Ouch! August 28, 2013

What I Meant to Say: A Case for Same-Sex Marriage by Foggy Bottom. A witty and very funny satire that offers the *real* “clarification” on what Jody Bottum meant (as distinct from the mere damage control Bottum was attempting by giving interviews to the Catholic press).

Hitting Bottum: Ed Feser’s autopsy on the intellectual mess that is Bottum’s essay.

"How are you? Getting ready for a hard Brexit?"

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Thank you for posting about this."

Romano Guardini: A Brief Introduction to ..."
"Whoever thought up the slur, that Mother Theresa was someone at odds with the Church ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Newp Ort

    You’re being a bit hard on the Bottum. You said you have no interest in trying to stop civil SSM (or SS”M” if guess you’d call it).

    How does this significantly differ from Bottum?

  • meunke

    Wow! Feser really smacked that Bottum!

    *couldn’t help it*

    • Fr. Denis Lemieux

      I suppose people using this controversy to build up their public profile could be called ‘Bottum feeders’!

      • Newp Ort

        These puns are getting bad. You guys are are really scraping the lower flat part of the barrel.

        • meunke

          There’s nothing better than drinking down the righteous scorn that is heaped on that terrible article.

          Bottums up!

  • tz1


    Rather, the point is that the legal and social acceptance of divorce,
    building in Protestant America from the late nineteenth century on,
    culminated in the universal availability of no-fault divorce. And if
    heterosexual monogamy so lacks the old, enchanted metaphysical
    foundation that it can end in quick and painless divorce, then what
    principle allows a refusal of marriage to gays on the grounds of a
    metaphysical notion like the difference between men and women?

    The Bishops in the US could do more for the sanctity of the SACRAMENT of holy matrimony by closing the chancery’s annulment factories, and perhaps insisting on a 1950’s divorce pre-nup to be married in the Church with a priest than by complaining against “gay marriage”.

    If I had the choice to live where 2% of marriages were same sex, but 95% were truly “till death do us part” v.s. where 0% of marriages were same sex, but 80% ended before the death of the partners, I would choose the former. But it appears I am in a very small minority.

    Even the Bishop in Maine in the last election with a Gay Marriage ballot initiative mentioned “till death do us part”, or divorce in his letter.

    Meanwhile, few remember that for the longest time Caesar/Government had noting to do with Marriage (except down south with the racist miscegany laws). Give holy things to dogs, cast pearls before swine, let Government define sacraments.