To all the Catholics on my f-list - Non-Catholics, stay the Hell away or you WILL be offended

[fpb]

There is a priest in Boulder, Colorado, who is under vicious, systematic, directed attack because he is keeping the teachings of the Church and the orders of his Bishop. I have some experience of how it feels like to be at the wrong (or is it?) end of the kind of vile hatred that is being directed at this man. So I tell the Catholics and Christians on my f-list: follow this link and do what it says - http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/03/to-arms-denver-priest-attacked-for-being-obedient-poll-alert/ - and then go to the priest's own blog and register a personal message of support. While a good man has enough in himself to stand up for the Church even to martyrdom - and to be fair, that does not yet seem to be the case here - anyone who is subjected to hundreds of direct sexually explicit threats can do with kind words from a distant country.

Comments

[stigandnasty919.livejournal.com]

Nope, not offended.

Do I disagree with the Church's position towards homosexuality - yes.

Do I dislike the division of schools by religion - yes.

Do I think this rule is not in keeping with what I believed Christianity to be? - yes, I do.

But do I also accept that others may not ahare my view and have an absolute right not to share my views? - yes. I cannot profess to believe in freedom of speach and then deny the legitimacy of someone's else's view because they are not mine. Indeed I even have mixed feeling about banning expression of some of the 'isms' than we worry so much about today. Racial hatred, or sexual discrimination do not go away because we don't talk about them in polite company.

Indeed they may fester and develop becuase unless they are expressed, they cannot be challanged.

I also have little sympathy for anyone who goes out of their way to be offended, for then the offense they feel can only be described as self-inflicted. It a common occurance in Northern Ireland for people to travel many miles or have to set their alarm clocks to be up in time to be offended at an Orange Parade, or a St Patrick's day march or some other sectarian display.

But a line is crossed when freedom of expression and the right to protest turns into threats of violence or raw intimidation. It does not matter what I feel about the person under threat or their views it is the protestor who is in the wrong.

I hate the idea that a child can be excluded from a school because of their parents lifestyle, and if that were the only school in town, or the only good school in town, then I would regard the rule as petty and vindictive. I might even join the protests if there was evidence that children would be substantionally disadvantaged by the rule.

But if that were not the case and, as implied, the attempt to enrole the child was simply to test the policy, then I would regard that with equal distaste.

Update: I've just read the story in the Boulder newspaper. Seems the kid in question is already in the school, in the pre-school class. Have to say that makes a difference to me. I would have thought that a policy which allowed kids already in the school to stay would have been more charitable

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The attempt to enroll the child was in fact a clear attempt to push the boundaries of a policy that had been in place for years. I blogged about it more than five years ago: http://fpb.livejournal.com/138154.html .

At any rate, you are reasonable enough to make an exception. I had in mind a certain f-list member who just described a long and thoughtful article in defence of making homosexual acts illegal (with which I disagreed) as a "rant". Members of the mainstream today are literally incapable of experiencing any argument against unfettered sexual self-indulgence as anything but hate.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

Long and thoughtful doesn't preclude something from being a rant. I also didn't refer to that particular article as hateful (though OSC has been hateful in other rants).

As for this school situation: obviously, I disagree with the RCC's position and the school's actions, but I don't know why you think I or most people on the opposite side of the divide from you would endorse threats of violence against them. Obviously, I do not.

I am curious to know whether this school also expels students whose parents are discovered to be adulterers, divorced, etc., though.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

As I repeatedly answered in this thread, the invention of "homosexual marriage" is against Christian doctrine at a much deeper level than just legitimizing illegitimate lust. It is, in fact, the umpteenth rebirth of the never-enough-silenced heresy of Docetism - the first recorded heresy in Christian history: that is the idea that the physical nature of man has nothing to do with man's essence, that the whole business of physical life is nothing to do with the spiritual and with God. (Docetism began with a rejection of the idea that God could have wholly incarnated Himself, let alone died.) If two souls can be sacramentally joined in despite of their physical features, then the whole idea of body and soul as one, and of God becoming incarnate to die as a man, is completely destroyed. And you might understand that this is an attack on Christianity a bit more extreme than even the legalization of lust as such.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

That's actually pretty interesting -- thank you. I am fairly well-read about early Christian theology, but I was not familiar with Docetism.

Now, if I may ask you a serious question without you interpreting it as an attack on your religion or an attempt to engage you in a fight? (Let's just leave it as a given that I don't share your beliefs, okay?) Because I'm genuinely interested here:

Are you saying that the RCC's position is, in fact, that homosexuals are more serious sinners than, say, adulterers or divorcees or people who use birth control or abortion? Or is that specifically gay marriage is an attack on church teachings? If this child's parents were openly gay but not claiming to be married, would they have been treated just like any other sinners (i.e., every other child's parents)?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

In a word, no. For that matter, a lot of homosexuals are not even interested in "gay marriage", and the vast majority of its supporters are as straight as a plummet line.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I mean, yes, the specific doctrine of gay marriage is what gives this situation a special significance. In the past, the Church might have paid less attention at a child growing up with two close male or female friends if it was understood that a Catholic education is what they wanted. But the rise of this wholly subversive claim about marriage makes the situation different in the extreme.

Docetism

[eliskimo.livejournal.com]

That is interesting. I had not thought about the situation in those terms. I appreciate you taking the time to share this.

(As you're aware, quite a bit of the traffic on my post has also centered on the "why is this sin worse than others" question.)

Re: Docetism

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Well, a good few other people in this post have other important arguments on the matter, and I recommend you follow the link to the discussion by a canonist (Church lawyer) which is full of other things. But philosophical anthropology is in some sense my "thing": it is a part of Christianity on which I have reflected a lot and published some posts in the past, and I think it is one area where people really don't think enough.

Re: Docetism

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The Canonist's comments:
http://www.canonlaw.info/a_samesex.htm
My old post on a similar matter:
http://fpb.livejournal.com/138154.html
Posts on the Christian doctrine of sexuality and marriage:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/fpb/84324.html
http://fpb.livejournal.com/128426.html

[fpb.livejournal.com]

As I said, I had a little experience of what happens to anyone who gets on the wrong side of militant homosexualists. I have forced myself to post this, because the experience was so scarring that I really did not want to do it over again. There are only so many threats of homosexual rape (for your own good, of course) that you can get before you become sick of the very air those people breathe. And the reason why I forced myself to post this is that I am absolutely certain that that poor priest is getting a hundred times what I got, every day, and for no worse reason than having done his duty.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Oh, and some advice: nobody who does not agree with you already - and plenty who do - will ever describe that particular OS Card article as a "rant". If you are trying to get through to anyone, to call something a "rant" when it does not have any of the features people commonly associate with rants (and as someone who can rant with the worst, I ought to know) will do nothing except make them suspect you of partiality and narrow-mindedness; and, should they harbour ideas that disagree with yours, it will make them less willing to show them to you.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

Well, I wasn't trying to "get through to anyone." On my own LJ, as you know, I am not really interested in debating religion and politics right now, so inasmuch as I may occasionally drop comments that indicate some of my views, they aren't posted with the intention of swaying people who disagree with me.

That doesn't mean no one is allowed to disagree with me (it's certainly never stopped you! :P), but no, I wasn't writing that thinking, "I hope anyone reading this will be convinced that Orson Scott Card is a jerk." I was just stating my opinion about him.

I do think it's kind of funny for you to be giving advice on how to win people over to your side, though. ;)

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I am a world expert on all the ways not to do it, so you should pay attention.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Oh, and I said "get through to", not "win over". In point of fact, I do not believe that the point of discussion is to convince the other guy. It is, however, hugely important that you and he should understand each other.

[elegant-bonfire.livejournal.com]

This was very well written and I agree with you. One of the factors here too, is that in the US, religious schools=private schools, which means the parents have to pay a sizable tuition to send children there. Which should also mean that, if the school is run as a private business and doesn't run on government money like the public schools, they are well within their rights to turn down students for specified reasons. There are still elite prep schools here where you will very rarely see any minority students--they only accept them if their academic skills are off the charts.

Private schools have a reputation for better education, but Boulder is a pretty big city--i'm sure there are private schools that aren't faith-based.