Thursday, February 18, 2010

Anti-Catholic Steve Hays Defends Masturbation & Contraception; Attacks & Mocks Perpetual Virginity & Clerical Celibacy, Makes Sexual Jokes About Nuns

[SteveHays2.jpg]

I have documented in the past, Hays' bizarre defense of masturbation. Recently, on a particularly ridiculous anti-Catholic blog, a Catholic referred to some of Hays' past (and still posted) remarks on his blog:

I don’t think that Christians should go around guilt-ridden if they engage in this practice. On the face of it, this seems like a natural sexual safety value for single men—especially younger men in their sexual prime. Like learning how to walk or perform other athletic activities, this form of sexual experience and physical experimentation may train an unmarried young man in attaining some degree of mental and muscular control so that he is not a total novice on his wedding night. . . . I can’t say absolutely if it is right or wrong, but I tend to deem it permissible under some circumstances.

("Too hot to handle - 2", 7-15-04)

Hays has been on a roll lately, in obsessing over sexual matters, that he delights in relating to the Catholic Church. In one post, he claimed that the martyrdom of St. Sebastian as depicted in Catholic art "betrays the homoerotic and sadomasochistic undercurrent in major streams of Catholic piety". In another sewer-inspired masterpiece ("Nuns gone wild!"), Hays took a biblical passage and came very close to mocking it (and God Himself), writing, among other ridiculous things: "dear old Dave . . . should produce a Spring Break video of the Poor Clares." In yet another one for the ages, Hays had some ludicrously juvenile fun at the expense of nuns, by pursuing a sadomasochistic theme:

Following recent revelations that his predecessor used to perform self-flagellation, Benedict XVI has issued an Apostolic Letter instituting the Order of Carmelite Dominatrices. In place of the standard habit, the habit of Carmelite dominatrices consists of a leather catsuit and stiletto thigh-boots. Benedict XVI also amended the Codex Iuris Canonici to include a new provision on holy spanking. Carmelite dominatrices will be assigned to the pope, the college of cardinals, and visiting bishops to assist the princes of the church in their sanctification.

("Carmelite dominatrices," 2-17-10)

All this from a man (himself single at age 50, for the record) who defends masturbation. Hays, shortly afterwards, made several other remarks along these pitiful lines:


But because the Roman Church flagrantly disregards the teaching of Scripture, it ends up codifying pagan perversions. In Catholic spirituality, piety and immorality become indistinguishable. . . . Catholic dogma which actually underwrites its masochistic brand of self-mortification.
("Saints or pain freaks?", 2-18-10)
Catholicism substitutes fetishism for real grace. It fetishises “holy” persons, buildings, paintings, furniture, relics, &c. . . . Protestants are supposed to defer to Catholic fetishism. Catholics wax indignant of you dare to treat their ascriptively holy persons as ordinary men and women like you and me because, deep down, there is no depth to Catholic piety. In practice, externals are all they’ve got. So they cling to their externals for dear life. . . . for them, ascriptive holiness trumps actual holiness.. . . Catholics wax indignant over sadomasochistic comparisons while they remain blithely oblivious to the sadomasochistic spirituality which is codified in their own theological system.
("Catholic fetishism," 2-19-10)
Catholic culture tends to swing back and forth between viewing women as saints and woman as whores–without much in-between . . . Catholic piety fosters a two-story morality: a nunnery or monastery on the second floor, but downstairs is another story–in more ways than one.
("Two-story morality," 2-22-10)
Steve "Whopper" Hays has now launched into the stratosphere after being reminded by a Catholic of his sanctioning of the immoral sexual practice of masturbation, including lengthy reiterations of his great love for Catholic piety, spirituality, and theology:

* * * * *

Actually, it's the folks like you, who can't have a grown-up discussion about sexual morality, who ought to stay away from blogging. And I notice that you continue to support the institutionalized sexual abuse of minors in the Catholic church. The question is what Scripture permits, prohibits, or prescribes in the realm of sexual conduct. In some cases, Scripture may be silent. In that event, we then evaluate the behavior in light of natural revelation.

(2-25-10)

Whether or not it's a "disordered act" is the very point at issue. All you're doing is to parrot what your denomination tells you. . . . another example of why Catholics can't have grown-up conversations about sexuality. All we get from the likes of you are adolescent snickers. The message that sends to young people is to seek advice from anyone other than a Catholic. No wonder their priests abuse underage boys–with the tacit consent of Catholic laymen.

(2-25-10)

Whether or not masturbation is immoral is the very issue in dispute. It’s moral status is an issue which needs to be argued, not assumed. And this is an issue which confronts every teenage boy, so it merits a serious and respectful analysis.

This is one reason, though not the only one, why the Catholic church has so many sex scandals. The inability to have an adult discussion of human sexuality.

(2-26-10)

i) Among other problems, the Roman church is the victim of its own legalism. Legalism treats innocent or debatable practices as if they were guilty practices.

The inevitable result of legalism is to precipitate the very thing it fears. By creating a list of pseudo-sins, it ends up fostering reactionary types of genuine immorality that are worse than anything it was trying to avoid in the first place.

ii) The Roman church suffers from a number of sexual hang-ups. This is reflected on such issues as “artificial” contraception [a practice that Calvin and Luther deplored], clerical celibacy [urged by Jesus (Mt 19:10-12) and Paul (1 Cor 7:7-8, 17, 32-35, 38) for those who are called to it], and the perpetual virginity of Mary [a belief accepted by Calvin, Luther, and many other "Reformers"] – including the Gnostic/Docetic refinement of her virginity in partu.

By fixating on pseudo-sins, by treating what is innocent or natural as if it were guilty, the end-result is to engender aggravated forms of immorality.

Yet these aggravated sins don’t bother them nearly as much as the pseudo-sins.

iii) Hence, Catholic epologists express perfunctory gestures of disapproval for priestly abuse, yet they continue to defend and subsidize the denomination which institutionalizes clerical concubinage and priestly pederasty.

You can’t get any worse than that, but nothing is too bad for a good Catholic. Hence, there’s never a dearth of Catholic lawyers on retainer of the Diocese to intimidate victims and stonewall authorities.

The church of Rome might as well redesign the architecture of its churches to reflect its de facto policy: have a daycare in the basement to serve as a harem for the priest, have a law office in the rectory to defend the priest or bishop who’s caught in the act. One-stop shopping.

(2-26-10)

Yes, the church of Rome condemns sexual abuse the way the Mafia condemns organized crime. It “condemns” sexual abuse by shielding abusive priests. By shielding complicit bishops. It’s says a lot about the Catholic concept of morality that they think what an institution says on paper is all that matters–regardless of how it actually conducts business.

(2-26-10)

[engaging in a silly attempt at a reductio ad absurdum of traditional Christian (not just Catholic) ethical principles] i) A wet dream also creates an organism without copulation. Therefore, a wet dream is an intrinsically evil act and disordered on many levels. . . . So if I listen to my favorite music or munch on a chocolate ice cream cone for my own enjoyment, then I’m guilty of an intrinsically evil and disordered act. . . .

i) That depends on how you define lust. Is finding a beautiful woman attractive ipso facto lustful? Should beautiful women be required to don Burqas?

(2-26-10)

20 comments:

Devin Rose said...

Very ugly comments--may Christ bless and help him.

C. Andiron said...

This is truly revolting, I wasn't aware Hays had these issues and I'm glad you brought this to light (I read their blog often). I would have thought Hays was too clear headed to be able to slip into thinking this way, but this just demonstrates we are all blinded by sin to some extent.

But still, I see here a problem that I've seen elsewhere with you and most obviously with your critiques of Luther. You cannot refute a position by pointing to someone who holds it and dragging in all their personal aberrations. We all have aberrations in some areas of our lives. Do you like it when people attack corrupt Popes? This is just ad hominem when used in place of addressing the issue itself.

C. Andiron said...

iow, I'll see your Hays and raise you a Rembert Weakland.

Dave Armstrong said...

The issue in this post is Hays' juvenile obsessions with various sexual matters, as shown in his posts lately that have that theme.

I was writing about the biblical evidence for mortification of the flesh. Hays then chose to write asinine posts about sadomasochistic nuns and nuns at spring break, etc. During that, it came to light how he had overtly defended masturbation. I had already debated him on that before, so it was not all new to me: just the particulars of his 2004 statement.

I'm simply reporting that, to illustrate the bankruptcy of the man's arguments (and his moral theology). He wants to hang himself with this rotgut? Then I will be glad to broadcast it also on my blog. It's already public; so it is fair game.

Remember, this is a guy who states that I am "evil" and have an "evil character." If you want to object to ad hominem, there is your target. But all I'm doing is reporting the man's own facile arguments.

My Luther research is simply amateur historiography. I highly doubt that you even know what my position on Luther the man is.

In any event, I am as entitled to write about any aspect of his life as anyone else is: including all his biographers.

Dave Armstrong said...

This is just ad hominem when used in place of addressing the issue itself.

It's not "in place of" in the first place, since I have already debated Hays and others on the issue of masturbation:

Debate on the Morality of Masturbation and Whether the Bible Condemns It (Onan) (vs. Steve Hays)

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/01/debate-on-morality-of-masturbation.html

Response to Steve Hays' Further Defense of (Oops, Sorry, "Neutral" Stance on) Masturbation

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/01/response-to-steve-hays-further-defense.html

Dr. James Dobson Sanctions Masturbation (+ Part Two) (with E. L. Hamilton)

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/03/dr-james-dobson-sanctions-masturbation.html

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/dr-james-dobson-sanctions-masturbation.html

Adomnan said...

C. Andiron: You cannot refute a position by pointing to someone who holds it and dragging in all their personal aberrations.

Adomnan: Why not? Hays tells dirty jokes about nuns, which he believes he's justified in doing because of his claim that the Catholic Church has unhealthy attitudes about sexuality. What could be more relevant than to examine Hays's own unhealthy ideas about sexuality, which include his urge to tell scandalous "jokes" about consecrated virgins?

C. Andiron: Do you like it when people attack corrupt Popes?

Adomnan: Why should we have a problem with that, providing that the "attack" is accurate and not slander?

Besides, Hays and his blog attack popes, corrupt and non-corrupt, all the time. The current exchanges began over Hays's scurrilous and sniggering attack on Pope John Paul II. So if you don't like this kind of behavior, then take it up with Hays, not Dave.

Adomnan said...

C. Andiron: This is just ad hominem when used in place of addressing the issue itself.

Adomnan: I don't get this at all. Dave has addressed all of the issues that Luther raised, apart from any criticism of Luther's behavior.

You seem to be saying that if we disagree with someone's "position," we can never criticize his behavior. Dave has done both with Luther, criticizing his positions and his behavior. What's wrong with that?

Dave Armstrong said...

Hays tells dirty jokes about nuns, which he believes he's justified in doing because of his claim that the Catholic Church has unhealthy attitudes about sexuality. What could be more relevant than to examine Hays's own unhealthy ideas about sexuality, which include his urge to tell scandalous "jokes" about consecrated virgins?

This is an excellent point. He says our views are lacking; we respond by saying that his are. But there is no moral equivalence in the two positions whatever.

Hays has not only the Bible against him, but also traditional Protestant teaching on masturbation, contraception, and the perpetual virginity of Mary.

He posits hypothetical scenarios about S&M nuns that aren't true, while at the same time he may very well be (I don't assert this, because I don't know for sure) experimenting with masturbation and actually engaging in grave sin, since he has said it is permissible for single men as a sexual outlet for avoidance of lust (ha ha), and he is a single man himself.

Therefore, his behavior in making tasteless sexual jokes and rationalization of grave sin is entirely relevant. It appears to be a personal attack because Hays' ethical positions are so bizarre and indefensible in the first place.

But that is hardly our problem, is it?

C. Andiron said...

So if you don't like this kind of behavior, then take it up with Hays, not Dave.

Touche, he has been getting rather more shrill of late. It's a pity he doesn't spend more time on analysis and less on the free form nastiness posts.

C. Andiron said...

I don't think I'll ever be able to read another post by him without thinking about Dave's quotes, and I have a weak stomach... maybe Dave's approach is effective after all. I'll have to restrict myself to clean apologists, like Mark Driscoll ;)

Dave Armstrong said...

he has been getting rather more shrill of late.

Really? Seems like the same old Steve Hays to me. OTOH, no doubt he is acutely embarrassed by being called on his hypocrisies and sins, and that accounts for a stepping-up of his usual acerbic, petty, sarcastic put-downs of anyone he disagrees with.

Phil said...

You know, after seeing all your countless debates with anti-catholics and radical something or others (such as this man), I think that the next book you publish ought to be called "How to talk to Fanatics: A practical guide to conversing with those whose Ideology exceeds their intelligence and would like to see you dead, by Dave Armstrong." I think you have all the experience to produce such a work. lol

Dave Armstrong said...

LOL Well, all my online stuff will have to suffice. Unless I'm known nationwide as a comedian, I doubt that the book would find much of a market. :-)

This current one, however, was not a debate (which I don't do anymore), but an expose . . .

Dave Armstrong said...

The ever-colorful Luther! Thanks!

But no; all that is fine, yet if I call someone (who thoroughly deserves it) an ass, using biblical, Shakespearean, and even Calvin(ist) language, all hell breaks loose.

Oh no! There I go with my foul mouth again!

Lying, smearing, slandering, calumnies, deliberate misrepresentation after a billion corrections, calling someone a psychotic, making fun of nuns, defending despicable mortal sins like masturbation, are all fine and dandy, but don't dare ever say the word "ass" or more judgmental-than-thou King will have you in hell within the hour . . .

Ben M said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ben M said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave Armstrong said...

Note from Dave: Sorry, Ben. I had to edit out some of the language. Otherwise, I'd never hear the end of it from my hyper-critics. Some of the links were lost.

***

"Evil be thou my good" - Friedrich Nietzsche

"...I should blush for shame if I were suspected of having had anything to do with Catholicism, for there is nothing I hate with a more deadly hatred.”

– Nietzsche, to his friend, Erwin Rohde (1845 - 1898), Feb. 28, 1875. Selected Letters, p. 103.

...and speaking of hatred of Catholicism ...

“Hence, Catholic epologists ... continue to defend and subsidize the denomination which institutionalizes clerical concubinage and priestly pederasty....

“The church of Rome might as well redesign the architecture of its churches to reflect its de facto policy: have a daycare in the basement to serve as a harem for the priest, have a law office in the rectory to defend the priest or bishop who’s caught in the act. One-stop shopping.”

As ridiculous as it is slanderous - worthy of a Luther or a Calvin! How often such talk is the result of an uneasy conscience!

And compare the above to some of Luther's own vile and hypocritical slanders...

From, Sodomy in Reformation Germany and Switzerland, 1400-1600, 2003, Helmut Puff, ISBN 0226685055:

Helmut Puff writes:

“The Curia, governing body of the Catholic Church, was depicted as an assembly of sexually ambiguous monsters: ‘hermaphrodites, androgynes, catamites [cynaedi], . . . [pedicones], and similar monsters of nature.' 12 Switching from the vernacular to the Latin (Erstlich antworte ich Latinisch) – a device rarely deployed in texts like this one that were aimed at a broad circulation- Luther shrouded the sexually most explicit part of his treatise in Latin, the language of erudition, while claiming to address the papacy in the sacred language of Western Christendom. 13

"This wavering between two languages emerges as analogous to the indeterminacy of sex, polemically projected onto the leaders of the Roman Church. The Holy See . . . was unveiled as the site of endless gender confusion (not the allusion to the myth of Popess Joan)." 14
p. 142.

Note 12. (p. 248).

Pray for such misguided (and apparently) joyless souls!
______________

"God is one, Christ is one, and the Church is one. There is but one episcopal authority (cathedra), which the Lord built upon a rock. No other altar may be set up, and no new priesthood may be established, except the one altar and the one priesthood."

- St. Cyprian, Epistolae, 40, P. L., Vol. 4, 336.

In The Whole Christ, Emile Mersch, p. 380.

Ben M said...

Dave,

Woke up this morning thinking I probably should edit the post (but i see you were faster on the draw!). ;)

Thanks.

Dave Armstrong said...

No problem.

The Lutherans have been editing or hiding Luther's writings for hundreds of years, so we can edit a bit, too. :-)

Ben M said...
This comment has been removed by the author.