the time. I see very little evidence that the pro-choice movement does anything to help these women — to the contrary, I see this movement denying outright the validity of their pain.
Regarding further reading, I’d suggest the blog After Abortion, run by two pro-life women who themselves once had abortions in their pro-choice days. And if you’d like to explore a way to get involved which involves direct support to people, rather than picketing, may I suggest Birthright? Their slogan is, “we love them both”, which is ultimately the best approach to take.
Zero-tolerance for the sexualization of children
Valiantmauz offers a lengthy comment (heck, I’d even say it’s a rant) against NAMBLA and their ilk, as well as against the sexualization of children in general. And by the way, “rant” is not meant to be a derogatory term here: I’m very happy to rant against the sexualization of children myself!
Believe me, valiantmauz, I’m with you on this one: the fight against the sexualization of children is not something to be limited to the gay community, but is something the *community*, gay or straight, should be concerned about. And yes, I am equally disturbed when I see 9-year-old girls dressed as prostitutes.
Still, while the NAMBLA types are definitely in the minority, I am sad to report that there is definitely a broad movement in the gay community to lower the limits for this sexualization. This article in Xtra points out this reality. I quote:
The socially conservative minister wants to raise the age at which young people can legally consent to have sex from 14 to 16 years. He did not say whether the age of consent for anal sex, which is currently set at 18, would be lowered to match.
Gary Kinsman, a sociologist at Laurentian University, says the queer community must quickly get active to fight the proposed legislation.
“We should be extremely disturbed by this,” says the sociologist, researcher and longtime gay activist. “It’s a forewarning about things to come.
“This is a step in the wrong direction,” he continues. “We were moving as a society to lowering the age of consent.”
Kinsman says queers need to oppose any suggestion of raising the age of consent, and fight instead to officially bring the age of consent for anal sex down to 14 from 18.
And the money line:
It’s unrealistic to expect teens to have sex only with those of their own age.
So what is this about really? The article says it is supposedly about the right of under-age teens to have sex with adults of any age. But may I point out that this is necessarily and simultaneously about the “right” of adults of any age to have sex with under-age teens? And this is defended, not by NAMBLA, but EGALE, the premier public voice for the gay community.
So, valiantmauz, who *did* you vote for in the last election? (Just kidding, you don’t have to answer that.)
Resist sexual idolatry
You really must read valiantmauz’s comments on this section, because they are so…..human. Honestly, when I read what she wrote regarding the danger of sexual idolatry, I felt myself becoming not just her correspondent, but her friend.
Valiantmauz makes a frank admission:
I believe that many gays and lesbians identify far too much with who they are sleeping with, rather than who they are. We construct our whole lives around our sexuality, in many cases. We go to gay campgrounds, attend gay book clubs, listen to gay musicians, go to gay bars and collect gay friends. We make so many aspects of our lives about being gay.
It isn’t right, and we need to recognize that. My life is not about being gay, and I do try be a whole person. I try not to let my circle of friends contract to the point where the only people I interact with are lesbians. I try to read books and newspapers, watch movies and TV programs, and frequent the websites of straight people (even priests), all in an effort to be a bigger person than just my sexuality.
Sometimes that’s hard Father. Sometimes it’s nice to cocoon myself with other gay women, where the inside jokes are understood, and I can express my love for my partner without fear. As out as we may seem to the straight world, I don’t think many of us feel too safe out there.
So I’ll try to resist “homosexualism”, I’ll try to resist equating my sexuality with my humanity, even though I am sure I will fail oftentimes.
You see why I love her? She really is on a path of personal integrity. Wow. Sadly, I know plenty of straight, church-going people who are nowhere near this level of sense of responsibility for self.
I have recently come across book by Peter Kreeft called “How to win the culture war”, in which he relates a dialogue he himself had with a gay colleage regarding sexual idolatry. I’ll type of those few pages and post them when I get a chance, just so that my own thought on the matter may be made clearer.
Conclusion
I’m not sure if you still read my blog, valiantmauz, but I think you do — I get traffic from your site from time to time, and you did post a “belated Merry Christmas” comment early in January when I was busy arguing about communion wafers. I do encourage you to write more on your blog — I hope you have not been waiting on me! And feel free to “blog back” or write back anytime, should you want to discuss these points further. God bless.
» Filed Under Sexuality | Leave a Comment
