Notes: Tuesday-Wednesday, January 18-19, 2011

1. "British gay couple turned away from B&B win discrimination case"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/british-gay-couple-turned-away-from-bb-win-discrimination-case/story-fn3dxity-1225990668968

Labels: discrimination, G.L.B.T.

2. Ms Tankard Reist on surrogacy

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/gestational-carrier-is-an-ugly-term/story-e6frg6zo-1225990595552

Labels: parenthood, surrogacy

3. "Abortion Has Caused 300K Breast Cancer Deaths Since Roe"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35595

Labels: abortion, cancer, health

4. Dr. Peters and others on the obligation on clerics to be celibate and/or continent

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/01/continence-and-married-deaconspriests/

Dr. Peters has posted at his website a full, searchable P.D.F. version of his Studia Canonica article "Canonical considerations on diaconal continence” (previously only the abstract, which I have brought to your attention already in item 2 of this post, was available there):

http://www.canonlaw.info/a_deacons.htm

Unfortunately I do not have time to read it yet, though.

Labels: celibacy, Deacons, Divine positive law, Ecclesiastical law, Edward Peters, Priesthood

5. "Row over HIV health cash"

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/row-over-hiv-health-cash-20110115-19rvu.html?skin=text-only

Excerpts:

A BITTER row has erupted in Sydney's gay community after a group of prominent activists accused the state's leading homosexual health service of squandering millions of dollars in taxpayers' money.

Gay rights campaigner Gary Burns, HIV lobbyist Shayne Chester and journalist Peter Hackney have demanded the state government "demolish" ACON, formerly known as the AIDS Council of NSW.

The trio alleged the service, which specialises in HIV prevention, care and support, received $12.6 million in government funding last year but spent only $800,000 on programs and services. In a scathing attack, the group dubbed the organisation a "gravy train" and called on Premier Kristina Keneally to hand back ACON's work to NSW Health.

[...] Mr Chester said NSW had had high rates of HIV infection for more than a decade, and this was compounded by an increase in unprotected casual sex among gay men.

"Why is this happening?" he asked. "Because ACON, which is chartered with HIV education and prevention, is failing us."

[...] In NSW cases involving HIV infection peaked in the mid-1980s, with 1636 diagnoses reported in 1987. Since then rates have dropped dramatically, with 327 new cases recorded in 2009, although that is a slight increase from 323 in 2008.

Labels: ACON, G.L.B.T., H.I.V./A.I.D.S., health, vice

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of Sts. Marius, Martha, Audifax, and Abachum, Martyrs, and of St. Canute, King, Martyr, A.D. 2011

Notes: Tuesday-Wednesday, November 2-3, 2010

1. Mr. MacIntyre on the history of Franco-British co-operation

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/britain-france-to-bury-the-hatchet-at-last/story-e6frg6ux-1225946879102

I was surprised to learn the following from that article:

David Cameron is not the first Tory leader to embrace closer military and political union with Britain's best enemy across the Channel. One of his predecessors once proposed an "indissoluble union" of Britain and France, suggesting that "the two governments declare that France and Great Britain shall no longer be two nations, but one Franco-British Union. Every citizen of France will enjoy immediately citizenship of Great Britain; every British subject will become a citizen of France."

The author of this proposal was none other than Winston Churchill. In 1940, with Nazi forces pouring into France, Churchill, backed by the war cabinet, proposed that the two countries become one, combining armies, parliaments and currencies. It was rejected by French collaborationists led by Marshal Petain, who insisted that Britain would soon "have her neck wrung like a chicken".

I think that I had heard of the following earlier, though:

French documents discovered two years ago reveal that, in 1956, French prime minister Guy Mollet proposed to Anthony Eden that France merge with Britain, with the Queen head of the amalgamated state. Eden turned down the idea, but was more enthusiastic about a suggestion that France join the Commonwealth.

2. Dr. Peters on the canonical obligation of clerical continence

http://www.canonlaw.info/a_deacons.htm
(Brought to my attention by this comment at AQ, to which I have responded with this comment.)

3. Blog comments by me

Just these two, both of which are quite short and hence not worth copying-and-pasting, so I'll just give their respective links:

http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/thats-sooooo-20th-century/#comment-17950
http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/thats-sooooo-20th-century/#comment-17968

Reginaldvs Cantvar

Feast of St. Martin de Porres, Confessor, A.D. 2010

Notes: Wednesday, June 9, 2010

AQ thread with useful information on the status of the Second Vatican Council and its teachings

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31988

Particularly this comment.

Blog comment by me

At Mr. Schütz's blog:

Cardinal Pole
June 9, 2010 at 4:54 am

“To accept the “so when” part, on which the rest depends, is entirely outside of following Natural Law”

No, not entirely; as I said, the natural law commands us to believe/accept whatever God deigns to reveal to us. The content–”God assumes a human nature [and] founds His Church as the historical continuation of His Incarnation”–of the command cannot be known by unaided reason, but the fact that the relevant command would exist can. In other words, the command’s matter is not of natural law, but its efficiency is.

“So when one accepts Christian Revelation, and in fact, more specific than that, when one accepts the Roman Catholic version of Christian Revelation, [my] “then” follows.”

True, but that needlessly omits mentioning that that acceptance is natural-law obligatory.

“However, since accepting Christian Revelation in any version, including Concordia, is not from Natural Law but by faith which is the gift of God, it is false to say the Social Reign of Christ is established by Natural Law reasoning.”

Yet the person to whom the Gospel has been adequately announced yet formally rejects it sins against both natural law and Divine positive law. What you have written here is no disproof of my case for the natural-law obligation requiring societies to which the Gospel has been announced to make Christianity the State religion etc.
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/simon-shama-on-the-snares-of-history-for-the-secular-humanist/#comment-15194]

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Columba, Abbot, A.D. 2010

Pernicious Proportionalism

A subversive little article appeared in one of last week’s editions of Cathnews, entitled “Benedict XVI and Proportionalism”, by one Brian Lewis (presumably Dr. Lewis). I offer, firstly, some of Dr. Lewis’ key points:

• Proportionalism’s proponents “attempted to stress personal freedom and creative responsibility and to develop a more realistic approach to the place and meaning of moral rules in Christian ethics”
• “Proportionalism shifts the focus of moral judgment of right and wrong squarely onto consequences and other attendant circumstances of an action.”
• “For [proportionalists] there are no intrinsically evil acts if by acts is meant physical actions considered in the abstract … The reason for this is that the context enters in the very object or meaning of the act.”
• “Acts are not good or bad in themselves, according to proportionalists. The other side of the coin is that, in order to act rightly, it is necessary to weigh up the good that will be achieved and the evil that may result.”
• “Because of the central importance of proportionate reason in this theory, it is referred to as Proportionalism”

And perhaps most importantly:

• “For proportionalists a good intention certainly does not justify a morally wrong action. For them it is necessary to look at all the morally relevant circumstances before one can know exactly what the action is and whether it is to be judged as morally wrong.”

Now it is not clear to me exactly what Dr. Lewis thinks of this school of thought. I detect in him a certain sympathy for it, with the proviso that “the dignity of the human person and the place of human rights” must be “the centrepiece of moral decision making.” But this is completely the wrong angle from which to approach the question (not least because it is unclear whether Dr. Lewis means ontological dignity or operative dignity). The right ‘angle’, I contend, is the Will of God. Some of God’s laws are, if you will, descriptive (Divine natural law) and others are prescriptive (Divine positive law). Some actions are morally wrong simply because He has revealed them to be so—He has revealed this to be His Will—regardless of what their respective consequences might be. Proportionalism makes a mockery of the Divine positive law. But then, God hardly enters into Dr. Lewis’ analysis at all.

There is also a tension, to which Dr. Lewis appears oblivious, between stressing “personal freedom and creative responsibility” and developing “a more realistic approach to the place and meaning of moral rules in Christian ethics”. What approach could be more realistic than the traditional Catholic understanding of fallen man, with his weakened will, clouded intellect and base appetites, all of which constrain, in a sense, his freedom? This is in contrast to the pervasive evolutionary humanist understanding of man as a ‘work in progress’, progressing ‘onwards and upwards’ through evolution towards an ever-higher consciousness, perhaps towards some ultimate ‘Omega Point’. I denounce this all as nothing more than an updated utilitarianism and an attempt to sideline God in moral reasoning.

Reginaldvs Cantvar