« Bishop Serratelli Tries to Reply to Msgr Ryan | Main | A Murky Moment in Eucharistic Prayer III »

March 01, 2010


Mark Andrews

Humph. Those who appeal to "nature" must also be judged by it.

The same-sex sexual behavior observed across a wide range of animal species in-situ is "natural" in the sense that it "occurs in nature." Yes, I've read Bagemihl's "Biological Exuberance" too.

What's the old canard, "You don't get an 'ought' from an 'is'?"

Until somebody bridges the teleological gap from Bagemihl to social moral theology & personal moral theology - and from there to the acting person - David Norris' rhetoric remains heartfelt but unconvincing.

Spirit of Vatican II

It is true that Thomas Aquinas regarded homosexual desire as natural secundum quid (in one respect) while condemning homosexual acts. However, the presence of homosexuality throughout nature is a point only very reluctantly recognized by the defense, since it totally undercuts their long-standing argument that homosexuality is totally unnatural in the sense that it does not occur in nature, and it also undermines their view that homosexual orientation is a choice.

Your characterization of Senator Norris's rhetoric is quite incorrect (he did not come down in the last shower, you know). He points out that when the Church -- or rather belligerent and ill-prepared lawyers who think they know the Church's mind -- call homosexuality unnatural they are using the word in a highly specialized sense that does not accord with its usage in common discourse.

Even though recently the Pope has used the expression "natural law" in criticizing British leglislation about adoption by gay couples, the notorious 1986 document, Homosexualitis Problema, does not uses the language of natural and unnatural to talk about homosexuality: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html


It should be noted that historians have determined that the "Put them all to sword. God will recognize his own” tale is apocryphal; the tale post dates the event by many years and the evidence for it is not verifiable.


David's point is well made and passionate as one would expect. I am somewhat dissapointed that he should be so bitchy abut Martin Mansergh. Legislation to cover those co-habiting couples whose relationships are non sexual should not be viewed as insulting to LGBT people, though it might be tactful to deal with it separately. I commend to David's attention the work being done by Jeffrey John, Anglican theologian and Dean of St Albans, on creating a path for integrating monogamous, permanent and faithful relationships within the Christian tradition, gay marriage if you will.

As for David being the next President, a big yes!! Just a word or two of advice from a fellow old queen, try not to be quite so nasty and spiteful, darling, it doesn't go down well with the punters, and one David Starkey is quite enough! And when CoI clergy accidentially pray for the Queen's Majesty south of the border, we'll know exactly who they mean!

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad