Comments on The Pensive Quill: The Morning After

John, ‘Christian Cochini's Apostolic Origins ...

2011-04-18T06:00:38.979+01:00

John,

‘Christian Cochini's Apostolic Origins of Clerical Celibacy is particularly interesting …. Here is a brief online review of it … Henri Cardinal de Lubac.’

Thanks again. I just wonder about works of these types that seem to produce little in the way of reviews (that I could find). How serious could they be?

John, Thanks for this but which of them do you th...

2011-04-15T13:30:27.532+01:00

John,

Thanks for this but which of them do you think apply today?

"1. The tyranny must be excessive—intolerable.
"2. The tyranny must be manifest, manifest to men of good sense and
right feeling.
"3. The evils inflicted by the tyrant must be greater than those which
would ensue from resisting and deposing him.
"4. There must be no other available way of getting rid of the tyranny
except by recurring to the extreme course.
"5. There must be a moral certainty of success.
"6. The revolution must be one conducted or approved by the community
at large ... the refusal of a small party in the State to join with the
overwhelming mass of their countrymen would not render the resistance
of the latter unlawful." (Essays, Chiefly Theological; see also
Rickaby, Moral Philosophy, Chap. 8, Sec. 7.)

‘Do you not think that this need or hunger for God...

2011-04-13T20:15:41.674+01:00

‘Do you not think that this need or hunger for God suggests that it is necessary to the human condition?’

It might well be but that is to do with our fear of dying. It doesn’t prove the existence of god. I know that I am absolutely happy with the no god situation.

‘Man is hungry for God, how strange if he has a hunger he cannot fulfil.’

Man is hungry to prolong his own existence and cannot fulfil that but tries to by inventing gods. Most people cannot fulfil a certain hunger. I have no hunger for god.

‘The ‘problem of regress’is absolutely not relevant and is a mistaken objection. The point is that contingent beings exist; they could not exist unless a ‘necessary being’ existed. It isn’t relevant if the number of contingent beings is large or small, finite or infinite, but none would exist unless a 'necessary being’ existed.’

Contingent on what other than their own evolution? Evolution was necessary to produce them. W can conceive of something small getting bigger incrementally. But to think of a being that was just there always – that is the creation of the contingent beings you refer to who because of their contingency are limited in their thinking to begin with and not surprisingly produce a limited concept.

‘By definition God is ‘uncaused’ and to ask what caused Him doesn’t make any sense.’

This is what makes god nonsense.

While not a huge fan of Dawkins (great explainer of biology and evolution) I think he asks the right questions on the five reasons of Aquinas. They are the reasonable questions to ask. An atheist mind could never see the Aquinas methodology as addressing the concerns that need dealt with. I find it so unpersuasive.

John, Love god … ‘is from natural theology, or th...

2011-04-12T21:10:26.360+01:00

John,

Love god … ‘is from natural theology, or theodicy, a branch of metaphysics. Of course the same concept is explored in revealed theology, but in the light of faith whereas I was using it purely in the light of reason.’

But what is there in philosophy that says god must be loved? Natural theology is a mythical but at least it is better than revealed religion.

‘There are countless reasoned proofs of the existence of God, most notably the five ways of St Thomas. I have only seen one or two arguments purporting to deny God which have been put forward, and these are easily answered.’

People might try to reason the existence of god and theologians can be quite good at reasoning. But it is always based on a false premise. It is like reasoning the anatomy of a mermaid. A person might come up with a great physiological description – but if a mermaid does not exist to begin with ...

‘you need to accept His existence BEFORE you can have faith in Him.’

In matters of god faith always comes first.

‘It is not possible to accept the existence of God on faith in God alone, because you would be putting your trust in an unknown and possibly non-existent being’ to accept that the unknown being exists.’

Not sure what that means. But faith alone is the only way to accept the existence of god. They have tried magic and all that and called it miracles to bolster it a bit but it goes back to faith and no scientific evidence for god. Look at the ID liars, laughed out of Dover by a Conservative Bush-appointed judge.

‘I don’t believe in anything weird.’

Angels, virgin births, surviving one’s own death, transubstantiation, miracles, invisible men? None of that weird to you?

John ‘I believe in only one truth, so if somethi...

2011-04-11T13:43:02.154+01:00

John

‘I believe in only one truth, so if something is ethical it must be in keeping with a religion revealed by God.’

Why?

‘if something is true in ethics it must also be true in a religion that is revealed, assuming such a thing existed, as something
can’t be true in one area and false in another.’

Nothing ethically wrong with homosexuality. What revealed religion tells us that?

‘If there is no God, if we are just material beings, why would anyone care to even consider morality?’

Because like everything else it has evolved I suppose through mutual need and surviving better collectively than individually. If we followed the ethics of the bible we would still be murdering children.

‘Maybe that is an atheist form of hypocrisy. Living a good life in spite of one’s beliefs.’

And the religious equivalent is to live a bad life in spite of their beliefs!

‘Theology takes the existence of God as a given, which is established in philosophy.’

God is not established in philosophy. Only in theology as a matter of faith. That is not to say many philosophers do not believe in god. But your god can no more be proved philosophically than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

‘I’m not sure why you think that Aquinas veered in any way on this.’

I much like your term ‘peeping Thomas.’ So, probably because of peeping at Thomists like Fergus Kerr.

‘He clearly established the philosophical proofs for the existence of God throughout his works.’

Just like he did for angels.

Fionnchú I think there is a greater chance of rel...

2011-03-02T13:43:36.898Z

Fionnchú

I think there is a greater chance of religious belief waning in countries where it is not suppressed. In the USSR there were groups like the Union For Militant Atheists trying to coerce non-belief rather than letting people get on with their lives. Stalin knew the advantage of religious sentiment when it came to the life or death struggle against the Nazis. He used it along with nationalism as a motivating force. People not prepared to risk all for communism were certainly prepared to listen to their arch bishop stressing the need for unrelenting resistance.

‘Maybe it eventually morphs into 'custom' or 'folklore' as we regard
Thor today...?’

The point has long been made that atheists just believe in a god less than those who believe in one god. ~Michel de Montaigne once quipped: ‘Man is certainly stark mad; he cannot make a flea, and yet he makes gods by the dozen.’
People who believe in the god of the bible don’t believe in Thor or Zeus or whoever. Yet often they insist on the rest of us believing in their god while they don’t want to believe in anybody else’s.

I respect the right of people to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Yahweh and Allah and whoever else. I don’t respect the belief but then I don’t have to. And I don’t think it should be taught in schools other than as a belief that some people hold to. If they tried to teach my children religion as holding a truth status I would withdraw them from the school. We have senior politicians in the North who think the bible should be taught in the science class. Up there they are not as sophisticated as the ID creationists of your part of the world but it doesn’t stop them trying.

‘A last question: has secularism kicked in and stayed put somewhere?
Scandinavia comes to mind.’

I think you answered your own question. That would be my stab at it. I only follow it casually. The days for serious study of secularism or politics or anything else for that matter are long behind me! I would love to do it but don’t have any time.

Anthony, “‘I believe in only one truth, so if som...

2011-03-02T01:46:04.165Z

Anthony,

“‘I believe in only one truth, so if something is ethical it must be in keeping with a religion revealed by God.’”

‘And you know I think that wholly wrong. Can atheists not be ethical? There are atheists who do not rape children and religious believers who do. Religious belief does not cause them to rape but it failed to prevent rape in many cases.’

I think you took me up wrongly here, maybe I wasn’t clear. What I meant was that if something is true in ethics it must also be true in a religion that is revealed, assuming such a thing existed, as something can’t be true in one area and false in another. I was in no way implying that atheists can’t be ethical.

However, now that you raise the subject, I fail to see on what they base their morality. If there is no God, if we are just material beings, why would anyone care to even consider morality? Morality without God is either just etiquette or else a code of civil laws imposed against the wishes of vast numbers of peoples without any foundation.

Having said that; I agree that in many fields atheists are very good people, putting many religious people to shame. Maybe that is an atheist form of hypocrisy. Living a good life in spite of one’s beliefs.

‘A priest once told me that god can be proved theologically but not philosophically.’

The priest was totally wrong. Theology takes the existence of God as a given, which is established in philosophy. I’m not sure why you think that Aquinas veered in any way on this. He clearly established the philosophical proofs for the existence of God throughout his works.

‘Love god is theology and has nothing whatsoever t...

2011-03-02T01:23:30.678Z

‘Love god is theology and has nothing whatsoever to do with natural moral law.’

It is from natural theology, or theodicy, a branch of metaphysics. Of course the same concept is explored in revealed theology, but in the light of faith whereas I was using it purely in the light of reason.

‘Yet reason has failed to establish a god.’

There are countless reasoned proofs of the existence of God, most notably the five ways of St Thomas. I have only seen one or two arguments purporting to deny God which have been put forward, and these are easily answered.

‘Because they have faith that god exists not knowledge.’

The existence of God is a ‘preamble of faith’ in that you need to accept His existence BEFORE you can have faith in Him. Now a lot of people begin to accept his existence based on faith in their parents, but at some point they have to confront the issue themselves. It is not possible to accept the existence of God on faith in God alone, because you would be putting your trust in an unknown and possibly non-existent being to accept that the unknown being exists.

‘Take a glance some day through Michael Shermer’s ‘Why People Believe Weird Things’ and you will perhaps find something useful as to why people believe the things they do.’

I will look out for this, although I don’t believe in anything weird.

‘There are thousands of gods that people have believed in over the aeons. As they say I believe in one less than you.’

Do you not think that this need or hunger for God suggests that it is necessary to the human condition? Normally in nature, if there is a need it can be fulfilled. A cow is hungry, he looks down and sees grass and eats. Man is hungry for God, how strange if he has a hunger he cannot fulfil.

‘This takes us into the realm of Acquinas speculation but the problem of regress presents itself each time this logic is reverted to.’

The ‘problem of regress’ is absolutely not relevant and is a mistaken objection. The point is that contingent beings exist; they could not exist unless an ‘necessary being’ existed. It isn’t relevant if the number of contingent beings is large or small, finite or infinite, but none would exist unless a 'necessary being’ existed.

‘Where did god come from if every thing we know has to have a cause?’

Everything, God included must have a sufficient reason for its existence, only produced reality must have a cause. By definition God is ‘uncaused’ and to ask what caused Him doesn’t make any sense.

‘I have never read Aquinas unmediated so I have to rely on the interpretation provided by authors that did. And they are not all hostile.’

You can’t beat the clarity of Saint Thomas, although, to be fully appreciated, they do require some understanding of Aristotelian metaphysics. Few ‘hostile’ authors have gone to the bother of even understanding his five ways. A notable example of this is Richard Dawkins in his ‘God Delusion’ where he ‘refutes’ them without having a clue of what they meant. It would be like me, jumping in and ‘refuting’ Einstein without ever understanding him.

John, ‘Other people will look at the world, in it...

2011-03-01T10:31:44.888Z

John,

‘Other people will look at the world, in its beauty and order; they will see a sunset, a rose or the birth of a baby and arrive at the same conclusion but in a simpler way. They see the work of art and realise that there must be an ‘artist’, the watch and realise there must be a ‘watchmaker’.’

This goes back to Paley. But others will look at it and see the appearance of design but no designer whatsoever.

‘I believe in only one truth, so if something is ethical it must be in keeping with a religion revealed by God.’

And you know I think that wholly wrong. Can atheists not be ethical? There are atheists who do not rape children and religious believers who do. Religious belief does not cause them to rape but it failed to prevent rape in many cases.

‘But there would be no point in my arguing on the basis of what the
Catholic Church teaches unless you accept that Church as an authority.’

True. It has no authority over me. Just a club with an opinion that I don’t belong to.

‘Hence everything I have argued on here has been done on the basis of
philosophy rather than theology.’

A priest once told me that god can be proved theologically but not philosophically. And theology is a matter of faith. I know Coplestone takes a different view on the philosophy. Aquinas I think veered from one position to the other.

John, ‘It is the naturally knowable moral law. It...

2011-02-27T08:31:22.604Z

John,

‘It is the naturally knowable moral law. Its most basic principle is ‘do good and avoid evil’. There are other general principles based in that first principle, such as ‘do not kill’, ‘love God,’ ‘care for your offspring’ etc. ‘

Love god is theology and has nothing whatsoever to do with natural moral law. And we know what ‘do not kill’ means – do not kill those who we like, others are ok to kill.

‘God is established by reason.’

Yet reason has failed to establish a god. So many people have reasoned god out of existence. Faith keeps god in.

‘how could a person have faith in God, on the word of God if he didn’t know that God existed?’

Because they have faith that god exists not knowledge. Take a glance some day through Michael Shermer’s ‘Why People Believe Weird Things’ and you will perhaps find something useful as to why people believe the things they do. There are thousands of gods that people have believed in over the aeons. As they say I believe in one less than you.

‘There are many ways to show the existence of God, eg;

“If contingent things exist, they demand as their ultimate explanation (that is as their sufficient reason for existing) the existence of a Being which is necessary and non-contingent, a First Being which does not depend on causes.

Now it is undeniable that contingent things exist.

Therefore, there exists a Being which is necessary and non-contingent, a First Being which does not depend on causes. This Being we call God.

Therefore God exists.”
(Paul Glenn’s Theodicy).’

This takes us into the realm of Acquinas speculation but the problem of regress presents itself each time this logic is reverted to. Trying to halt the regress by inserting god does not answer the question. It merely amounts to a faith based on the belief that nothing better can be thought of. Where did god come from if every thing we know has to have a cause? Makes no sense to me.

I have never read Aquinas unmediated so I have to rely on the interpretation provided by authors that did. And they are not all hostile.

Anthony, On the celibacy issue. There are many st...

2011-02-26T23:32:56.161Z

Anthony,

On the celibacy issue. There are many studies, which show the apostolic origin of priestly celibacy.

Christian Cochini's Apostolic Origins of Clerical Celibacy is particularly interesting.

Here is a brief online review of it:

"He examines the question of when the tradition of priestly celibacy began in the Latin Church, and he is able to trace it back to its origins with the apostles. He examines evidence about the marital status of every known bishop, priest or deacon of the period and gives an exhaustive list of married clerics from apostolic times until the end of the seventh century, a list that includes not only the Western Church, but the East and also the Nestorian, Novatian and Pelagian Church. Then Cochini examines the relevant Church documents for the same period, including council and synod documents, papal letters, ecclesial and even secular legislation as it relates to the problem. He also provides a survey of scholarly literature on the topic.

This is the definitive scholarly statement on the discipline of priestly celibacy in the Church East and West. What Cochini shows through patristic sources and conciliar documentation is that from the beginning of the Church, although married men could be priests, they were required to vow to celibacy before ordination, meaning they intended to live a life of continence. He provides extensive documentation, a bibliography and an index.

"This work is of the first importance. It is the result of serious and extensive research. There is nothing even remotely comparable to this work in this whole century."
- Henri Cardinal de Lubac"

Anthony, ‘I don’t know what Just War theory you h...

2011-02-26T23:15:02.026Z

Anthony,

‘I don’t know what Just War theory you have been reading but I have seen nothing but three points from Aquinas (which don’t embrace just war theory in its entirety) that would permit me to agree with you’

To quote Terence MacSwiney:

“We stand on the ground that the English Government in Ireland is founded in usurpation and as such deny its authority. But if it be argued, assuming it as Ireland's case, that a usurped authority, gradually acquiesced in by the people, ultimately becomes the same as legitimate, the reply is still clear. For ourselves we meet the assumption with a simple denial, appealing to Irish History for evidence that we never acquiesced in the English Usurpation. But to those who are not satisfied with this simple denial, we can point out that even an authority, originally founded legitimately, may be resisted when abusing its power to the ruin of the Commonwealth. We still stand on the ground that the English government is founded in usurpation, but we can dispose of all objections by proving the extremer case. This is the case Dr. Murray, already quoted, discusses. "The question," he writes, "is about resistance to an established and legitimate government which abuses its power." (Essays, Chiefly Theological, Vol. 4.) He continues: "The common opinion of a large number of our theologians, then, is that it is lawful to resist by force, and if necessary to depose, the sovereign ruler or rulers, in the extreme—the very extreme—case wherein the following conditions are found united:
"1. The tyranny must be excessive—intolerable.
"2. The tyranny must be manifest, manifest to men of good sense and right feeling.
"3. The evils inflicted by the tyrant must be greater than those which would ensue from resisting and deposing him.
"4. There must be no other available way of getting rid of the tyranny except by recurring to the extreme course.
"5. There must be a moral certainty of success.
"6. The revolution must be one conducted or approved by the community at large ... the refusal of a small party in the State to join with the overwhelming mass of their countrymen would not render the resistance of the latter unlawful." (Essays, Chiefly Theological; see also Rickaby, Moral Philosophy, Chap. 8, Sec. 7.)
Some of these conditions are drawn out at much length by Dr. Murray. I give what is outstanding. How easily they could fit Irish conditions must strike anyone. I think it might fairly be said that our leaders generally would, if asked to lay down conditions for a rising, have framed some more stringent than these. It might be said, in truth, of some of them that they seem to wait for more than a moral certainty of success, an absolute certainty, that can never be looked for in war.”

John, I believe it would (meet the just war crite...

2011-02-26T07:52:18.060Z

John,

I believe it would (meet the just war criteria) insofar as the legitimacy of it was not undermined by the recognition of Leinster House and Stormont.

I don’t know what Just War theory you have been reading but I have seen nothing but three points from Aquinas (which don’t embrace just war theory in its entirety) that would permit me to agree with you. That is not to say the war was not just, merely that it would not meet the stringent criteria of Just War theory.

‘Celibacy has been with the Church from the time of the Apostles.’

The extent to which it was present is a much debated matter. Priests and popes were married many centuries AD. I have read that Ciricius was married in the 4th Century and left the wife to become pope. In the 6th Century Pope Pelagius permitted married priests on the condition they did not hand over property to their offspring. On this I would like to cite something I found browsing for this particular discussion. It is on the position of Hans Kung.

‘Citing the New Testament, he says that Jesus and St Paul practised celibacy but “allowed full freedom in this matter to each individual”. St Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians wrote: “Because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” Peter and the apostles were married and their ministries did not suffer, he said, pointing out that thousands of priests protested when the new law was introduced as late as the 11th century.’

Quotes prove nothing but I did think you would find this interesting insofar as it traces something of real history and is not theoretical gobbledegook.

Alfie, ‘people are never directly informed by God...

2011-02-24T11:11:42.866Z

Alfie,

‘people are never directly informed by God that they are being put to the test.’

Sort of goes to the point. All we have is a body of men (usually) telling us we will go to hell if we don’t behave or think as they want us to. Why should we take them any more seriously on the matter than we would a cricket team? All they have is an opinion that god created them and we have an opinion that they created god.

Michaelhenry, I found your post reflecting my own...

2011-02-22T11:28:29.944Z

Michaelhenry,

I found your post reflecting my own thoughts about John’s position. I honestly don’t know if he supports killing but for the world of me I fail to understand how we can advocate taking human life in conflicts like the North went through yet damn to hell the woman who gets a morning after pill. I can’t comprehend the type or morality that would see the obliteration of the unborn Omagh twins as somehow morally superior to the taking of the morning after pill.

John,

‘I oppose abortion on philosophical grounds.’

What are those philosophical grounds that would differentiate them from theological grounds?

‘It is wrong to kill the innocent.’

Agreed

‘It is not always wrong to kill in war.’

Agreed. But what about the innocent?

‘It is not wrong to execute a criminal who has committed a grave crime.’

I disagree.

‘This is not religion but rather ethics.’

It is probably religiously informed ethics.

‘no one has a right to a child, and there will always be cases where parents cannot have them.’

Does this imply enforced sterilisation is legitimate?

John, I would rather share a cloud with a paedoph...

2011-02-19T19:51:21.339Z

John,

I would rather share a cloud with a paedophile priest than see him burn in hell. This need to eternally punish is one of the more unsavoury aspects of religion. I would fear that type of god. But then I don’t fear gods or devils given that there are none.

‘The best way to get to heaven is to think about hell and run in the opposite direction.’

Strange that god would create us in such a way that fear of hell rather than love of god is what guides our actions. What image of god are we then made in? We are not moral creatures in that schema, merely calculators of costs and benefits. Even more reason for believing none of it. The person who as a matter of conscience and good moral capacity opts out of belief in god or religion, should hardly be in hell and the calculating type be in heaven.

I don’t believe in either heaven or hell and it doesn’t make me behave any more or less morally.

‘If those priests who abused children believed in it too, would they have acted the way they did?’

What makes you think they don’t believe in it? Why is fear of the devil a greater motivator than the love of god? There is something odd about this.

‘The greatest pain of hell is the pain of having lost God. It is His mercy that has attached terrible punishments to it so as to make us not want to go there.’

He could have saved himself and us the bother by not creating us to begin with. None of us asked to be born so god could ask us to jump through hoops while he and his other creation, the devil, could play tug of war or eat popcorn while they enjoyed the show.

John, ‘In a normal society ... IVF would be crim...

2011-02-18T15:59:23.449Z

John,

‘In a normal society ... IVF would be criminalised.’

I would hate to live in that normal society. It would be either the worst type of police state or priest state imaginable. What philosophical reasons as distinct from theological reasons could exist for that?

Alfie: ‘A ball of cells can't feel pain and it can't think, so it's not a human being in my book.’

That would be my view

John,

‘So, when do you consider that it becomes a human being?’

That’s the problem. I don’t know and have long found the practice of abortion distasteful. Given that religious opinion means nothing to me I can only go with the current medical opinion. Few want to think they are advocating the murder of children. Even Ireland doesn’t really regard it as murder. We can leave the country to have an abortion and return without consequence but could not leave with our husbands in order to kill them and then return and meet no scrutiny or sanction.

John, ‘It somehow doesn’t seem right to refer to ...

2011-02-13T12:02:06.301Z

John,

‘It somehow doesn’t seem right to refer to the destruction of human life as a ‘service’.’

But this is the area of dispute. Western society does not regard it as such. It is only a matter of time before Ireland has abortion legalised as well. In time we shall see euthanasia clinics like Dignitas also. That has been the trend – away from Catholic morality towards secularism. If it wasn’t we would have neither divorce nor contraception. I also think that the pro-life lobby weaken their own case by trying to extend the concept of abortion back to the morning after pill stage. People like me who dislike the abortion practice have no sympathy with the argument when stretched to that position. If we genuinely saw it as murder we would never opt for it.

I do not consider this a ‘religious opinion,’ on the contrary it is a deduction made from the natural moral law and until very recently universally accepted.

It is a religious opinion. I don’t accept there is any such thing as natural moral law. We all have our own view of what we would like it to be but in my view it does not exist. I imagine any such a thing would be immutable and timeless. It changes as moral thinking changes. What we have is people telling us that the moral law they agree with is the natural moral law. The moral philosopher that Stefan flagged up, Alasdair MacIntyre, made a similar point in relation to human rights. Human rights are what humans make them. We might not like it but that is where it is at. I believe there should be natural rights but too many disagree.

John, The conscience clause has led to much deba...

2011-02-12T19:12:42.233Z

John,

The conscience clause has led to much debate in western societies. I think the US, where all the religious crazies seem to gather, is more in favour of it than European countries. I think there must always be room for conscientious objection but for me it is about withdrawing from something rather than inflicting an action on somebody. Should the doctor be allowed to penalise people on the basis of his religious opinion which may not be theirs? I don’t believe so. He should not be in the profession or at least be put somewhere within it where these issues of conflict don’t arise. The worshiper of the Flying Spaghetti Monster will be inflicting his opinion on those who prefer beans on their toast. Then the problem arises of the Liverpool supporter who might not want to treat a Man Utd supporter. His opinions should not be trumped by religious opinions. If a person wants to withdraw from something on the grounds of conscience then I think they can do so without being jailed for it like so many other conscientious objectors in the past. I have a strong belief in conscientious objection. I just have a difficulty with them seeking to make others pay for their own conscience. Christians might think abortion is wrong but there is no reason for anyone to submit to the religious opinion of another in any walk of life. The children of Jehovah's Witnesses should be protected from their parents' opposition to blood transfusions. If the parents choose it for themselves, fine. They must not be allowed to choose it for anyone else.

I think a doctor should be allowed to give a lethal drug if asked. But it has to be asked by the person who requests it. For this reason I have long been a supporter of the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland despite harbouring misgivings about some aspects of what has happened there. These facilities should be available at home and people should not have to travel abroad for them.

“I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I
advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.”

To the best of my knowledge this is no longer required in medical training.

Marty, Pass on our best wishes to Frances. She i...

2011-02-11T21:47:14.286Z

Marty,

Pass on our best wishes to Frances. She is sound. It is a while since we last saw her.

Aine,

Of course the morning after pill should be everywhere, and on a no questions asked basis. Those who do not wish to avail of it should have that choice just as those who do wish to have it. It is not up to some bigot with an opinion, religious, sporting or otherwise, to start telling people what service they should or should not be provided with. Imagine me working in a chemist saying to you because you are a Chelsea fan – they took Torres from us - that I was not providing you with the morning after pill because you didn’t support the team I support.

I don’t see it as abortion either. And if it is abortion then I have no problems with it. The term means nothing to me. I would not favour abortion as we currently understand it but for all that I will defer to a woman’s right to choose.

‘I remember about 12 years ago going to my doctor for a prescription for the "morning after pill" and when i went to the chemist on Andersonstown Rd they literally chased me out the door - it took phoning around about 4/5 chemists in West Belfast before I could go get the damn thing.’

What a self righteous crank. ‘if you don’t live the way I tell you to live - because I have a religious opinion which you must bow to because it is mine - we will discriminate against you.’

Fionnchú ‘the days of a mass chorus of the faithf...

2011-02-09T20:02:21.808Z

Fionnchú

‘the days of a mass chorus of the faithful responding to Il Papa
are long gone.’

I think so too. Just look at the chapels on a Sunday. I recall as a child having to stand outside in the crowd with my mother as there was no room to get in. Now they could all get into the front pew.

Denis Faul, when saying mass in the Blocks, used the term ‘hatch, match and despatch Catholics.’ He was referring to the French but it is much wider today.

‘I do wish more people took advantage of contraception...’

They will. Vatican roulette just seems like cheating. I think in time the contraception stance will be abandoned by the Church. They will come up with some form of words and select a passage from the bible to justify it.

In sexual relations people should be free to do what they want. It is not as if they are coercing each other. I would be open to all arguments, apart from religious ones, about regulation and modes of behaviour. And that would hold true to the issue of gays, condom use, same sex marriages, single parent families or whatever. If people present solid material arguments against whatever mode it should be considered otherwise we our defending a prejudice of our own that might be detrimental to society. I dislike the notion of people being discriminated against on the basis of a mere opinion or sentiment that is hostile to their behaviour. This notion that ‘I won’t approve your marriage because you don’t think the way I think you should think’ is an anathema.

‘the Vicar of Christ’

I find these titles so funny. When I hear people refer to his holiness I just laugh. The KK call theirs grand wizards or something.

‘Is the current crop of teeming babies popping out of ever-younger teens any social or moral progress?’

I don’t believe it is. More sex education is needed and the provision of family planning facilities. We may ultimately see the age of consent lowered.

‘However, when birth control is easily purchased but couples can't be arsed to use it, what do we do?’

I don’t know the answer. It is frustrating. I think among the young there is a growing awareness of the issue.

The Morning After Nuala, ‘I don't think rel...

2011-02-06T09:21:09.044Z

The Morning After

Nuala,

‘I don't think religion is a big factor in this.’

It seems to have been a big factor in the Kerry woman being sent on a tour by a doctor. How wide a phenomenon that is I don’t know. I don’t know the stats but I know few men who would oppose their partners using the pill, morning after or more regular. Women are not as easy for men to control as they once were. I think your ma had it right about things moving in the direction of women.

‘I have had to sit and listen to derogatory comments in relation to women all my life, and sadly a lot of them have come from other women.’

But was it about gender or about something else? For example, you probably know quite a few women who would put other women down for simply having a different political view.

Thanks for your kind words Alfie.Ofcourse I meant ...

2011-01-31T19:53:26.150Z

Thanks for your kind words Alfie.Ofcourse I meant Bi-polar, I only the saw the typo re-reading it.My Father is currently doing very well without meds albeit with his brother passing on last Easter as a result of a stroke of which he has had two minor ones already.He is a staunch Atheist like yourself and I can see the loneliness of that in his eyes now which for me is very sad.On a brighter note he announced tonight he has invested in a dream trip to Cuba in March, one of the highlights being to visit the Che Guevara Mausoleum...a revolutionary he held in great esteem.
Alfie, maybe the course you intend doing will be a focus for you away from your problems.My Brother-in-law has improved loads since undertaking his psycology degree suffering with depression after the suicide of his brother five years ago.

Stefan, "We aren't talking about cont...

2011-01-30T01:33:46.042Z
Stefan,

"We aren't talking about controlling a biological process here Alfie though are we, we're talking about terminating one.

True, but the principle behind your argument is that we shouldn't interfere with a biological process until we thoroughly understand it. I was just illustrating the implications of such a principle.

"As for psychiatric illness, are you implying treatment via biological processes here, that itself is a contentious argument and one close to home for me as my father is what they term 'Bopolar' and is convinced of the chemical composition of the brain is the cause of his plight."

It is close to home for me too. I suffer from depression and obsessive compulsive disorder and have been hospitalised 4 times since 2008. I believe my illness is caused by both a genetic predisposition and childhood trauma. Perhaps the effect of these factors is a biochemical imbalance in my brain - that is what my doctors think anyway.

"Drugs can do all sorts of 'wonders', make you happy, sad or 'stabilised' but they don't address the route cause of the problems in my opinion."

I have been in therapy on and off for years, but I have not definitively discovered the "route cause of the problems". Even if I did, it wouldn't make my problems disappear. A combination of medication and a new kind of therapy has been working well for me recently, but I don't expect any miracles. I do hope your father stays well and finds peace of mind; if he finds it in biochemical explanations for his illness - which would seem to be valid to a large extent - then I don't see that as a problem.

We aren't talking about controlling a biologic...

2011-01-29T09:40:02.335Z
We aren't talking about controlling a biological process here Alfie though are we, we're talking about terminating one.
For me there is no comparison between a disease and the germination of human life, for a materialistic sceintist I have no doubt they can see similarities which further points out to me the very danger they pose to human society.As for psychiatric illness, are you implying treatment via biological processes here, that itself is a contentious argument and one close to home for me as my father is what they term 'Bopolar' and is convinced of the chemical composition of the brain is the cause of his plight.Drugs can do all sorts of 'wonders', make you happy, sad or 'stabilised' but they don't address the route cause of the problems in my opinion.