Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Notes: Tuesday, August 9-Tuesday, August 16, 2011 (part 1 of 2)

1. Dr. Sudlow on an essay which, according to him, "reframes the problem [of whether Dignitatis humanæ is in continuity with pre-Conciliar teaching] completely"


The core of this 'reframing' seems to be, in Dr. Sudlow's reading, as follows:
the Church has only dogmatically asserted its power of coercion over the baptised, and any State which acts as the civil arm to help the Church in this matter does so by delegation of the Church and NOT by its own power.
The problem with that, and the reason for which I disagree that it is "game-changing", is that although the State does indeed exercise coercive power over the Baptised in matters of religion by delegation of the Church, nevertheless, the State is competent to act by its own power when it seeks to repress offences against the Catholic religion; trying to make someone do what he does not want to do (coercion) is quite different to preventing him from doing what he wants to do.

Labels: Church and State, Dignitatis Humanæ, morality, religious liberty, theology, Thomas Pink

2. A Herald letter which corrects misconceptions about religious exemptions from taxation

Under the heading "Churches do pay" here:


Labels: taxation

3. "Report finds boys exhibit behavioural problems earlier than girls"


Labels: gender differences

4. A couple of recent comments from Dr. Brown

4.1 On the Eucharist as memorial

Mainly his third point here:


Labels: liturgy

4.2 A joke


Labels: liturgy, N.O.M., T.L.M.

5. Mr. Brent on voting turnout


Labels: voting

6. An attempted defence of sodomite-catamite 'parenting' which (defence) backfires

From a letter to the Herald last week:
Maurie Stack and Martin Bell (Letters, August 11) should not assume that two lesbians raising children are depriving those children of a relationship with their biological father.

[...] [The Lesbian letter-writer's children] also know who their donor father is and we have always fostered contact and a relationship with him. We are not alone in this family model.

The problem with this line of argument is that once they acknowledge that contact and a relationship with the biological father is a good thing, one has to ask them Why do you deprive the children of the best form of contact and relationship, which is that in which the biological father lives with his children? I suppose that defenders of depriving children of this good would try to deflect the argument by pointing out that it is not just Lesbian households in which the biological father does not live with the children. This attempted evasion is answered by pointing out that fathers who legitimately live away from their respective families do so for some greater good, e.g. in the case of overseas military service, whereas Lesbian couples do so for an evil, namely, the indulgence of their disordered preferences. (And as for fathers who illegitmately live away from their respective families, one need only point out that two wrongs don't make a right.)

(And of course, the same goes, mutatis mutandis, for Gay 'co-parents' whose children have only intermittent contact with their respective biological mothers.)

Labels: families, G.L.B.T., morality, parenthood

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Joachim, Confessor, A.D. 2011

1 comment:

Colin said...

Supporters of artificial reproduction can always rationalise their conflicting principles. Although Leslie Cannold seems to have hit a new low. In this interview on Triple J she seems to be an advocate for dead beat dads, all in the name of "choice".