Sean Hannity Heretic:
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: Welcome Andrew Sullivan readers. Some folks have noted that the link doesn't work for them. A reader 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.
14 comments:
I think it's from your end. It works from mine. Here is the URL:
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?030907/030907_hc_sean&Hannity_Colmes&Judgment%20Day&Judgment%20Day&US&-1&News&372&&&exp
It's not working on my computer either and I've got fast speed access...
Have you downloaded the Adobe Flash Player?
The link doesn't work in Firefox or IE7 for me, but going through the main Hannity & Colmes site works. Its in the right hand column under Fox News Video here.
Thanks. I'll update.
Try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usTWwSbpWRc
Colmes is Jewish? Now that's just embarrassing.
^ to Jews I mean.
For the record, the Church's position can't be totally tied to procreation, or it would ban sex for women past menopause, eh?
Nor do I think a single priest can excommunicate somebody. But you might say he's following his own conscience, too.
"For the record, the Church's position can't be totally tied to procreation, or it would ban sex for women past menopause, eh?"
I've seen natural lawyers like Ed Feser argue that the Church's/NL's position is *totally* tied to procreation and that post-menopausal sex is still procreative. Go figure. I think it argues as long as they are doing everything the same way, it's still procreative in kind. I think the argument in that circumstance rests on a very week reed. Feser constructs an elaborate philosophical argument as to why it is still procreative. But still, to most of us, a post-menopausal woman having sex seems to be as non-procreative as contraception, homosexuality, and masturbation.
I don't want to be misread; I know the Church argues that sex is both unitive and procreative. But sex must still to be procreative, every time.
I've seen natural lawyers like Ed Feser argue that the Church's/NL's position is *totally* tied to procreation and that post-menopausal sex is still procreative.
I don't get that from his essay, which I thank you kindly for linking for me. (Probably nobody here but us chickens.) In fact, when he mentions "infertile couples," that would include, the wife (the coital couple is married, of course!) having undergone a hysterectomy.
Ed Feser is not John Finnis, the latter of whom was a "Straussian" and accepts Strauss' critique of Thomas that he was founded in "natural theology," and so is useless for philosophical purposes. Where Finnis tables it (and metaphysics in general, ala Strauss), Feser sees it as essential for a wholistic view of the human experience. He's not willing to surrender the church's Theology of the Body for the other 99 sheep to the opportunity to chase Andrew Sullivan.
As we've learned in our time together, I'm not particularly interested in discussing plumbing and the transmission of fluids. I have found it interesting that Tibetan Buddhism has virtually the same view as the pope, FWIW. Whether Tibetan Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy, it's difficult to say.
I had no idea that Finnis had anything to do with Strauss.
I heard that about Tibetan Buddhism but later saw the Dali Lama recant slightly and say that such a view is necessary only for those who wish to remain on the "strict Buddhist" path or something along those lines; he essentially argued that they were just more Buddhist "rites." This is 180 degrees different than Thomism which argues these to be universal truths binding all men everywhere, everytime.
"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."
The Church's ideas about "natural sex" fail to refer to the documented realities of Nature where the behavioral varieties include homosexuality, contraception, and masturbation. My favorite story involves observers who filmed octupi of different species enacting a mating ritual. When octupi experts were called in to view the footage they observed that both individuals were male. The Church ought to be very careful about involking Nature. Variation is her creed.
Ah, Jon, I was just musing that they came up with the same conclusion by pretty much the same process, which was moral reasoning, not reading scriptures. Not preaching here. Not qualified.
Likewise, the Dalai Lama also opposes (opposed, at least, dunno what he's up to of late) contraception. We're all given our crosses to bear.
Hello,
Visited your blog. Good to see the content.
I also created some blog, but i feel my blog is still won't get atention
as per my expectation. I really very kind to you if you suggest me some tips
for making my blog as good as your.
Web Page:http://professional-lawyers.blogspot.com
thx
Moore
Post a Comment