Monday, 27 July 2015

Ellen Gets It Right

Ellen of Tasmania is a regular Catallaxyfiles contributer. This morning, this is what she had to say in response to a comment from Fisky (justly celebrated developer of the Fisk Doctrine, a challenging approach to the use of free speech when confronted by those who don't believe in it).

Ellen says:

Most people don’t care if they are illogical or irrational.
They do care about cool-shaming and peer group pressure. They care about being seen to be ‘on the right side of history’ – even if it’s the wrong side. They care about looking caring – even if such caring has dire consequences. They care about their current comfort and security; they care about not having to go against the flow; they care about caring with the least possible disruption to their daily lives.
In such a foaming, fuzzy fog of feeling, it’s hard to see clearly.

Oh yes indeed.

Sunday, 26 July 2015

Chris Wortham on Shakespeare

Chris Wortham taught me both medieval and Renaissance literature back in the day at U Dubs, so this should be a fantastic talk!

I hope to see you there (something always seems to go wrong shortly before Dawson events I really want to go to, so fingers crossed this time).

Thursday, 9 July 2015

Up Tails All

“One does not argue about The Wind in the Willows. The young man gives it to the girl with whom he is in love, and, if she does not like it, asks her to return his letters. The older man tries it on his nephew, and alters his will accordingly. The book is a test of character. We can’t criticise it, because it is criticising us. But I must give you one word of warning. When you sit down to it, don’t be so ridiculous as to suppose that you are sitting in judgment on my taste, or on the art of Kenneth Grahame. You are merely sitting in judgment on yourself. You may be worthy: I don’t know, But it is you who are on trial.”
― A.A. Milne

Monday, 29 June 2015

The Experiment Grows Up

From a very interesting article on Daily Life today about the adults who were donor-conceived (DC) and are now asking questions about their genetic origins:
At my clinic alone, codes were deliberately destroyed for 88 pregnancies. Why those 88? Was it all the same donor? Are we all related? What on earth was going on? The RNSH also claimed that this was not "malicious management of records". I was gobsmacked. Not a single RNSH staff member from the time has been held responsible. This is the low regard that society has for donor conceived people. We are treated like unregulated products. Money, and careers, have been made out of our existence. Against that, our humanity doesn't count.
Oh yes indeed. Read the full article.

Thursday, 11 June 2015

Draining the Wound

I have had some conversations recently with disaffected Catholics who feel that the Church is not doing enough to speak out against gay marriage. What they seem to want is a new crusade; a jeremiad preached in unflinching language about homosexual sexual practices that will set the record straight about the difference between this and marriage. 

Hopefully, the exact opposite is true. Hopefully there will be no jeremiad condeming same-sex sexual practices from anyone in any country which is facing the prospect of gay marriage legislation. That is NOT the point of this debate. 

The point of the debate is to stop secular governments redefining marriage away from the contractual obligation to some kind of permanence, and raising of biological children, into something transient and unstable based on a very recent idea of 'love'. 

Catholics need to draw on our 2000 years of Christian legal and social teaching and practice to show these pagan governments that we know a thing or two about stability, permanence, and the best way to raise children. 

We have gone way, WAY beyond the sexual issue now. It's about 50 years too late to start talking about 'depraved actions' or 'perverse sexual practices'. This is because the Catholic Church effectively dropped the ball 50 years ago on this issue with the widespread failure to support the implementation of the encyclical HumanaeVitae. The bishops and priests way back then in 1968 effectively cut our legs out from under us in this debate, because they created the world of sexual doublethink among Catholics. If leeway could be granted for birth control, although expressly condemned, then leeway could be granted for just about anything. 

It's like the old joke about the man who offers a woman $1 million to sleep with him. She accepts. Then he offers her a dollar to sleep with him. She indignantly refuses, and asks, 'Do you think I'm a prostitute?' He replies, 'Madam, we have already established that. Now, we're just haggling over price.' That's exactly where people who compromised on Humanae Vitae have found themselves - they have named their price, but now we're just haggling it down even further. 

And here's the thing: those priests and bishops who let us down were all formed and ordained in the wonderful 1950s when everything in the Catholic Church was marvellous, and everyone went to Mass, and was far holier than we are now. This is why I get so stroppy about people who have a fantasy about the 'good old days': all those priests and bishops who let us down in 1968 were products of the 'good old days'.

I don't deny that at the parish level, a person might have thought that things were 'good' in the 'good old days', but the awful explosion after Vatican II tells me very clearly that things were not OK at all.  We needed that explosion - it was like lancing a boil. And it will take decades to clean up the mess, not because it was a revolution, but because we are draining the poison out of a wound that goes back to the late 19th century with the development of Modernism. (OK, so it actually goes back to Judas, but I'm thinking recent history ...)

There is almost a century of evil that has accumulated inside the Church, due to this set of beliefs, that needs draining out, and it's being drained as we speak, but it will take time. We can't just pump antibiotics in at one end and expect it to clean up the infection; the wound must also be drained at the other end. 

It's painful, but who said we were going to be let off easily? We let this happen in the first place. Here is a saying from those celebrated good old days: Offer it up.

Wednesday, 3 June 2015

Colin Barnett MLA (Lib) on Gay Marriage

Extract from interview with PerthNow:

PN: We’ll move on to an entirely different topic altogether. Where do you stand on same-sex marriage?
CB: First can I say that’s a very personal issue to people. It’s not something I think should be dominated by party politics. With respect to my own views, I think the issue is complicated. I have always taken the view that marriage is a very unique institution, a special institution within our community and I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I know many people will have a disagreement with that. I don’t see it as an equality argument. With respect to gay and lesbian couples I’ve always supported civil unions. I have always supported removing any form of discrimination that may take place and my view is people are free to live their life as they wish. But I don’t believe in changing the nature of marriage itself.
PN: But it’s fair to say you think it (should be) a conscience vote?
CB: Yes, it should be an individual free or conscience vote. And I certainly recognise that more people in the community are probably coming down in support of gay marriage. I just have an attitude that marriage is a unique institution. It’s one of the foundations of our society, and in saying that I don’t believe that is discriminatory at all against gay or lesbian couples. I think it is just a difference.
PN: We’ll agree to disagree on that one I guess, like a lot of people.
CB: Well I think there would be wide implications if change is made.