The Archbishop of Guam has a major case of Fatwa Envy

[Plekhanov]

"The culture of homosexuality is a culture of self-absorption because it does not value self-sacrifice. It is a glaring example of what John Paul II has called the culture of death. Islamic fundamentalists clearly understand the damage that homosexual behavior inflicts on a culture. That is why they repress such behavior by death. Their culture is anything but one of self-absorption. It may be brutal at times, but any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers (women as well as a men) is a culture that at least knows how to value self-sacrifice. Terrorism as a way to oppose the degeneration of the culture is to be rejected completely since such violence is itself another form of degeneracy. One, however, does not have to agree with the gruesome ways that the fundamentalists use to curb the forces that undermine their culture to admit that the Islamic fundamentalist charge that Western Civilization in general and the USA in particular is the “Great Satan” is not the without an element of truth. It makes no sense for the US Government to send our boys to fight Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, while at the same time it embraces the social embodied in bill 185 (as President Obama has done). Such policies will only further arguments for the fundamentalists in their efforts to gain more recruits for the war against the "Great Satan"

That is taken from a letter the Archbishop of Guam sent in response to a bill to recognise same sex marriages, the rest of the letter can be seen here (a graphic file pdf sorry).

The whole letter is just insane in it's view of the roles of heterosexual and homosexual sex and the apparently genuine conviction that that gay marriage really will destroy society. Aside from admiration of the Taliban one thing that jumped out at me form the letter is this guys fixation upon male homosexuality and sodomy the extent that he doesn't seem to realise lesbians exist.

[Plekhanov]

Found the entire letter in text form.

In Bill 185 the Stakes are Very High

Marriage, as presently enshrined in the Guam Code, is the result of a Western Civilization shaped by Judeo-Christian culture. According to that culture, marriage is a union of a biological couple who unite themselves until death so as to be able to put their mutual love in the service of life. In this view, conjugal love and the generation of children are so intrinsically connected that to attempt to separate them would end up destroying them both. Given this presupposition, it should be no surprise that the Guam Code recognizes marriage only between a man and a woman since only they are capable of the marital act that begets children.

Bill 185 seeks to change the status quo by redefining marriage. The impetus for this redefinition proceeded in two stages, one building upon the other. Firstly, the culture of contraception denied that marriage has any intrinsic connection with the begetting of children. One may legitimately separate out making love from making babies. Once this link was broken, the intelligibility of biological gender was lost. Once marriage was simply about making love, the necessity for limiting sexual relations to persons of the opposite sex no longer appeared convincing.

Secondly, the culture of homosexuality proposed a new understanding of gender based, not on the body, but on the orientation of a person's sexual appetites. Lacking a reason for having sex that transcended the private good of the partners, the biological couple was no longer viewed as the biological principle for generating new life, but simply as two heterosexual persons who happen to be orientated to the opposite sex as the preferred object of sexual gratification. The notion of heterosexual marriage was then born. The door was then opened to the complementary notion of marriage between two persons of the same sex — homosexual marriage. To secure the triumph of the culture of homosexuality, Bill 185 seeks to abolish in civil law the notion of marriage that has been the foundation of Western culture and to substitute in its place the notion of domestic partnerships as a suitable genus for assimilating the notion of marriage into the twin notions of heterosexual partnerships (or unions) and homosexual partners (or unions). Once this bill is adopted, there will no longer be husbands and wives in the laws of Guam. Instead, there will simply be partner A and partner B to a domestic partnership. Homosexuality will henceforth provide the paradigm for understanding the structuring of "marriage" in the Guam Code. What is wrong with having the ideology of homosexuality as the structuring principle of civil law? The simple answer is that homosexuality is based on the notion that sexuality exists in order to get pleasure. An individual ought to be free to satisfy his sexual appetites with the preferred object of his sexual orientation. The partner appears only as the preferred object of sexual satisfaction, not as a person to be valued in his own right. The notion of self-donation to the other in pursuit of a good that transcends both parties and to which they mutual subordinate their private interest simply does not appear in homosexuality. In place of self-donation there is only self-gratification, self-interest and self-absorption. The proof is contained in the high rates of promiscuity associated with this lifestyle.

In the homosexual paradigm there is neither place nor need for the virtue of chastity to rectify the appetites since that would be an obstacle to the good of pleasure which is being sought. All the virtues need the other virtues in order to operate well and to allow the stable association of the virtues, good moral character, to appear. Chastity in particular is crucial in human development of character since it is the virtue that directs the sexual appetite away from the direct seeking of pleasure for one's self to the seeking of the good of the other. Homosexual behavior has for its driving principle the experience of pleasure. Once pleasure becomes the organizing principle of one's life, the motivation to subordinate one's a private interests to the good of the other when pleasure is no longer a possibility disappears.

The dramatic changes in law that BILL 185 proposes will have inevitable consequences. Once homosexuality becomes a validated principle of civil law, the inversion of sexuality that it proposes will spell the eventual end of Western Civilization. No culture can retain its vitality over generations without the virtues necessary to rectify the appetites, especially the sexual appetite. The first consequence of the adoption of the ideology of homosexuality will be the introduction on an institutional scale of the culture of self-absorption. Since homosexually is about receiving, not giving, its institutionalization will lead to the victimization of all those who are induced to embrace this lifestyle. (I am speaking especially about the children and the confused and immature of our society.) Law has a formative role in every society since we learn what is good and bad first from the law, and then only internalize these values over time so that as we mature we have the good moral character that is needed, among other things, for staying out of jail. When the laws of Guam encourage the development of defective character in its citizens, they are, in effect, recruiting for the Department of Corrections. Over time, civil society will become a jungle, and you will eventually have to expel the inmates of the DOC so that you can move into it for your own protection. Civil society will implode.

The second consequence of the adoption of the ideology of homosexuality will be the marginalization of the biological family. Homosexual behavior cannot produce children. The adoption of children by those in a homosexual relationship always deprives a child of the experience of either a mother or a father. It is one thing for a child to be orphaned by the death of his biological parents, but for the child to be deliberately conceived for the benefit of those in homosexual unions violates the child's rights to the biological bonds that constitute the emotion glue of the family. When one has two fathers, he is condemned to be a motherless child. Moreover he will also be a fatherless child. With two men who present themselves as his fathers, with whom can he bond as his [emphasis in the original] father? The failure to bond with his mother and father creates a huge wound in a child. Moreover, he is normally condemned to be an only child, without brothers or sisters. Over generations, the number of these wounded individuals, without biological bonds to the people with whom they have had to live, and whose only reason for being called into being is to meet the emotion needs of self-absorbed others, will increase the class that cannot care for the next generation because they have too many unresolved problems of their own. There is a tipping point where the society itself begins to implode. Already we have the highest number of out-of-wedlock births of any place in the nation. The growing number of the incarcerated is another warning sign that we are approaching the point of implosion.

The third consequence of the adoption of the ideology of homosexuality will be the crisis that it will generate in the area of public health. Ironically, Senator B. J. Cruz has introduced legislation to require a higher tax on cigarettes in order to discourage habits that are detrimental to good health. The same senator wants to require the use of helmets by motorcyclists as a way of reducing injuries and the consequent unnecessary drain on the financial resources of the hospital. At the same time, he is promoting a lifestyle that carries with it far more risks to health. A culture cannot flourish when a significant portion of the population is suffering diseases as a consequence of having been encouraged by the structures of civil law itself to expose themselves to the risks inherent in sodomy. By adopting Bill 185, the Guam Legislature Will become a co-conspirator in the conspiracy of silence regarding the health consequences of homosexuality. Over time, the health care system of Guam Will implode.

The culture of homosexuality is a culture of self-absorption because it does not value self-sacrifice. It is a glaring example of what John Paul II has called the culture of death. Islamic fundamentalists clearly understand the damage that homosexual behavior inflicts on a culture. That is why they repress such behavior by death. Their culture is anything but one of self-absorption. It may be brutal at times, but any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers (women as well as men) is a culture that at least knows how to value self-sacrifice. Terrorism as a way to oppose the degeneration of the culture is to be rejected completely since such violence is itself another form of degeneracy. One, however, does not have to agree with the gruesome ways that the fundamentalists use to curb the forces that undermine their culture to admit that the Islamic fundamentalist charge that Western Civilization in general and the U.S.A, in particular is the "Great Satan" is not without an element of truth. It makes no sense for the U. S. Government to send our boys to fight Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, while at the same time it embraces the social policies embodied in Bill 185 (as President Obama has done). Such policies only furnish further arguments for the fundamentalists in their efforts to gain more recruits for the war against the "Great Satan."

In voting on Bill 185, you are faced with the choice either to embrace the common good of Guam and put you[sic] private good (the desire to be re-elected) in jeopardy, or to sink into self-adsorption[sic] and vote in your political self-interest. To say that the stakes are high in Bill 185 is a massive understatement. At stake is nothing less than the implosion of the moral culture of the people of Guam. The West today is engaged in a struggle with Islamic fundamentalists who are not always in sympathy with democratic values that the West holds dear. They are resisting with all the force at their command those forces that oppose marriage and the family. If we do not do the same, they will win the contest by sheer numbers alone. History will judge your desire to secure your private self-interest at this moment in Guam's history as appallingly petty in view of the damage it will do to the common good of Guam. By adopting Bill 185, you will have contributed to the end of Western Civilization.

The Archdiocese of Agana

[Gramzamber]

So a suicide bomber is better than a homosexual because a suicide bomber is willing to get themselves killed for the cause of their almighty overlord, whereas a homosexual commits the unpardonable sin of desiring sex that doesn't lead to having children?

This guy could bottle his sweat and sell it as Concentrated Stupid.

[open_sketchbook]

This begs the obvious question : Where does a homosexual suicide bomber fit into all this?

[Oskuro]

Or the obvious yet not comical question: Where does a suicide bomber that kills a pregnant woman and prevents her from having children fit into this?

Also, I always found it funny how priests, who in many cases have made a vow of celibacy, question lifestyle choices that, like theirs, do not lead to having children.

[Darth Wong]

In Bill 185 the Stakes are Very High

Marriage, as presently enshrined in the Guam Code, is the result of a Western Civilization shaped by Judeo-Christian culture. According to that culture, marriage is a union of a biological couple who unite themselves until death so as to be able to put their mutual love in the service of life. In this view, conjugal love and the generation of children are so intrinsically connected that to attempt to separate them would end up destroying them both. Given this presupposition, it should be no surprise that the Guam Code recognizes marriage only between a man and a woman since only they are capable of the marital act that begets children.

If that is the case, why does the word "consummate" in marriage refer to the act of sex, regardless of whether it leads to procreation? Why is it possible to annul a marriage for inability or refusal to perform sexually, but not for infertility? Even the Catholic Church will allow annulments for failure to consummate but not for infertility.

In any case, we are not living in a Christian theocracy. Our society is supposed to be open to members of all religions, not just Christians. If someone comes from China where they have a history of thousands of years of marriage with no church, then it's ridiculous to tell them that marriage in America must be tied to Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Bill 185 seeks to change the status quo by redefining marriage. The impetus for this redefinition proceeded in two stages, one building upon the other. Firstly, the culture of contraception denied that marriage has any intrinsic connection with the begetting of children. One may legitimately separate out making love from making babies. Once this link was broken, the intelligibility of biological gender was lost.

The "intelligibility of biological gender was lost" when we pointed out that sex is not synonymous with making babies? Has this idiot ever cracked open a biology textbook? How does it become impossible to tell male from female just because we recognize that sex need not produce babies?

Once marriage was simply about making love, the necessity for limiting sexual relations to persons of the opposite sex no longer appeared convincing.

It's interesting that he openly admits this. So in other words: he admits that if you acknowledge that sex is not necessarily for making babies, then it is possible to have a legitimate marriage without having babies, and it is possible to have a legitimate gay marriage. All of this flows from the simple recognition that sex is not necessarily for having babies according to him. Therefore, in order to oppose gay marriage, one must dogmatically insist that sex must be for having babies and can serve no other function, which is sort of like saying that eating is strictly for survival and can serve no social, entertainment, or pleasurable function. Maybe we should all live on a diet of gruel.

Secondly, the culture of homosexuality proposed a new understanding of gender based, not on the body, but on the orientation of a person's sexual appetites. Lacking a reason for having sex that transcended the private good of the partners, the biological couple was no longer viewed as the biological principle for generating new life, but simply as two heterosexual persons who happen to be orientated to the opposite sex as the preferred object of sexual gratification. The notion of heterosexual marriage was then born. The door was then opened to the complementary notion of marriage between two persons of the same sex — homosexual marriage.

It's difficult to slog through such a bizarre series of non sequiturs. First, it is possible to permit gay marriage without necessarily being a part of "the culture of homosexuality". I'm not homosexual, yet I approve of gay marriage. How does he explain that? Second, nothing about homosexuality impacts upon the definition of gender. This is the second time he has stated this bizarre claim, without a shred of justification. Male is still male, female is still female, these are biological facts totally irrespective of sexual orientation. Third, the fact that we recognize homosexuals and acknowledge that they should be treated equally does not mean we have rejected or ignored the role of heterosexuality in procreation. It simply means that the concept of marriage is applicable to non-reproducing couples: something even the Church has tacitly admitted by allowing annulments for failure to consummate, but not for infertility.

To secure the triumph of the culture of homosexuality, Bill 185 seeks to abolish in civil law the notion of marriage that has been the foundation of Western culture and to substitute in its place the notion of domestic partnerships as a suitable genus for assimilating the notion of marriage into the twin notions of heterosexual partnerships (or unions) and homosexual partners (or unions). Once this bill is adopted, there will no longer be husbands and wives in the laws of Guam. Instead, there will simply be partner A and partner B to a domestic partnership. Homosexuality will henceforth provide the paradigm for understanding the structuring of "marriage" in the Guam Code. What is wrong with having the ideology of homosexuality as the structuring principle of civil law? The simple answer is that homosexuality is based on the notion that sexuality exists in order to get pleasure. An individual ought to be free to satisfy his sexual appetites with the preferred object of his sexual orientation. The partner appears only as the preferred object of sexual satisfaction, not as a person to be valued in his own right. The notion of self-donation to the other in pursuit of a good that transcends both parties and to which they mutual subordinate their private interest simply does not appear in homosexuality. In place of self-donation there is only self-gratification, self-interest and self-absorption. The proof is contained in the high rates of promiscuity associated with this lifestyle.

It is utterly ridiculous to say that the Catholic Church's notion of religious marriage is "the foundation of Western culture". It is beyond ridiculous. Only the most preposterous notion of history could possibly result in such an incomprehensibly bizarre conclusion. There are countless ways to refute it, starting with the fact that all of the cultures other than western culture (including the ones we despise) also had heterosexual marriage. Obviously, if you want to know what made western culture ascendant, you have to look elsewhere for it. As for the question of whether "sexuality exists in order to get pleasure", he is engaging in an obvious false dilemma fallacy: why can't sexuality function for procreation and for pleasure? His argument repeatedly pounds on this assumption that one must choose one or the other, and the obvious question is: "why?"

Perhaps a second obvious question is: "what business does a celibate archbishop have talking about sex anyway?" He argues here that when sex is used for pleasure, then the person stops viewing his partner as "a person to be valued in his own right". How does this follow? How would he even know? This is a man who knows absolutely nothing about sex. From whence does he obtain this imagined authority to speak about what happens inside the mind of person who is having sex for pleasure? What incredible arrogance does it take to presume to speak about the feelings and thoughts inside the mind of a person who is having sex, when he has never done it?

My wife and I have had sex roughly thrice per week for around 20 years (yes, we started before marriage). By my count, that is roughly three thousand times, and in all those times, we have had only two children. That means we had sex for pleasure more than 99.9% of the time, and sex for procreation less than 0.1% of the time. Does it occur to him how utterly preposterous it is to say that sex is for procreation rather than pleasure? Does he think we should have only had sex twice in the last 20 years? I guess that might seem reasonable to someone who hasn't had sex at all in the last 20 years. How dare he claim that 99.9% of the time when I have sex with my wife, I am not "valuing" her as a person, just because I'm not getting her pregnant? Why should we accept his strange delusion that impregnating a person means you are "valuing" her anyway? The most incredibly misogynist men in the world, such as the Taliban, impregnate their women. Does this mean that they value them? The mind boggles at the incredible mental gymnastics required in order to make, accept, or defend such arguments.

There are layers upon layers of arrogance, ignorance, and outlandish pretension in his statements. It's simply incredible.

In the homosexual paradigm there is neither place nor need for the virtue of chastity to rectify the appetites since that would be an obstacle to the good of pleasure which is being sought. All the virtues need the other virtues in order to operate well and to allow the stable association of the virtues, good moral character, to appear. Chastity in particular is crucial in human development of character since it is the virtue that directs the sexual appetite away from the direct seeking of pleasure for one's self to the seeking of the good of the other. Homosexual behavior has for its driving principle the experience of pleasure. Once pleasure becomes the organizing principle of one's life, the motivation to subordinate one's a private interests to the good of the other when pleasure is no longer a possibility disappears.

Ah, so anyone who seeks pleasure must lose all virtue? Why should sexual pleasure be singled out in this regard then? Why should we not say the same about people who eat tasty food rather than gruel? Or people who enjoy a nice hot bath? Or people who like to smell a flower, or enjoy a warm summer breeze? Do all these people lose virtue, and forget how to "subordinate one's private interests to the good of the other"?

Should we deny ourselves any and all enjoyment in life so that we may better serve others? If that is the archbishop's position (and it may well be), then he should come out with it and admit that he simply wants to suck all the pleasure out of life for everyone, instead of focusing only on homosexuals. By focusing on homosexuals, he makes himself a spectacular hypocrite: his argument applies equally well to any form of pleasure-seeking, yet he focuses it only on homosexuality: an activity which most of his donating parishioners conveniently do not engage in, thus making it an easy target for righteous outrage.

The dramatic changes in law that BILL 185 proposes will have inevitable consequences. Once homosexuality becomes a validated principle of civil law, the inversion of sexuality that it proposes will spell the eventual end of Western Civilization. No culture can retain its vitality over generations without the virtues necessary to rectify the appetites, especially the sexual appetite. The first consequence of the adoption of the ideology of homosexuality will be the introduction on an institutional scale of the culture of self-absorption. Since homosexually is about receiving, not giving, its institutionalization will lead to the victimization of all those who are induced to embrace this lifestyle. (I am speaking especially about the children and the confused and immature of our society.) Law has a formative role in every society since we learn what is good and bad first from the law, and then only internalize these values over time so that as we mature we have the good moral character that is needed, among other things, for staying out of jail. When the laws of Guam encourage the development of defective character in its citizens, they are, in effect, recruiting for the Department of Corrections. Over time, civil society will become a jungle, and you will eventually have to expel the inmates of the DOC so that you can move into it for your own protection. Civil society will implode.

What will he do when nothing of the sort happens in Canada? Will he admit he was spectacularly wrong, or will he continue to spew his outlandish claim that all of morality somehow stems from sexual self-denial, or that sexual pleasure-seeking is a behaviour unique to homosexuals? I have a little news flash for the archbishop: we heterosexuals seek sexual pleasure too. When I am having sex with my wife, I am giving pleasure, and I am receiving pleasure, and neither of us are denying ourselves anything. Self-denial is not in any way an aspect of our sex lives. Why doesn't he excoriate people like us? Oh but of course, he can't: we're like the majority of his paying congregation, so we're immune. It would impact his donations, wouldn't it? How convenient. He should criticize us only enough to make us feel guilty, so that we would donate more money, but not so much that we become angered and reject his church.

The second consequence of the adoption of the ideology of homosexuality will be the marginalization of the biological family. Homosexual behavior cannot produce children. The adoption of children by those in a homosexual relationship always deprives a child of the experience of either a mother or a father. It is one thing for a child to be orphaned by the death of his biological parents, but for the child to be deliberately conceived for the benefit of those in homosexual unions violates the child's rights to the biological bonds that constitute the emotion glue of the family. When one has two fathers, he is condemned to be a motherless child. Moreover he will also be a fatherless child. With two men who present themselves as his fathers, with whom can he bond as his [emphasis in the original] father? The failure to bond with his mother and father creates a huge wound in a child.

While there is some evidence for the positive benefits of having a role model for both genders in the family, there is much greater evidence that alcoholism, poverty, illiteracy, and a criminal record will result in a terrible childhood. Why doesn't the good archbishop condemn the marriages of alcoholics, poor people, illiterates, and ex-criminals? Why has the Church never made the slightest effort to condemn or discourage such marriages? What about tobacco smoking, which kills four hundred thousand Americans every year according to the CDC, and which affects the child even before birth, not to mention doubling the risk of the child himself becoming a smoker? Why doesn't the Catholic Church condemn smoker marriage? Oops, I forgot: because, once again, that would impact the good archbishop's revenue stream.

Moreover, he is normally condemned to be an only child, without brothers or sisters. Over generations, the number of these wounded individuals, without biological bonds to the people with whom they have had to live, and whose only reason for being called into being is to meet the emotion needs of self-absorbed others, will increase the class that cannot care for the next generation because they have too many unresolved problems of their own. There is a tipping point where the society itself begins to implode. Already we have the highest number of out-of-wedlock births of any place in the nation. The growing number of the incarcerated is another warning sign that we are approaching the point of implosion.

The archbishop needs to get his argument straight: if these kinds of social problems are a result of gay marriage, then why are they already happening, even though gay marriage is not yet legal? And honestly, at the risk of belabouring a point, how can someone be so completely oblivious to society that he thinks sexual pleasure-seeking is something the homosexuals invented? We heterosexuals are very good at sexual pleasure seeking, thank you very much.

The third consequence of the adoption of the ideology of homosexuality will be the crisis that it will generate in the area of public health. Ironically, Senator B. J. Cruz has introduced legislation to require a higher tax on cigarettes in order to discourage habits that are detrimental to good health. The same senator wants to require the use of helmets by motorcyclists as a way of reducing injuries and the consequent unnecessary drain on the financial resources of the hospital. At the same time, he is promoting a lifestyle that carries with it far more risks to health. A culture cannot flourish when a significant portion of the population is suffering diseases as a consequence of having been encouraged by the structures of civil law itself to expose themselves to the risks inherent in sodomy. By adopting Bill 185, the Guam Legislature Will become a co-conspirator in the conspiracy of silence regarding the health consequences of homosexuality. Over time, the health care system of Guam Will implode.

If homosexuality carries "far more risks to health" than cigarette smoking and unprotected motorcycle riding, then surely there should be some sort of evidence that the good archbishop can point to, instead of making such a preposterous claim on his own authority.

The culture of homosexuality is a culture of self-absorption because it does not value self-sacrifice. It is a glaring example of what John Paul II has called the culture of death. Islamic fundamentalists clearly understand the damage that homosexual behavior inflicts on a culture. That is why they repress such behavior by death. Their culture is anything but one of self-absorption. It may be brutal at times, but any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers (women as well as men) is a culture that at least knows how to value self-sacrifice. Terrorism as a way to oppose the degeneration of the culture is to be rejected completely since such violence is itself another form of degeneracy. One, however, does not have to agree with the gruesome ways that the fundamentalists use to curb the forces that undermine their culture to admit that the Islamic fundamentalist charge that Western Civilization in general and the U.S.A, in particular is the "Great Satan" is not without an element of truth. It makes no sense for the U. S. Government to send our boys to fight Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, while at the same time it embraces the social policies embodied in Bill 185 (as President Obama has done). Such policies only furnish further arguments for the fundamentalists in their efforts to gain more recruits for the war against the "Great Satan."

In other words, "I agree with Al-Qaeda's ideology, just not their methods". The man virtually makes the case against himself. He is very, very wrong about the foundation of Western culture. Western culture is where it is because we did not follow the Islamic fundamentalist ways. His sympathy for Al-Qaeda's ideology only shows that despite his rhetoric about the importance of "Western culture", he actually rejects it.

In voting on Bill 185, you are faced with the choice either to embrace the common good of Guam and put you[sic] private good (the desire to be re-elected) in jeopardy, or to sink into self-adsorption[sic] and vote in your political self-interest. To say that the stakes are high in Bill 185 is a massive understatement. At stake is nothing less than the implosion of the moral culture of the people of Guam. The West today is engaged in a struggle with Islamic fundamentalists who are not always in sympathy with democratic values that the West holds dear. They are resisting with all the force at their command those forces that oppose marriage and the family. If we do not do the same, they will win the contest by sheer numbers alone. History will judge your desire to secure your private self-interest at this moment in Guam's history as appallingly petty in view of the damage it will do to the common good of Guam. By adopting Bill 185, you will have contributed to the end of Western Civilization.

In other words, he believes that we must outlaw gay marriage so that we can make more babies and fight Al-Qaeda. One could write entire essays on how horrendously broken this logic is, at every step of the way.

[Patrick Degan]

Since homosexually is about receiving, not giving...

So... if two gays are having sex, they're both merely receiving? Neither is giving? How do you have one receiving if the other is not giving, Your Grace? That sounds like they're just passively lying there in the bed waiting for something to happen.

[Darth Wong]

Since homosexually is about receiving, not giving...

So... if two gays are having sex, they're both merely receiving? Neither is giving? How do you have one receiving if the other is not giving, Your Grace? That sounds like they're just passively lying there in the bed waiting for something to happen.

When the archbishop says it is about "receiving" or "giving", he is referring to sperm. He is not talking about pleasure, since he says sex is not supposed to be about pleasure at all. As far as he is concerned, sex is strictly for procreation, so when he says that a heterosexual man "gives" during sex, he is referring to "giving the gift of life".

Therefore, in his mind, anyone who receives sperm without any intent to procreate is being very selfish (interestingly enough, this viewpoint presumes that everyone desires sperm). In other words, his argument applies to heterosexual contraception just as much as it applies to homosexuality. He gives that game away very early in his letter, by speaking derisively of the "culture of contraception".

Of course, it goes without saying that there's not a shred of evidence for his theory that cultures which embrace contraception will experience a massive collapse of the entire social order, leading to anarchy and chaos as armed gangs roam the street killing people.

[Patrick Degan]

Since homosexually is about receiving, not giving...

So... if two gays are having sex, they're both merely receiving? Neither is giving? How do you have one receiving if the other is not giving, Your Grace? That sounds like they're just passively lying there in the bed waiting for something to happen.

When the archbishop says it is about "receiving" or "giving", he is referring to sperm. He is not talking about pleasure, since he says sex is not supposed to be about pleasure at all. As far as he is concerned, sex is strictly for procreation, so when he says that a heterosexual man "gives" during sex, he is referring to "giving the gift of life".

Therefore, in his mind, anyone who receives sperm without any intent to procreate is being very selfish (interestingly enough, this viewpoint presumes that everyone desires sperm). In other words, his argument applies to heterosexual contraception just as much as it applies to homosexuality. He gives that game away very early in his letter, by speaking derisively of the "culture of contraception".

Of course, it goes without saying that there's not a shred of evidence for his theory that cultures which embrace contraception will experience a massive collapse of the entire social order, leading to anarchy and chaos as armed gangs roam the street killing people.

The funny thing is, the Archbishop's position that sex is procreation-only goes against what I understood to be the teaching of the Church in regards to sex within the context of marriage, which makes him even more fucked-up than the Vatican.

[Plekhanov]

The funny thing is, the Archbishop's position that sex is procreation-only goes against what I understood to be the teaching of the Church in regards to sex within the context of marriage, which makes him even more fucked-up than the Vatican.

In what way exactly? As I'd always understood the Catholic church's opposition to contraception to be on the grounds that sex should only be had with the intention of trying to have children, even if you're infertile.

A great deal of their rhetoric, particularly that dealing with gay marraige, would suggest this anyway.

[Norseman]

I think that I'll try to explain what he means, not because I agree with his argument (though it's remarkably interesting in sort of a Greco-Roman-Victorian way), but mainly to translate what is said into something you would find intelligible.

One may legitimately separate out making love from making babies. Once this link was broken, the intelligibility of biological gender was lost.

The "intelligibility of biological gender was lost" when we pointed out that sex is not synonymous with making babies? Has this idiot ever cracked open a biology textbook? How does it become impossible to tell male from female just because we recognize that sex need not produce babies?

Note this isn't quite the argument that he made, but I think I kind of, sort of, see what he's driving at. Basically gender and sex are not the same things. Male and female are sexes, while man and woman are genders, for instance you may have a person whose sex does not match their gender. Gender is also at least partially socially defined, even if there are biological inclinations, e.g. 1950s housewife versus modern liberated woman. So from a traditionalist point of view it's not entirely out of bounds to claim that certain developments erases gender differences and tries to unnaturally remove gender differences that are based on the biological inclinations of your birth sex. Indeed given the arguments he gives later on it seems that he's basically confused about the definitions of gender and sex, and that he uses the word gender to mean both gender and sex.

Secondly, the culture of homosexuality proposed a new understanding of gender based, not on the body, but on the orientation of a person's sexual appetites.

...

It's difficult to slog through such a bizarre series of non sequiturs. First, it is possible to permit gay marriage without necessarily being a part of "the culture of homosexuality". I'm not homosexual, yet I approve of gay marriage. How does he explain that?

...

From his point of view you are part of the Culture of Homosexuality, it's not necessary to actually be a homosexual as long as you support the rights of homosexuals, do not disapprove of them, back their right for civil rights, and/or participate in any GLBT related social events. It's a bit like saying the Culture of Death for abortion supporters, you don't have to have had an abortion, to have procured one, or to be a woman, so long as you support peoples right to having an abortion you are part of the Culture of Death.

For the record he would almost certainly count me as part of the Culture of Homosexuality even though I'm straight, due to having gay friends and not feeling the need to scream that what they are doing is disgusting.

Aaaaaand this ends the section where I try to explain what he's talking about, becasue basically... yeah those are pretty much his points and the rest is just rambling.

[W]hy can't sexuality function for procreation and for pleasure? His argument repeatedly pounds on this assumption that one must choose one or the other, and the obvious question is: "why?"

Interestingly he goes against the Catholic Church here who is very clear that intercourse in marriage is also for pleasure and indeed that one shouldn't deny intercourse to your spouse, but it seems that the Archbishop missed the whole Theology of the Body lesson. Then again he's out in Guam... Coincidence or a sign of the confidence Church authorities have in him? You tell me!

Since homosexually is about receiving, not giving, its institutionalization will lead to the victimization of all those who are induced to embrace this lifestyle.

...

Since homosexually is about receiving, not giving, its institutionalization will lead to the victimization of all those who are induced to embrace this lifestyle.

...

No way...



Oh man! He actually wrote that? Let me assure the Archbishop that homosexuality can be about both giving and receiving, why do I get the vibe of unfortunate events in seminary? Why do I see images of the Lavender Mafia gathering around the poor acolyte? Maybe I just have a dirty mind, maybe he's really so innocent that he didn't realise what he was writing but... one should never, ever, yuse the words giving and receiving like this when writing about any GLBT issues.

The culture of homosexuality is a culture of self-absorption because it does not value self-sacrifice. It is a glaring example of what John Paul II has called the culture of death. Islamic fundamentalists clearly understand the damage that homosexual behavior inflicts on a culture. That is why they repress such behavior by death.

Yep this is why every single Islamic culture has the institution of pretty boys who bend over for older men in return for nice trinkets. See that's what happens when you declare that women are evil, filthy creatures who should be locked up in purdah; men decide to go after younger men instead. There is a lot of gay sex going on in the Middle-East, seriously in Yemen (I think) gay men have a dress code involving flamboyantly coloured clothing in order to draw attention! Given that it takes four male witnesses to the act there's a reason why Teheran has one of the most flourishing gay scenes in the world.

But wait... those dirty, naughty, silly facts! I forgot I'm not allowed to use those right?

[Bounty]

The funny thing is, the Archbishop's position that sex is procreation-only goes against what I understood to be the teaching of the Church in regards to sex within the context of marriage, which makes him even more fucked-up than the Vatican.

In what way exactly? As I'd always understood the Catholic church's opposition to contraception to be on the grounds that sex should only be had with the intention of trying to have children, even if you're infertile.

A great deal of their rhetoric, particularly that dealing with gay marraige, would suggest this anyway.

No, the church is very much behind sex as an expression of love. They dress it up in rhetoric about making something more than the meeting of bodies, but there is definitely an element of mutual pleasure.

[Bounty]

Ghetto edit: Humanae Vitae even addresses this specifically, saying that a couple can have sex even if they know for certain it won't lead to conception due to factors outside their control (like, for instance, during her infertile period):

It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed.

So basically, once the rings are on, it's go time all the time.

[AdmiralKanos]

Apparently, if the above is correct, the archbishop is conservative even for a Catholic. I wonder if he is getting any feedback on his bizarre letter from fellow Catholics. It goes without saying what progressives will think of it, but I'm curious if his fellow Catholics are lining up behind him, trying to ignore him, or thinking he's got serious issues.

[Darth Wong]

Hmmm, judging by the CatholicPlanet discussion forum "required beliefs for members" page, this guy is really not too far off track for a devout Catholic.

http://www.catholicplanet.net/forum/sho ... php?t=2766

ON SEXUAL ETHICS:

A. The only moral sexual act is natural marital relations open to life.

B. A sexual act is natural if it is the type of intercourse between a man and a woman that is inherently capable of procreation. If the man or woman is infertile, the act is still natural if that act would be capable of procreation in fertile individuals. If the man or woman use artificial contraception (which is immoral), the sexual act itself is still of the natural type (though substantially impaired) if that act, absent the contraception, would be capable of procreation in fertile individuals. Natural sexual intercourse is the type of sexual act which has served to propagate the human race since after its inception, and which has served as an essential part of the Sacrament of Marriage since its inception.

C. Any sexual act is unnatural if it is a type of sexual act not inherently capable of procreation.

D. All unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. Therefore, such acts cannot be considered moral under any circumstances, even if completed by, combined with, preceded by, or followed by an act of natural marital relations.

E. Each sexual act must be considered separately as to whether or not it is an act of natural marital relations open to life. A sexual act that is unnatural cannot be justified by the claim that it is partial (i.e. not brought to completion) or that it is combined in some way with natural marital relations. A sexual act that is not open to life cannot be justified by the claim that it is partial or that it is combined in some way with natural marital relations open to life.

F. All unnatural sexual acts, including oral, anal, and manual stimulation, whether partial or completed, even if used as so-called foreplay with the sexual act being completed in natural marital relations, even if used after natural marital relations to bring the woman to completion, even if preceded by, combined with, or followed by an act of natural marital relations, are nevertheless intrinsically disordered and always objectively gravely immoral.

G. Certain kinds of acts are intrinsically evil. Such acts are immoral regardless of circumstance or intention. Such acts cannot become moral by any means whatsoever because the acts are in and of themselves immoral. Intrinsically evil acts do not depend for their morality on intention or circumstance; they do not depend upon the internal state of the individual, nor upon the result of the act, nor upon events which precede, coincide with, or follow the act. Nothing whatsoever can make an act that is intrinsically evil into a good or a morally-acceptable act. That which is in itself evil is never good. Intrinsically evil acts are not defined by intention or circumstance, but only by the act itself and the meaning inherent in the act itself under the eternal law of God.

H. An actual sin occurs when a person knowingly chooses what is immoral. In all areas of morality, each act must be evaluated on its own as to whether it is good or evil. If a person knowingly chooses to do what is evil, such an act cannot become good, even if the act occurs before, during, or after another act that is good.

I. The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, other than in natural marital relations open to life, is intrinsically evil because each and every sexual act must retain both the unitive and procreative meanings in order to be moral.

[Bounty]

I find that list very suspicious. He only cites a few Bible verses to support these so-called 'rules', and it reads less like actual doctrine and more like his own personal interpretation. Going through the catechism I see nothing that supports a ban on any sexual activity within the context of marital relations:

Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death.

Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude. Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure

In fact, I'm pretty sure it's almost explicitly condoned with marital relations:

The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose. For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.

[Darth Wong]

Did you miss the parts where he repeatedly says that any "unnatural" sex act is evil, even if it occurs within the context of marital relations?

[Bounty]

Which 'he' would that be? Because for matter of church teachings I'd sooner go to their actual rules than listen to a forum mod or some bishop from south of nowhere.

(sex bits start around 2350)

[Darth Wong]

Which 'he' would that be? Because for matter of church teachings I'd sooner go to their actual rules than listen to a forum mod or some bishop from south of nowhere.

(sex bits start around 2350)

What the fuck is your mental deficiency? I was just trying to find out if this archbishop was really that unusual for a hard-line Catholic, not playing your legalistic bullshit game of trying to see if it's all official blahblahblah Pope catechism blahblahblah infallible chuckehead blahblahblah nonsense. Don't change the subject.

[Bounty]

I was just trying to find out if this archbishop was really that unusual for a hard-line Catholic

My mistake. I took your two posts to be related (ie, "is the archbishop using official doctrine or not") and thought you were trying to use a really shitty source to prove his position was the official position.

But yeah, you'll find enough hardliners who agree with him 100%. The current official rules are far more lenient than many old-school Catholics are comfortable with.

[Darth Holbytlan]

F. All unnatural sexual acts, including oral, anal, and manual stimulation, whether partial or completed, even if used as so-called foreplay with the sexual act being completed in natural marital relations, even if used after natural marital relations to bring the woman to completion, even if preceded by, combined with, or followed by an act of natural marital relations, are nevertheless intrinsically disordered and always objectively gravely immoral.

Wait, what? So if a man is to have non-sinful sex with his wife, he has to become aroused by sheer willpower? Has this guy ever had sex?1

1He's not a priest, according to his bio, but it doesn't say he's married, either.

[Simon_Jester]

Or the obvious yet not comical question: Where does a suicide bomber that kills a pregnant woman and prevents her from having children fit into this?

Also, I always found it funny how priests, who in many cases have made a vow of celibacy, question lifestyle choices that, like theirs, do not lead to having children.

Because they aren't using a frame of reference in which concepts like "lifestyle choice" makes sense.

In a priestly frame of reference, there is no real choice about how to live life, with all options having about the same a priori validity. Instead, there are righteous acts and there are antirighteous acts. Having children is righteous, but so is the discipline of following a vow of chastity, so taking a vow of chastity that rules out having children is OK- it sort of cancels out. You're being righteous either way.

Whereas sex is antirighteous, so you have to have children as a result of sex for the antirighteousness to be justified. Sex without children is antirighteousness without a balancing act of righteousness, and therefore bad.