Sean Hannity Heretic
Jonathan Rowe on Mar 11th 2007
A Catholic Priest calls Hannity a “heretic” for endorsing birth control. I absolutely disagree with the Church’s position on birth control — but then again, I’m not a Catholic (other than being baptized one). Hannity’s rejection of birth control is a problem for a variety of reasons. One, the Catholic Church is hierarchical and good Catholics are supposed to listen to Church authority. But more importantly, the Church has tied its entire view on “natural sex” to a “procreative teleology.” In short, it condemns homosexuality, contraception, and masturbation along the same lines. If one accepts contraception, one then loses the natural grounds for condemning homosexual acts. In other words, according to Church teachings, what Sean Hannity endorses is as “unnatural” as homosexual acts. Perhaps, then, one can still find a way (Scripture) to morally condemn homosexual acts, but not on “naturalness” grounds.
The Priest said he would deny Hannity communion. I don’t see how Hannity’s position in any way differs from that of other Catholic sexual dissidents like Andrew Sullivan.
Update: On my other blog I got a link from Andrew Sullivan and some readers noted that the link didn’t work for them. One commented that “going through the main Hannity & Colmes site works. Its in the right hand column under Fox News Video here.” And here is a clip from YouTube.
Filed in The Basement
And Sullivan agrees.
Yup I saw that!
For not being a Catholic, you grasp Catholicism’s silly natural-law principles, based on Aristotle’s “four be-causes.” The problem with both Aristotle and Catholicism’s use of the four be-causes, is that nature acts in only one of the four (efficient), while humans act in another (teleological). Most conscious decision-making is instrumental or teleological or both (e.g., I do A to achieve B), but natural phenomena do not have a “mind” that deliberates over such decisions, because there are no decisions, only efficient causality. The other-two Aristotlean be-causes, first and formal, are no longer intelligible.
Contraception, homosexuality, and other “teleological” human acts that inhibit or “pervert” naturally “efficient” causes is confusing two different Aristotlean be-causes in a vast illogical non sequitir and is utterly incoherent, not to mention bizarre. Once Catholicism accepts modern knowledge, science, and phenomenology, it would never make such mistakes. But it took 400 years to absolve Galileo of being right. Yet, it is still practicing a very old form of Aristotlean psysis (nature), which it claims as its own, but then misapplies.
So priest and Hannity can be forgiven for their different interpretations of the unintelligible, as both are incoherent. They are not only “talking past each other,” they’re “talking nonsense.”
you failed to mention that the church also teaches that procreative theology is half of the equation. The Catholic teaching is that sex is procreative and unitive. THe emphasis is on unitive in Catholic teaching. For the church teaches that man and Woman are unified via the act. Our faith teaches that originally man and woman didn’t even realize they were naked….I dare you to reach John Paul IIs Theology of the body…I dare you no I double dare you. I dared my atheist friend to read it.. It abslutely demolished him. As a research neurologist I thought he would simply put it aside as a decent approach to human relationships….He entered the Church 18 months later and credits the dare I gave him for his Faith.
Otherwise you are right on Hannity…Is hannity really a Catholic? His language seems to give me the impression that he is an evangelical type christian. THe one thing that really struck me odd was when He called the priest “reverend” instead of Father. I have never heard a Catholic address a priest as reverend. That is a very protestant sounding address.
“Gay species”, you are the one who is confused, not the Church’s teachings. The Church was condemning sodomy and contraception long before Aristotle was “baptized” by St. Thomas in the 13th century.
The Church’s argument doesn’t need any “four causes” reasoning to defend its teaching, especially your silly parody of it (it is not even clear what your exact criticism is, but it seems to make use of a fallacious conflict between efficient and telological causes…any theist who believes in a created world will naturally conclude that natural efficient causes are based on a God’s final or teleological cause). It just needs to point out the obvious: that sodomy and contraception are unnatural. The first involves two people who were simply not designed for this type of interaction, at any level of their being: spiritual, psychological, or physical. We see this not only in the impossibility of procreation, but in the lack of proper complementarity between the two.
Is it a cooincidence that almost every society known to man has condemned this supposedly harmless behavior (even the Greeks usually had laws against it, arlthough there were times in which there was laxity in their enforcement)? Is it a coincidence that sodomy is statistically correlated with disease and psychological pathology?
You need to stop kidding yourself. Sodomy and related misbehaviors are self-destructive, evil, and sick. As a former atheist who lived with his girlfriend for years out of wedlock and used contraception, I had to accept the truth of these teachings and repent. If I can, you can. God bless you.
“The first involves two people who were simply not designed for this type of interaction, at any level of their being: spiritual, psychological, or physical. We see this not only in the impossibility of procreation, but in the lack of proper complementarity between the two.”
While you may have a point re the physical impossibilty of procreation, your point on the “spiritual, psychological” is nonsense. Read Plato and his metaphor for eros which absolutely disagrees with this notion.
Re: “complementarity,” most gay couples I know have as much of this as they need. Ultimately “complementarity” has something to do with differences between persons; specifically with heterosexual couples, often they are based on gender differences, but they need not be. For instance, introverts and extroverts “complement” one another; whereas if both partners were “talkers,” or both “listeners,” they wouldn’t.
I doubt the inherent psychological differences between genders makes m/f couples any “better” than same-sex couples. I think it was an evangelical author who coined the phrase “Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars.” This intimates gender differences lead to conflict and trouble. One could just as easily argue, other than ability to procreate, homosexual couples are clearly superior to heterosexuals, because of their inherent sameness — that men better understand the psychological and sexual needs of other men, ditto for women. Plus, if you and your partner are the same size, your wardrobe doubles.
Paednoch:
Sean Hannity is a Catholic. Like gays and liberals, he and probably more conservatives than you would like to think, are very “cafeteria” when it comes to the Church’s teachings on sexuality. I know some couples have a hard time with each conception. But when I see conservative Catholic couples who have say 2 children, nicely spaced (hello Bill Bennett), you have to wonder.
If “Matthew” is going to embrace “unitive” love, he had better get his Popes right. Unitive love, first formulated by Pope Paul VI in his 1968 encyclical “Humanae Vitae,” finally allowed “unitive love” to count between couples (we gays always knew unitive love well before divine revelation moved the Pope to embrace OUR love). After Thomistic Aristotleanism, the Church’s “novation” of unitive love was traded against the Pope’s own scientists who favored contraception, and Pope Paul’s “infallibility” trumped the Papal scientists, once again. You may want to consult Grisez, Finnis, and Boyd’s repudiation of it in the Thomist magazine, circa 1990; now that Galileo’s has been “uncondemned” 400 years later, the whole natural law (and Aristotlean “four-becauses”) may one day be put to rest in the grave next to Galileo.
As far as Aristotle’s “four be-causes,” there’s no confusion, except yours. Aristotle’s “Physics” is quite clear on them (see, Phs. II. 3-7, Met VI. 2.) Ross, Charlton, Kirwan, Ackrill, Sorabi (all expert Aistotlean scholars) can be searched for their articles. Every aspect of Aquinas’s natural law is built on Aristotle’s “four-becauses,” which was an anthropological interpretation of natural causes and embellished the Stoic’s natural law through Aquinas’s own foolishness (until Hume’s is/ought dichotomy put it to rest permanently, except for believers in metaphysical nonsense). You may learn something from these scholars. Alan Code, my professior, along with his professor Gregory Vlastos, may also be consulted. We may be endeared to Aristotle as a genius of HIS times, but time marches on. If YOU think the Catholic Church does not embrace Aristotle’s “four be-causes,” you’re already clueless. The rest of us have moved on to modern science, even if Pope John Paul II never tired of “natural law” reasons in his own Polish mind warp of pre-WWII Carmelitte simplicity and stupidity.
“Natural” stands in binary opposition to “artificial.” The Nobel Laureate and Presidential Expert in Nutritional Biochemistry George Briggs played this trick on us back in 1973. He also played “organic” against “natural.” (The “artificial” formula of Vitamin C looked identical to the ‘natural” formula of Vitaminc C.) Guess what? They are identical. A molecule is a molecule, whether artificially-derived in a laboratory or naturally-derived from nature. (Just another clue, “organic” stands against “inorganic,” not to anything else, much less “natural.” Natural and unnatural binaries are bunk metaphysics that even high-school chemistry students should know better than to parade).
In Briggs’ presence, we thought we “missed” the distinction he asked us to make, what we missed was calling Briggs’ on his false dichotomies, which was exactly Briggs’ intent. “THINK,” he yelled at us, “you should KNOW better. Are YOU clueless?” Yes, we were, or maybe in awe of a renowed Nobel Laureate we thought so noble an individual would never present such a stupid question. He showed us a thing or two. Humility, for one. Don’t abide nonsense wherever it hails, for two. Most of us learned something in this thought-experiment used at OUR expense. Don’t indulge nonsense, whoever shoves it!
Since you claim gay love is “unnatural,” why have scientists documented 450+ speices engaging in same-sex erotica? Either the Creator got it all wrong (or depraved them), or 450+ species know something YOU and your creator DO NOT know. Either way, the Creator screwed-up (like his non-flying penguins and ostriches, birds with feathers that don’t flock together in flight), or 450+ species know something no creator or believer wants to believe with their own eyes. (Have you seen male Penguins get horney over male Penguins? Ecce homo.)
If I understand your perspective, I should believe that a Virgin gave a miraclous birth without “human seed” to a god through a ghostly spirit through angelic greetings, who once “born,” was killed by his own people through the agency of Roman governors, but then was resurrected from the dead, ascended into the heavens, and this series of events is thoroughly “natural,” but 450+ species (raised exponentially by the thousands within each species who engage in same-sex activities) are “unnatural?” Are YOU serious? The ODDS of basic probability theory of ONE such instance of a one-time miracle in 3 C.E. stands against 450+ instances of species we can all view with our senses, and YOU want others to believe the extraordinary is “natural” but the “commonplace” is unnnatural? You’re straining all credulity, including your own.
By the way, Matthew, no scientist has found “final ends” in nature. Admittedly, we humans act teleologically, and Aristotle’s credulity was simply in assuming natural forces act like humans. Aristotle projected human behavior on the comos of air, wind, fire, and water, which are all the same “substance,” formed according to formal causes. When the Epicureans disabused Aristotle’s anthropological projections onto efficient causes, the Church defended Plato. Saint Paul, first and foremost a Platonist, understoood teleology in his hands would make Eternal Forms real, whick quick-started the Hellenists’ reaction against Rome, and Paul became the savior that Jesus failed.
Constantine got the script right, even if he never believed in the Judeo-Christian miracles. Enter the Republicans in 2000, when the Supremes “gave” their GWB-Messiah his victory over Gore’s resounding victory by democratic means by divine insight. Can Armageddon be far behind? Even Halliburton is moving to Dubai. The End of Times is here. But the “after” is just another failed exercise in being screwed by Theocons who have never had any clue.
Now, I get the Jesus Camp folk (I may find it revulsive, but the arrogant powers speak louder than the liberal diffusion of tolerance and indulgence.) At least the Pope, Bush, Halliburton, and all their disciples may meet on the other side for the Wedding Feast of Eternity, unless the Islamofascists undermine that too, according to Allah’s plan. Who says GWB has ruined the nation? As the Jesus-folk prophet, they already know the script of the final days when Yahwh’s jazzercise will usurp the Popes. And Catholics are praising nature as “unnatural?” Only H. sapiens through religious indoctrination could allow the Prada Pope another moment before it all comes crashing down. Get Jesus. Cause nothing will be left.
Well….the priest seemed to call Hannity a heretic based on the birth control comment. That is incorrect. Hannity is a heretic on making exceptions to abortion but not for birth control. In 1995 abortion was infallibly condemned in Evangelium Vitae in section 62 in abbreviated wording similar to the Immaculate Conception encyclical. But such a step was never taken in regard to birth control and one can only be a heretic based on opposing an infallible issue. Indeed when Humanae Vitae was presented to the press in 1968, Msgr. Lambrushini stated that it was not of the infallible level. Catholics are nevertheless supposed to obey in this area not based on infallibility but on obedience to a serious dictum oft repeated by a Pope ( see Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25). But as Yves Congar noted in his “Tradition and traditions”, Councils are not inspired by God but are guided by God and on many things, they could have said more and could have said things better. Lumen Gentium 25 did not proceed to make exceptions to obeying the Pope but the Theolgoical Commission told three Bishops who had asked about that that they should consult the manuals of moral theology on such dissent and the manuals talk of sincere dissent needing prayer, study and counself and then dissent may proceed away from the Pope. That kind of dissent on birth control is allowed…never spoken of by Rome (which is wrong)….but probably is much rarer than plain old revolt. Meanwhile the priest in question at the life site web site states that birth control is infallible matter and that is rediculous since no Pope has ever simply state that and only a few famous ones have held that: Grisez, John Ford, and less famous Brian Harrison.
Those last mentioned persons are of course not popes but theologians..The last sentence should have said….”only a few famous theologians have held that: Grisez, Ford, and less famous Brian Harrison.”
Gay Species,
You are totally misrepresenting the concept of natural law. Natural law has nothing to do with “what animals do.” And I always question the “gay” interpretations of animal behavior (e.g., people argue that dogs “humping” each other is “homoerotic,” yet dogs do not ejaculate except for a female in heat).
Natural Law has to do with examining the intent and purpose of an action. E.g,. eating is for nutrition *first*. Yes, eating is pleasurable, but if we ate only for pleasure, we’d all end up 300 lbs, toothless, and dying of massive coronaries at 25. Our “health” movement is a perfect example of natural law: eating is for nutrition first. You look at the nutritional value of the food, *then* at its pleasurable taste.
The same holds for sexual intercourse. The primary purpose is procreation; unity and pleasure are secondary.
What is *interesting* about the Thomsitic position you so disparage is that Thomas Aquinas acknowledges that Natural Law mandates are contingent upon the person. Natural Law is just a process. A Catholic’s understanding of Natural Law is colored by Revelation, so the Catholic understands things pagan might not. Thus certain extensions of natural law may not be binding on all people in all circumstances.
You try to talk about logic, then insert red herrings about Galileo and miracles. The Catholic Church never had a problem with Galileo’s science: the Church had problems with his politics, his arrogance, and his attempt to override theology with science. As for miracles, obviously, miracles are *super*natural. *We* are bound by nature; God is not.
Wow bill not sure whether to laugh at your ignorance or just yawn at the tired liberal argument of “contraception is ok because the word ‘infallible’ never appeared in ‘Humanae Vitae”. lol Aside from the fact that the pill is abortifacient anything that seperates the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act is gravely sinful. By the way that IS an infallible statement as it deals with faith and morals and is continuing a teaching that has always been taught. What’s funny is people who say HV isnt infallible because no one said it was in those words will tend to say Ordinatio Sacredotalis(sp) is also not infallible, even thought no less an authority than the CDF said it was infallible
Caesar
Your whole post is personal assertions with no references to any incident or real cite of anyone outside yourself or outside your imagination. It makes you feel good but I doubt that any readers are impressed with the declaration only approach.
errr….ps….before posting more bombast, commit Canon Law 749-3 to memory:
ยง3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.
Over 600 theologians dissented from HV in the years that ensued. That is relevant because A. it means that infalliblity is contested and thus not manifestly evident B. Tuas Libenter …..a letter of Pius XI said that common consent of all theologians was a sign of infallibility not a requirement mind you but a sign. And no Pope has ever said what you internet NFP people declare all the time…..the simple sentence any one of them could have said…”The issue has been infallibly solved.” But they haven’t…you and countless NFP people who also seem little read…have. But no Pope has in a formal venue for which he would be responsible before history.