Jeepers! Who Could Possibly Have Foreseen This?

Jeepers! Who Could Possibly Have Foreseen This? September 11, 2012

Director Nick Cassavetes makes the case for incest:

“No one should judge a brother and sister being with each other if they are in love…if you’re not having kids – who gives a damn?” “Love who you want. Isn’t that what we say? Gay marriage – love who you want?” “You’re not hurting anybody…”

Meanwhile, at another front of the Great Spiritual War of our time in the Land Where Consent is the Sole Criterion of the Good, Gawker makes the case for pedophilia.  Building upon the solid scientific and psychological insights of Lady Gaga, this article argues that pedophiles are born that way and that therefore this “orientation” deserves sympathy.

If by “sympathy” one means the sort of sympathy one has for a raging drunk in his wretchedness and ruin as a result of his capitulation to his fallen human nature, that’s one thing.  All sinners deserve sympathy, even the most wretched. God sympathizes with us  in our abysmal sinful wretchedness and sent his Son to die for the worst of us–even Hitler. But if by “sympathy” you mean “Whatever inclination you happen to feel deserves to be indulged because you feel it” then you are a fool and an enabler of monstrous evil.

The article wants to make the case that the orientation is inborn with some or is the result of some developmental trauma over which they have no control.  Fair enough, that may be so.  I suspect the same is true with incest.  But as Cassavetes demonstrates, in the Land Where Feeling is King and Consent is the Sole Criterion of the Good, we have no capacity for telling the difference between what is actually natural (i.e., in accord with nature and the dignity of the human person) and what is simply the outworking of the Fall through disordered human appetite.  So when Cassavetes and those like him meet perverts who want to screw their sister or their daughter or both, they are defenseless before the logic of our sexually deranged culture.  And so are most of the rest of Americans who–lacking any knowledge of natural law, human dignity, or the common good–have only custom to fall back on and the exclamation “Ewww!” to counter Cassavetes’ “Go for it!”.  “Ewww” was what they fell back on 40 year ago when gay sex was being proposed as a normal, healthy and good desire.  Do you seriously believe “Ewww!” will stand up to the concerted effort of our elites to destroy these next “taboos”?

Until we return to a healthy Catholic understanding of the fall and of mercy, we will continue to be helpless to face the increasing push toward radical perversion.  We will excuse and excuse till we hit the point where somebody does something we can’t excuse.  Then we will whipsaw to merciless condemnation without any possibility of redemption.  In contrast, the Catholic tradition calls us to recognized that all sin, that sin is really destructive and must be acknowledge and repented, and that Jesus has mercy on even the worst sinners if they will but repent.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Sam Wood

    Just like Griswold v. Connecticut’s “right to privacy” opened the door to Roe v. Wade’s right to an abortion, so does the LGBTQ’s argument of “consent-is-good-if-it-doesn’t-harm-anyone” open the door to ALL evil, including zoophilia, incest, man-boy “love”, or even necrophilia. In necrophilia, even though there is no consent, who is harmed? For that matter, one could make love to a leaking dam (I’m sure there’s an “official” name for this “god-given” proclivity). There is a downward spiral here as noted in St. Paul’s first chapter of Romans; there is no end to the descent of our worship. When gods become “creeping things”, our actions follow suit.

    • Rosemarie


      Attraction to leaking dams would fall under the new “object sexuality” orientation. I’m not kidding:

      We’re fast coming to the point where Western psychology will consider every form of deviant sexuality to be perfectly normal and healthy.

      • quasimodo

        Somehow the geniuses with PhDs and MDs have decided that if it happens it must be normal and healthy. Unless it is having Faith.

      • Joannas

        I wonder, given the pending status of the legalization of the OS-individuals’ unions, which we will be forced to call… , you guessed it, Marriage; what their stand is on adopting and raising children. Good God, why are we turning this world into a giant psychiatric ward? And why are the doctors telling us that only those recognizing the various abnormalities of certain behaviours are actually the ones who suffer from the evil disease of “intolerance”? Have mercy on us o Lord, have mercy!

      • Ted Seeber

        In the old days (when I was in high school) we called these people pseudosexuals. Most were actually somewhat heterosexual- lusting after department store dummies.

      • Mark Hartman

        And, of course, after all the deviant sex has been “normalized,” normal heterosexual relationships will be called “abnormal.” Isiah 5:20.

    • Diane

      What is “harm”? Apparently this is as mercurial a thing as is “eeewwww”. Or so the argument may be made if feeling and consent are the only things necessary for judging acts. And what is consent? Consent is either a positive choice, or if the slippery slope argument holds, the woman being raped who concedes in order to save her life may become the next victim of the tyranny of consent and feeling. The Defense for her rapist could argue “But, your Honor, she just lay there and ‘silence is consent’!” Thank God I belong to the a Church that holds to Truth as ABSOLUTELY OBJECTIVE.

    • MichaelP71

      Let’s not blame this ALL on the LGBTQ crowd. We heteros are to blame too! Yeah you know it’s true. Example…Susie and I are gonna do what’s natural…and who are you to judge? We aren’t hurting anyone!! We have consented to one another for this one nighter. Mmmm, Hmmm!!! (Sorry for the snarkiness) With each layer of the onion we peel back it is just one layer of EWWWWWW that gets peeled off.

  • Thomas R

    In fairness the one progressive blog I check out (Ta-Nehisi Coates on the Atlantic Monthly) was really hostile to the Gawker piece and no one defended it much in his comboxes. I don’t agree with social progressives, but I think even they value informed consent and their notions of equality. An adult/child sexual relationship will not have that. So they’re really, in my experience, usually pretty strong against that.

    Although incest is a little murkier in my conversations with them because that can, in theory, be adult consensual. In fact I’ve seen plenty of TV shows that do seem to imply we should accept sex between half-siblings and adopted siblings. (A bit more squeamishness on full-siblings, usually) And if you add “gay” onto it two brothers or two sisters engaging in a homosexual relationship would not produce any inbred children. Still I don’t know if I see “gay incest is okay” stuff all that often and usually when I see it the person is trying to be “edgy.”

    • There was a time when the idea of gay marriage was resisted in certain quarters of the left. Let’s be honest, it used to be a majority of the left. But the underlying principles of that resistance were not sustainable and the gays kept at it and crumbled that resistance away. So good for Mr. Coates’ that he resists. Is his resistance sustainable?

      • Thomas R

        Oh Mr. Coates is for same-sex marriage, abortion, all that. I find him interesting, not morally admirable. That the Gawker thing was way too far for him makes me think it probably doesn’t have that much support.

        • Mark Shea

          For now.

  • We have become a society with the technology of “I, Robot”, and the morals of “I, Claudius”.

    • quasimodo

      and the deep thinking of Snooky

    • Ted Seeber

      I think more the morals of The Robots of Dawn or The Naked Sun, but yeah.

      • Thomas R

        So cool that you know those as I think I was thinking “The Robots of Dawn.”

        • Ted Seeber

          What I find interesting is that Asimov, though an atheist, understood Judaeo-Christian morality and theology enough to think through what the implications were of humanity gaining a slave race. The sexual morality of Aurora and Solaria, while totally opposite extremes, is the obvious conclusion to the master/slave relationships in I Robot.

          And of course, the whole series (both Robot and Empire books) are based on the fall of Pagan Rome.

  • Blog Goliard

    “Then we will whipsaw to merciless condemnation without any possibility of redemption. ”

    The whipsaw has long been in effect. The sexual revolution started really taking hold in the 1970s; and it wasn’t long thereafter that the flamboyantly preposterous child-care abuse witchhunts started up (McMartin, Amirault, etc.). The more we refused to condemn any sexual impulse at all among adults, the more desperately we clung to what was still obviously deeply evil and thus universally-condemned…and the more we were motivated to shred justice and truth to find people we could all agree were evil and burn at the stake to prove that there still were limits and we were still Decent People.

    I’m not entirely sure how that whipsaw will operate–how and where it will be redirected–if our society should, God forbid, soften further on sex with minors.

    • Peter Brown

      I’m betting that it whipsaws against folks who resist the normalization of softening sexual morality and–at least initially, this is the kicker–teach their kids so. My prediction is that this will be defined as “child abuse” and punished accordingly.

      Finding others to despise who are sexually beyond the pale is only cathartic if the whole idea of sexual limits hasn’t been basically scrapped. Once that’s happened, we can expect the search for “Ick” to move on to non-sexual offenders. I’m thinking that traditional religious folks will fill the bill pretty well, being (a) accessible, (b) misunderstood, and (c) depersonalized by the arbiters of our intellectual and political fashions. Oh, and the ability to lump Christians in rhetorically with, say, Islamic terrorists (“religious fundamentalism!”) is handy, as well.

      Of course, I’d be *really*, *really* happy to be proved wrong :-).

  • Chris

    Can’t wait for one child engineered out of three or more “parents”. That’ll create some theological difficulties…

    • Stacy

      How so? The process is not one we should be engaging in, but the status of the child won’t be any different.

      • Chris

        Just questioning if such offspring is “made in the Image of God”, if we go beyond the complimentary union of two, and into synthetic sperm comprising multiple sources. Way above my pay-grade, but I think out loud at no charge.

        • beccolina

          Dare we assume that any child, whether a clone of one person or an amalgam of three (or more) sources of genetics, is not in the image and likeness of God? I am more concerned that children engineered in such a way would be considered property instead of persons in he eyes of the law.

          • Rosemarie


            Isn’t the image and likeness of God primarily in the soul? If the child has a soul then s/he is made in the image of God.

            • Irenist

              “Isn’t the image and likeness of God primarily in the soul? If the child has a soul then s/he is made in the image of God.”
              ^Precisely. A child conceived through, e.g., a man’s sperm, the nuclear DNA from one woman’s ovum, and the mitochondria (and hence mtDNA) from another woman would have three genetic parents, but still only one soul, infused through the direct action of God at the moment of conception. The method of the child’s conception would be a sinful act on the part of all three parents and their medical technologists, but the child would be every bit as much a beloved child of God, not at all responsible for his or her progenitors’ wickedness.

  • Mark R

    Where there is incest there is usually abuse, not love.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      I’ve heard that argument, too, as well as with polygamy. However, polygamous and incestuous relationships would be sinful even if no abuse were taking place.

  • I actually read into that Gawker article and I’m not convinced it fits the ‘what could it hurt’ paradigm because the emphasis seems to be on diagnosing a pedophiliac ‘orientation’ prior to the pedophile acting on their urges with the goal being to keep them from offending.

    I’m not sure about the science involved or whether the studies are legit or not but we have talked a lot on this blog about acts, not inclinations/concupiscence being sinful so there is at least a theoretical possibility of a ‘chaste pedophile’ in the same way there is for a ‘chaste homosexual’.

    • That’s what I got out of it, too. It seemed like there was in that article an acknowledgment that something could be deeply ingrained and someone could be “born this way” and yet that still didn’t make acting on those deeply felt impulses right.

    • Jill

      I agree. I can’t speak to whether the science is valid but I didn’t get any impression that the pedophile article was advocating for pedophilia to be “accepted”.

      “A sample [pedophilia crimes prevention hotline] tagline is representative of the kind of sympathy with which it approaches the problem: ‘You are not guilty because of your sexual desire, but you are responsible for your sexual behavior. There is help.'”

      I could see the same sort of statement as reflective of the Catholic position on homosexuality … it depends whether you act on impulses, and you will be punished (or in a state of sin, or whatever), but you won’t be faulted for impulses you can’t control.

  • Andy, Bad Person

    Just keep telling yourself: there is no slippery slope, there is no slippery slope…

    • bob

      When you reach the bottom there is no more slope. You just slide around alot.

      • Andy, Bad Person

        You don’t have a strong enough imagination. We haven’t hit the bottom yet.

      • Mark Hartman

        People think that we’ve reached the bottom because the slope has become “the new level;” they’re so used to the moral decline that, to them, it’s normal.

  • Will

    I can not accept this “marriage equality” nonsense as long as my polygamous friends are treated as SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS!

  • EBS

    You know, the more you talk about this filth, the less taboo it becomes, the more desensitized you be one to the “ewwww”. So giving it acceptance as a topic to intellectually dissect is like giving it air-time to breath.
    Frankly I don’t care if the paedophiliac hasn’t acted on it- to even label oneself as one with those inclinations is demeaning to the humanity of a person- is that the sort of identity one wants to have?! A “chaste” pedophile that doesn’t act on it? And I’m meant to embrace him with a big old Chrstian hug?! Gee talk about having high standards for yourself, and for each other!
    I have absolutely no sympathy for someone with these “inclinations”, because it’s vile and sickening. Even if it is his vice and doesn’t act on it. And the child victim will tell you the same.
    I can’t beleive there are dissertations now being written on such filth. Woah to us all, indeed.

    • Rachel K

      I’m not sure in this case if it would be “labeling oneself” so much as “getting diagnosed,” which would frankly make a better world for everyone.

      I’m glad to hear that pedophilia is a sin you’ve never struggled with. It’s not a sin I’ve ever struggled with, either. I’ve also never struggled with pornography or child abuse, both of which I find “vile and sickening,” but it would be rather heartless of me to say that I have no sympathy for the man who struggles every day to fight his porn addiction or the mother who struggles not to beat her child when he misbehaves the way her own mother beat her. We’re all sinners.

      • EBS

        Yeah thanks for reminding me I’m a sinner Rachel, just incase I forgot you know…
        Doesn’t make one heartless to feel anger at another who takes advantage of a child in any shape or form- abusive mother, sexually abusive father etc…As an adult you make choices on your actions. My husband CHOSE not to be physically abusive like his father was. So what a cop out to blame others for your deliberate sins. And what a cop out that it’s now a “disorder”. Disordered yes. But a “condition” that is natural…?
        Btw, Child abuse and pornography are not one in the same thing. One actively preys on children, not of their choice, and robs them of something no one can give back. So yes it is VILE and it is SICKENING- no parenthesis needed. I don’t feel the need to be politically correct.
        And, 1 in 6 children will be sexually abused- gee a lot of “diagnosing” to be had! And golly gosh it would make the world so much rosy and better to know the abusers were diagnosed. And guess what, one day it will be classed as a “lifestyle choice”- LGBT and P.
        As for your friend, who you commented on in a previous post as a “reformed” pedophile, Let’s hope he has checked to see if his victim has “moved on” with their life before he affords himself the luxury to move on with his.
        No one forces anyone’s hand into hurting another, not even a “disorder”- it’s called free will, and we all have it.

        • Rachel K

          I’m not defending anyone who acts on their inclinations. I’m saying that if someone is diagnosed as a pedophile but struggles every day not to act on it, he needs all the sympathy and prayers he can get.

          “As for your friend, who you commented on in a previous post as a “reformed” pedophile, Let’s hope he has checked to see if his victim has “moved on” with their life before he affords himself the luxury to move on with his.”

          Yes, pedophiles are the only category of sinner whose victims still feel the effects of their sins and have to live with that fact every day.

          • EBS

            Not the only category, but categorically one of the worst. But you cant compare apples and oranges. To get to a point where you can molest a child. Like I said Free Will. Free Will to admitt that you chose to molest a child, and not hide behind a “condition” or a “diagnosis”. Just like my Free Will to “chose” not to afford the sympathy I’m now meant to in this progressive 21st Century (prayers yes- so they don’t harm anyone). We all have it.
            Btw why would anyone be diagnosed or “classified” a pedophile if they don’t act on it? I don’t get it. Which brings me back to my initial point- why would anyone be want to be labelled according to their vice? “oh hi, I’m Joe blog, and I’m a pedophile but don’t act on it”…..? Looks like I’m not “progressive” enough. Suits me fine.

            • Rachel K

              “Btw why would anyone be diagnosed or “classified” a pedophile if they don’t act on it?”

              Because it’s a mental illness, and you can’t get treatment for a mental illness without a diagnosis. (I don’t like “orientation” for this, by the way. I’m not in any way defending the word “orientation.” Pedophilia, like homosexuality and transgenderism, is a mental illness that requires treatment.)

              I think we’re talking over each other here. You seem to think that I’m saying pedophiles should be all out and proud. I’m not. Now that I read this post, I think that your issue with the “chaste pedophile” thing is the sense that someone would take this as a core part of their identity. Is that correct? I thought from reading your original post that you simply meant someone who realized that they had a problem, and sought treatment for it, and received a diagnosis and therapy just like someone who suffered from alcoholism or murderous rages or any one of a host of other dangerous mental illnesses, was inherently “vile and sickening.” That struck me as offensive and borderline Calvinist because it implied that someone born with a particularly horrifying mental illness is therefore inherently worse than other people, whether they act on the mental illness or not. If you meant the idea that someone would make this as crucial a part of his identity as most gays seem to, I completely understand why you find it so upsetting, and I apologize if I caused scandal by seeming to defend it. I find that idea upsetting, too.

              • EBS

                Rachel, I don’t think you think that pedophiles should be out and proud. What I have a problem with is this idea of pedophilia being an “illness” someone is “born” with, of which we as a society should have sympathy and compassion for.
                God does not create humans that have an intrinsically evil disposition, of which pedophilia is. People that are pedophiles become like this through various reasons (of which none can be used as a justification)- they are not born pedophiles.
                The problem with modern psychiatrys classifications, is that it ends up being normalized much in the way homosexuality was- through a very slowly evolved acceptance over time. It starts with querying the problem, which leads to understanding of the why’s and how’s (which are all fine), but along the way the way (as we see through articles Mark posted) it becomes accepted because I don’t beleive society is capable of objectively looking at the sin of pedophilia without making it morally ok, relative to the accepted norm of the day. We are a society that doesn’t want to hear whats morally right and wrong. We want to hear easy, open-minded, natural and free. We don’t follow the rules of sin anymore.
                Therefore, like homosexuality, like abortion, like sociopathic violence, like all these things, if it remains shameful to be and act in these ways, it will remain WRONG in societies eyes. There is no other way of protecting ourselves, or our most vulnerable, from such evil.
                I always look at actions, questioning the intention behind the act. The intention of a pedophile is to harm a child- a human being that does not have capability to defend or understand the act they are being subject to. This is premeditated, malicious and manipulative. We hear of pedophiles who “groom” their victim. Therefore,
                I fear that classifying it as a mental illness like depression, only allows it to be excused or even justified as a sickness which I don’t beleive it is, rather than a perversion of which I think it is. People who have the urge to harm children should get help- but I don’t beleive we need public awareness campaigns to “help” like we have for depression or other mental illnesses. It’s shameful, and should be overcome privately- so it remains shameful. I’m sorry, but for the protection of a child, that’s the price a pedophile should pay- because once you violate a child, you destroy that child’s life and you can’t take it back.

                • Rachel K

                  That’s fair. I can certainly understand the fear that trying to encourage pedophiles to seek help will lead to normalization of something that is utterly evil. I was just put off by the language in your original post, because to me it seemed to imply that not just the pedophile who acts on his inclination and grooms children, but the man who realizes to his horror that he’s attracted to children and needs as many psychiatrists and spiritual directors as he can find in order to eradicate this evil inclination, was “vile and sickening.” Like I said, that bothered me because it struck me as Calvinist. I apologize if I misunderstood you.

                  • Rachel K

                    Or, to quote Mark’s original post, the sympathy that I was intending was “the sort of sympathy one has for a raging drunk in his wretchedness and ruin as a result of his capitulation to his fallen human nature,” and in the case of someone trying to live chastely and overcome this horrible sin, the sympathy one has for said raging drunk once he goes to AA. I read your post as saying that they didn’t even deserve this level of sympathy. (Frankly, the scare quotes around “reformed” didn’t help much there–my friend has to live every day with the consequences of his sin and the fact that his victims still feel those consequences, just as Bernard Nathanson had to live every day with the consequences of his sins and the fact that he can’t bring a single aborted baby back to life, and implying that he’s irredeemable because his sin, like all sins, had consequences was another thing that made my Calvinist alarm go off.)

                • Andy, Bad Person

                  What I have a problem with is this idea of pedophilia being an “illness” someone is “born” with, of which we as a society should have sympathy and compassion for.
                  God does not create humans that have an intrinsically evil disposition, of which pedophilia is.

                  1. You have no idea if people are born with these inclinations. Neither do I.

                  2. Dispositions cannot be intrinsically evil. It is the action on those dispositions that can be intrinsically evil. Concupiscence is not sin.

                  • Rachel K

                    Thank you! This is what I’ve been trying to say this whole time!

                  • EBS

                    Well I’ll go on record and say that I don’t believe someone is “born” a pedophile, until it can be proven otherwise. I say this because I don’t believe God creates a soul “Russian roulette” style, with a desposition as depraved as pedophilia. From point of view of a mum I don’t believe God would allow a soul to be brought into this world “born” with the disposition to BE a pedophile. It’s the way a person is raised or experiences they are subject to that lead to such a sin. Yeah Andy in theory despositions are not intrinsically evil but in reality what an awful desposition to bear.
                    And like I said its choice at the end of the day.
                    That’s my prerogative to believe that Andy and Rachel. You are free to believe what you want.
                    A pedophile is someone who acts on it, as opposed to “attraction to children” who is someone who hasn’t necessarily acted on it. I wouldn’t want to be labelled be labelled a pedophile or someone who has struggled with pedophilia if I haven’t harmed a child….which is what you originally posted Rachel, and what I understood from your post. That’s an awful identity to bear by anyone.
                    I just cant for the life of me get out of my head the statistic that 1 in 6 children will be sexually abused in their lifetime- then there would be a hell lot of souls in our midst born with a desposition to molest children…your argument just doesn’t answer these questions.
                    And yes vile and sickening it is- which is what would warrant anyone to fight against it. Labels and words shouldn’t be watered down to soften the sin.
                    I’m done talking about pedophilia. (haha). Thanks for the exchange. GB.

    • Ted Seeber

      I would point out that a sufficiently chaste pedophile wouldn’t have any victims

  • Phil

    Michelle Obama’s rhetoric about not discriminating people based on “who they love”, while intended only as a euphemish for homosexuality, virtually opens the doors for any sexual perversion to be deemed a fundamental right.

    • Given that one out of five male homosexuals is infected with AIDS, and given that not willfully engaging in acts that you know could give someone a lethal and incurable disease is a very minimal threshold beyond which you can not even consider whether someone actually loves someone else (or perhaps has a minimal level of human decency) — what a euphemism!

  • Thomas

    For a doctrinally sound treatment of this subject see the essay
    ‘A Theological Overview on Recent Research on Sex and Gender’. The Reverend Benedict M. Ashley, O.P., Ph.D.
    in Sex and Gender: A Theological and Scientific Inquiry

    Many of the questions and sources of confusion for the commentators here are addressed and perhaps clarified.
    Mr. Shea may find it helpful in further articulating his position for his readers.

    /pompously pedagogic


  • SM

    Gay “marriage” can’t lead to a slippery slope because it is already at the bottom of the slope. A society cannot possibly get any more absurd than pretending a man can marry another man, so incest marriage and any type of “marriage” will follow suit in time.

    • Mark Hartman

      Would that that were true. There are far worse degradations possible, and I’m ashamed that I can imagine what they would be (and, in some cases, already are).

  • Ed Pie

    “No one should judge a brother and sister being with each other if they are in love…if you’re not having kids….”

    That may be the intention most of the time, but contraception fails. Look for the “ewww!” to become ammunition for the other side of the abortion debate.

  • Lissa

    How long will it be before consent is also deemed irrelevent in deference to “But I want to…”? On a side note, I had to fill out a form today for a mammogram screening program offered through the school district (in Florida) where I work. It had a section to state your marital status, and the choices were: “single, divorced, widowed, married, life partnership, polygamous, or other”

  • Elizabeth Scalia

    You’d think these guys would be embarrassed to be coming out and making precisely the argument the church predicted they’d be making. I mean, how cool and edgy are you when all you are doing is precisely what someone you hate told you you’d be doing? Mortifying, man, MORTIFYING!

    • orthros

      Unfortunately, they’re winning the culture war, so “See? SEE?? We were right!” is cold comfort.

  • BPS

    Remember the Roman Polanski scandal, him having sex witht he 13 year old and how the hollywood folks (Debra Winger, Adrian Brody, et al) were so supportive of him? I’m convince that the only thing that didn’t give him wider support from hollywood and the media was that pedophilia is a convenient stick to beat the Catholic Church with. But give it a few years and a few more articles like this, and some sypathetic movies on the “Lifetime” channel and those pesky and arbitrary age of consent laws will go the way of the sodomy laws. That’s the path that homo sex took.

  • Guillermo

    The author wishes to become famous and rich in the process. Notority is a strong motivator for those who think they have an influence on the human experience. After consuming enough mind bending elements their minds begin to think the improbable and then succumb to the temptation to infect the rest of the world with their nonsense. Ignoring the slippery slope of depravation, this author thinks he will escape its death of the will. All the psychobabble in the world cannot account for the fall from humanity that will follow. Following the trajectory a bit furthr, why not approve murder just because someone thinks they like it? We all know that history has provided enough evidence of base fellows that warrant insanity judgments. Why do we let the insane create?

  • Rose Mary

    The thing is, the fellows you’re most likely referring to (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, M. Sanger, Jack the Ripper, Pol Pot, down to bin Laden and Hussein, Kevorkian, etc…might as well add Herod, Judas, and Pontius Pilate-May the souls of each one through the mercy of God rest in peace-) may, so to speak, became through their repeated deliberate grave actions so depraved then that they pass some threshold and in fact become insane: incapable of choosing good. IF that is the case, then they are responsible for their actions before God in getting themselves into that state and any sins reasonably foreseen (assuming they first possessed the use of reason) that they committed in the “insane” state would also be theirs to account for. Like a man who deliberately mutilates his body, there would be a point where his actions harmed his health so much he would have killed himself even if that wasn’t his intent, a person who does grave sins repeatedly or, especialy, who concocts elaborate -sometimes extremely elaborate–self-justification schemes (I had a good reason, I was right to do wrong) or self-delusion (it wasn’t really wrong: Maybe if I call my sin something else it won’t be a sin, or if I tell myself the same thing in smarter-sounding language it might have a different meaning) may be doing violence to their soul in its ability to freely choose. Humans, especially culturally post-Christian humans, seem to have a great and terrible power to lie to themselves and then sincerely believe the lie. Human beings in this type of culture (that includes almost all of us in North and South America except immigrants from some other places, and some Native Americans, although both of these might be assimilated to a degree that they also fit this category, Europe, and some parts of Africa and the Middle East–don’t forget those last two) seem to me to have in a mysterious way an innate pyscological need for a moral absolute beyond conformity to culture, society, tradition, expectation, and even the civil law, that is perceived to be obligatory even when all of the above commands an opposite action. My opinion is that phenomenon is the “ghost” so to speak of their “fathers” (intepreted in a societal sense) repudiation of Judaeo-Christian heritage. It was probably a very gradual and complex process and can’t be attributed to one group as a whole, like Protestants, Freemasons, or hippies, but rather in a microcosmic sense to each and every deliberate schismatic, heretic, or apostate and also, importantly, any scandals or abuse of grace by Christians which might have influenced unfully deliberate and unfully culpable schismatics, heretics or apostates. Its biology that the choices we make will be somehow encoded in our brain (being careful to distinguish that biology doesn’t fully explain free choice, because it is SPIRITUAL) and our genes (being careful to explain that the genes don’t fully explain good or evil either so as not to fall into the loathsome mentality of eugenics). We then seem to pass on in our body (how this works scientifically is not fully understood) a sort of encodeing of choices previously made. It’s how God made us in our bodily nature, therefore it’s not contrary to His justice because he respects the bodily integrity of what he has made, that choices made in the past by someone else sometimes have very hard consequences on those who, when you come down to it, didn’t do it. The whole human race has conscupiscense from the Original Sin, that’s a disorder. Perhaps the particularly elaborate constructions of excuse for particular grave sins (doing violence to one’s own souls ability to freely choose) can cause a VERY disproportionate inclination to a certain grave sin, such as pedophilia or idolatry of one’s own judgment in which the reason and will are so impeded from correct judgements and proper exercise of free will that the person is indeed insane. So yes, we could then say that pychological disorders to grave sins are culpable, but the culpability is not necessarily in the one who has it. Properly recognizing what you REALLY can’t control is part of humility as a Creature. I say this as one who has a mild pychological disorder. It’s not one that disposes me to commit grave sins, I thank God, but one which does make it quite hard for me to do certain things like organizing my time, possesions, functioning, pretty much everything spatial, lots of practical skills that are “duh” to everybody else are painful for me to learn. and to have emotional reactions sometimes that don’t make sense to others. Its really hard for me to understand the concept of free will since my own often seems out of reach, buried within myself like a key that I keep losing. Perhaps my disorder can be overcome on earth, I don’t know. My only hope has been and is Christ who teaches me through his Church that I must rejoice in having been found worthy to share in Christ’s cross. However I do think that many, not all, practicing psycology sometimes think that by MERELY diagnosis and psychotherapy people can be healed, and they might enable sins to the degree that they try to be themself without the Grace of God the salvation for the patient.

  • JohnP

    The Catholic Church has much experience with pedophilia. How was that handled? By submitting the priests to the laws of the land or by transferring them inside the Church?

    Whatever the arguments, pedophilia is ILLEGAL IN ALL 50 STATES. I will point out that that INCLUDES states that have legalized gay and lesbian marriage. Tying pedophilia to the gay marriage debate is as EVIL, and I am specifically using the word evil, it’s as evil as tying pedophilia to the Catholic Church.

    In fact, it may be MORE evil. There is evidence and a long history that the Catholic Church has had issues with pedophilia. There is no evidence that states that have legalized gay marriage have increases in pedophilia.

    For Catholics to tie pedophilia to the gay marriage debate is the kettle calling the coffee black isn’t it? If you’re going to speculate about the speck in someone else’s eye, you better deal with the large piece of wood in your own eye.

  • yan

    ‘The Land Where Feeling is King and Consent is the Sole Criterion of the Good’

    Of course! Our most important political goal, as stated in our First Founding Document, is ‘the pursuit of happiness.’

    What Protestant nation is going to define ‘happiness’ using Catholic/Aristotelian terms? Are you some kind of papist??? Off with your head, King Charles!!!

  • kc

    JohnP, We (the Catholic Church) did “deal with the piece of wood” in our eye. We (at least I) are still waiting for the rest of the world to do so. That is, the public schools, the U.N., all the other organizations that still have the child abuse scandals and are still shuffling personnel around. Which goes to show that the interest our culture claims to have in our children being protected is perhaps not as strong as some would like to think.

    No states have had legalized gay marriage for long to see the ill results. (of course, we’ve had 30 to see the ill results of the sexual revolution and the blinders are still firmly in place). So the fact that pedophilia is currently illegal in all 50 states… whoop dee doo. So was sodomy for many a year.