The Pope opened his mouth...

[Wonderboy]

I see nothing new in what you have said that I have not addressed apart from this issue over sexual abuse. The Catholic church does not condone sexual abuse and it occured in a small minority of cases.

[Frank]

I'd like to stand right beside JTW in saying "Respect is earned, not demanded". Like Fry's musings on whatever it was along the lines of "When did it become okay or reasonable to say 'This offends me' as if it carries serious motive power?", I'd say "The Catholic Church is massively direspectful."

Seriously. Sanctimonious, praying for people who don't wish to be prayed for, villifying folks for being 'morally reprehensible' without sensible reasons?

I'd further press Wonderboy on the question:
"If the Catholic Church [or any organisation] is being exempted from otherwise standard procedure [paying taxes] on the assumption it behaves as is expected but is found not to be behaving: what should happen?"

To the point, Wonderboy: Should the Catholic Church toe the line and accept homosexuals, or should it 'go independent' and start paying taxes? Furthermore, do you see why the likes of myself and Haunted are inclined to leave it at a dichotomy rather than thinking "hey, why don't we just let it go"?

[Haunted]

I see nothing new in what you have said that I have not addressed apart from this issue over sexual abuse.

You haven't even tried.
But, since I'm not exactly a neutral party, I put it to the audience of this thread: Has Wonderboys abrupt response indeed addressed my points satisfactorily?

[macgamer]

I've been trying to wean myself of this message board really and I was doing well, but I see there have been requests for my return.

Logical justification for immorality of homosexual acts:

Some assumptions:
* Primary biological purpose of sexual impulses and sexual intercourse is procreation: to proliferate one's genes and the maintenance of the species.

* The gametes produced by either sex internally, therefore require a mechanism by which to meet complementary gametes. This is achieved via sexual (vaginal) intercourse between members of the opposite sex.

The rationale:

If the primary purpose of sexual impulses and sexual intercourse is procreation then the primary function of the sexual impulses and organs, when driven by those impulses, is to achieve procreation. When the sexual impulses are not directed to a member of the opposite sex, procreation is an impossible result of an sexual act between those two individuals or when the sexual organs are being driven by a sexual impulse and used in a circumstance whereby the procreation is not a possible result, these can be said to be malfunctions or disorders of the sexual faculties.

A disorder or malfunction goes against the (natural) order or function of things, in this sense homosexual acts are against natural law and immoral.

Discrimination:
Once again this is an example of New Labour's 'newspeak' muddling justified and unjustified discrimination. It is reasonable for employers to want to select between candidates on certain criteria in order to find the best candidate for the post, this action is discrimination, the employer is discriminating between the candidates. That is justified. Unjust discrimination is whereby an employer selects on various aspects of a candidate's characteristics irrelevant to their ability to carry out the job. It is relevant for the Church or Catholic organisations to discriminate between candidates, i.e. select, who are sympathetic or willing to defend and uphold all the teachings and beliefs of the Church. A practising homosexual is a person who is demonstrating a proactive opposition to the Church's moral teachings as outlined above. It is relevant and just, for the Church and Catholic organisations, who wish to employ persons willing to defend Church teaching and belief, to discriminate on grounds of sexual practice, but crucially not sexual inclination / attraction because the latter is involuntary, whereas in the former there is a choice.

Taxes and funding of things we disagree with
There are many things with which I disagree taxes being spent on. The primary role of a government is to protect its citizens. I consider life to begin from conception and the government funds abortions which could be understood as funding the killing of its own citizens. Just because you disagree with something does not oblige the government to agree with you. Again this is the benefit of natural law philosophy informing the creation of laws and justice as opposed to legal positivism, which argues that a law can be whatever we say should be and does not have to have any foundation in objective truth. Making a law that states the sky is yellow and not blue is meaningless because it is not grounded in truth.

With regard to the Pope's visit, he is the Head of State of the Holy See, which is a sovereign nation. The invitation was of a State visit and so the Pope is a guest of Her Majesty the Queen who claims her expenses on us.

[jollytiddlywink]

JTW: The kind of person who says that respect must be earned typically pays very little respect to those with contrary views to their own. When I talked of the Catholic church I also meant those millions of people who have a Catholic faith.

It may interest you to know that my housemate is a catholic. I respect him, although some of his views are contrary to mine. For example, we disagree on how late in the day it is acceptable to drink caffeinated tea. But I understand how he arrived at his view, and on that basis I respect him and his view. I do not understand how the church arrived at the view that homosexuality is wrong, and on that basis, and on that issue, I respect neither the church nor their view.

I very much doubt that you could provide a purely logical deduction of any moral view because for a logical deduction one needs premises.

I'm glad to hear you say so: it was not I who suggested that it was possible. Macgamer did that, suggesting that natural law was based purely on logical deduction.

I do not think you are in a position to dictate to the Catholic church that they have no religious grounds for their centuries old considered beliefs.

And you, by contrast, are in a position to dictate to the church that they do have religious grounds for their beliefs? In any case, I am not dictating. I am pointing out myriad flaws in the beliefs and the selective application of those beliefs as they are found in the bible. Whether the beliefs in question are centuries old or were promulgated this afternoon is irrelevant; age does not necessitate respect any more than having a belief does. Otherwise I could win the argument by pointing out that gay men have been buggering each other for far longer than any church has been around.

The point here is that they have a right to discriminate on grounds that constitute their faith.

Yes, that is the point. My argument, which you have side-stepped so far, is that the discrimination against homosexuals IS NOT grounds that constitute their faith. Please see the points that I have made, more than once, regarding the lack of biblical support for discrimination against homosexuals, and the highly selective application and interpretation of such passages as the church usually cites to support its discriminatory stance.

Practicing homosexualty is something people have a choice in.

Obviously. So is practicing heterosexuality. But this line that people ought simply to abstain is laden with flaws. For example: If I were to run a business, I would allow the hiring of catholics, provided they weren't practicing catholics. You know, the ones who recognise that they believe in a higher power, but don't do any of that abominable praying, church-going stuff (see how silly the distinction is?)
It is disturbing that you presume to tell an entire group of people that they may not express a very central and utterly immutable facets of their selves.

If children are practicing homosexuals then that is against the law nevermind what their parents think.

Whoever said anything about the children being sexually active? All I said was that parents have disowned their children because the children dared to speak openly about their homosexuality. Nowhere does that imply, let alone explicitly require, any form of sexual activity.

The Catholic church itself does not condone violence against children, that would be the fault of the parents. If one has a belief that practicing homosexuality is wrong then that is like any other belief over which people can disagree, including parents and children.

You persist with the wrong end of the stick, or indeed the wrong stick entirely. These parents have a pathologically strong belief that homosexuality (un-practiced, and indeed merely mentioned) is wrong, so much so that it overrides parental instincts to protect and love their child. I repeat, this is a hatred so profound that it causes parents to do violence to their own children!
I contend that while this may not be directly the fault of the church or indeed of other homophobic and intolerant forces in society, it is trite and useless to refuse to engage with this issue by saying 'the church does not condone this.' That is, in itself, a far cry from saying that the church actively seeks to prevent this, and is simply an effort to allow the church to have its cake, by condemning homosexuality, and eat it too, by saying the church doesn't condone bad things being done to homosexuals.
British law could well find grounds to convict a church for incitement to violence on the basis of a homophobic sermon, in much the same way that it provides grounds for a conviction of racial hatred if somebody gives a 'rivers of blood'-type speech. It was not the speaker who personally did the violence, but the law still allows for their guilt.

Why don't you look up natural law.

I did, and I have concluded that it is a red herring in this debate, perhaps because "the bible says so" is such a weak support for bigotry.
Aquinas, from whom the catholic church takes its particular strand (among several others) of natural law, can be summed up (yes, the very brief summary) as "Seek good, and avoid evil.' This throws us back to asking why the church finds basis in the bible for deeming homosexuality to be evil. Please kindly engage with my arguments concerning these biblical matters: this is the very essence of the issue and the central thrust of my argument.

[DACrowe]

Again this is the benefit of natural law philosophy informing the creation of laws and justice as opposed to legal positivism, which argues that a law can be whatever we say should be

[Senethro]

A disorder or malfunction goes against the (natural) order or function of things, in this sense homosexual acts are against natural law and immoral.

I've only got the old arguments which you've sidestepped before.

1. There are plenty of situations where sex can be heterosexual without the chance of procreation. The Catholic position on these is not consistent with what you said. It is consistent with condemning characteristics of people that are intrinsic to them, which are determined at a genetic or very early developmental stage. This puts it in the same family of prejudices as racism.
2. I'm not well up on terminology, but aren't you essentially deriving an ought from an is? I could make equivalents about similar "natural" features of humanity and how they make "non-natural" features like agriculture or building houses larger than one storey wrong.

[wild_quinine]

The rationale:

If the primary purpose of sexual impulses and sexual intercourse is procreation then the primary function of the sexual impulses and organs, when driven by those impulses, is to achieve procreation. When the sexual impulses are not directed to a member of the opposite sex, procreation is an impossible result of an sexual act between those two individuals or when the sexual organs are being driven by a sexual impulse and used in a circumstance whereby the procreation is not a possible result, these can be said to be malfunctions or disorders of the sexual faculties.

A disorder or malfunction goes against the (natural) order or function of things, in this sense homosexual acts are against natural law and immoral.

But by this rationale sex between a husband and wife is immoral if there is no possibility of conception. So, get it all in before you hit middle age, I guess. And, if you like shagging, definitely don't contract any GU illnesses that might result in sterility. And if you suffer from premature ejaculation, which seems likely if you've been going blue-balls all your life to avoid spilling seed, then you're also a bad person?

I think you've explained the doctrine pretty well, here. But I think you're going to come up short on people who like the smell.

One question sticks with me: What is the justification for sex only being a moral act in marriage, if natural law is the foundation of the rest of sexual morality?

[RedCelt69]

I could win the argument by pointing out that gay men have been buggering each other for far longer than any church has been around.

Simply... LOL.

Great Strawman picture, DACrowe.

Over the centuries there have been a multitude of variations of the idea of a Natural Law. Could someone provide a clear picture as to which one is being vamped in this thread?

Because, y'know, driving around in a bullet-proof milk-float is a far cry from anything natural... hence the Popemobile is contrary to Natural Law... and (by the logical deduction of macgamer and Wonderboy?) immoral.

[DACrowe]

Could someone provide a clear picture as to which [version of natural law theory] is being vamped in this thread?

Half-chewed John Finnis.

[RedCelt69]

Could someone provide a clear picture as to which [version of natural law theory] is being vamped in this thread?

Half-chewed John Finnis.

I won't pretend that Wikipedia is the avowed base of all knowledge on anything whatsoever, but it seemed like a good place to get an idea of John Finnis' ideas.

"Finnis opposes abortion, euthanasia, and nuclear weapons. He considers all sexual activity that is not between married persons of the opposite sex, or makes use of birth control devices, to be inherently immoral, even "evil"."

Other than loving how the writer combined abortion, euthanasia and nuclear weapons - as if they were morally comparable. Would that be the owning of such weapons or their actual usage? Because their usage = euthanasia.

I'm not a fan of Australian philosophers (blame Peter Singer) and John Finnis doesn't dissappoint. How in the hell can a piece of paper issued by your government saying "you are married" have any bearing on the evilhood of an act?

Strange person.

[Haunted]

What an absolute shower of twats
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 056689.ece

"Sex abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church are proof that that "the Devil is at work inside the Vatican", according to the Holy See's chief exorcist."

Of course it's the devil! There couldn't possibly be another explanation...?

[RedCelt69]

What an absolute shower of twats
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 056689.ece

"Sex abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church are proof that that "the Devil is at work inside the Vatican", according to the Holy See's chief exorcist."

Of course it's the devil! There couldn't possibly be another explanation...?

This bit caught my attention: "Father Gabriele Amorth, 85, who has been the Vatican's chief exorcist for 25 years and says he has dealt with 70,000 cases of demonic possession".

70,000? Let's assume (because it makes the numbers easy) he started encountering such things at the tender age of 15. That would be 1000 every year of his life. Which would be 2.7 every day of those 70 years.

The Vatican's chief exorcist is a chief liar.

Or he was at a Millwall FC game.

[Haunted]

Relevant
"How paedophile priest was allowed to evade justice"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/n ... 556659.stm

EDIT:
And in defense of this?
Andrew Brown of the Guardian!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... se-priests

[the Empress]

I don't get the latter article, which seems to say, altho the Catholic Church has an apparently high incidence of paedophiles, other professions have a similar percentage, and has therefore been unfairly singled out . . . . Even if the proportion of pedophiles was evenly distrubuted across the population (not much evidence for this in the article), as 4% of US Catholic priests and deacons (1950-2002) have been accused of sexual child abuse, and given that each priest will be exposed to x% more children than other professions (or family members), the number of Catholic sexual abuse cases will likely be significantly higher than other groups. How is this a defense?

[DACrowe]

Relevant
"How paedophile priest was allowed to evade justice"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/n ... 556659.stm

He moved to Cheltenham and then to Scotland, where he has lived for the last 10 years running a family-friendly guest house in St Andrews.

[Haunted]

Hence relevant

For the curious it was this property
http://www.amberside.co.uk/
Which I believe is now up for sale
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&sourc ... 1,,0,11.15

I wonder if the house price has been affected.

[wild_quinine]

Who knew when this thread started that it would end up colliding with the as-yet non-existant StreetView thread? Not I.

[macgamer]

This bit caught my attention: "Father Gabriele Amorth, 85, who has been the Vatican's chief exorcist for 25 years and says he has dealt with 70,000 cases of demonic possession".

70,000? Let's assume (because it makes the numbers easy) he started encountering such things at the tender age of 15. That would be 1000 every year of his life. Which would be 2.7 every day of those 70 years.

The Vatican's chief exorcist is a chief liar.

Or he was at a Millwall FC game.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 060354.ece

But I was talking about the number of exorcisms, not the number of people exorcised. You often have to exorcise someone dozens, even hundreds, of times, and an exorcism ritual can take anything from a few minutes to several hours.

[macgamer]

I've only got the old arguments which you've sidestepped before.

1. There are plenty of situations where sex can be heterosexual without the chance of procreation. The Catholic position on these is not consistent with what you said. It is consistent with condemning characteristics of people that are intrinsic to them, which are determined at a genetic or very early developmental stage. This puts it in the same family of prejudices as racism.

It does not condemn people for their intrinsic nature. The Church teaches that we are all of a fallen nature, some people have a harder time than others. The Church does not propose an reason why people are afflicted with same sex attraction (SSA), it leaves this to medical researchers and psychologists. There is a role for 'nature and nurture' in the development of SSA.

Yes there are scenarios in which heterosexual sex is not open to the possibility of procreation. As I have said in earlier discussions on this matter, it can be most simply be divided by the intention of the couple. If the couple knew and deliberately engaged in a sexual act which had no chance in procreation that is immoral. E.g. intercourse using contraception or non-vaginal intercourse of some form. If however, the couple's intention was to be open to the possibility of procreation (i.e. no contraception used) and their act ordinarily had the chance for procreation (someone gave an example above) then the act was moral. Obviously infertile couples are a potential problem, however their infertility is intrinsic to either one or both of them and not a deliberate choice. They are still a family and can be open to life through seeking licit methods of overcoming low fertility (e.g. NFP methods can improve chances of conception) or through adoption.

2. I'm not well up on terminology, but aren't you essentially deriving an ought from an is? I could make equivalents about similar "natural" features of humanity and how they make "non-natural" features like agriculture or building houses larger than one storey wrong.

Yes I understand your point. However natural law is a philosophical tool which alone can only justify positions. The Church's moral teaching is informed by scripture, tradition (interpretation of scripture passed down from Church fathers) and reason. The Magisterium inspired by the Holy Spirit using the aforementioned sources then pronounces Church teaching on various matters. So certain non-natural features like multi-storey buildings or flying are morally neutral. It is important that morality is grounded in the true nature of things otherwise the starting assumptions can be rather more subjective. However the importance of this depends on the kind of philosophy one subscribes to:

With Hume:

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

or more with Kant:

[...]though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears.