No Matter How You Slice It, It is Still Baloney: Reflections on the Flawed Lesbian Family Study

Source: http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/pdf/Gartrell-Bos-Goldberg-2010.pdf

Introduction

On Facebook someone passed another link from the Huffington Post  claiming there is 0% instances of physical or sexual abuse among the children of lesbian couples.  The conclusion being drawn is that there are no dangers to children for being the child of a homosexual couple.  Suspecting that this claim was highly dubious (similar to the 100% support claimed by dictators), I looked up the actual report (linked above).

This report claims (page 6) that:

A key finding in the current study was that none of the NLLFS adolescents reported physical or sexual abuse by a parent or other caregiver. This finding contradicts the notion, offered in opposition to parenting by gay and lesbian people, that same-sex parents are likely to abuse their offspring sexually. (Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2010;Falk, 1989; Ford, 2010; Golombok & Tasker, 1994; Patterson, 1992)

They contrast this to other studies saying:

In the 17-year-old weighted subsample of the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence (NATSCEV) (Finkelhor et al., 2009a, b, c), it was found that the lifetime rates of victimization by a parent or other caregiver were: 26.1% of adolescents had been physically abused and 8.3% sexually assaulted (D. Finkelhor, personal communication, March 13, 2010)

The inference drawn by supporters is that a child living with a lesbian couple is safer than those with heterosexual parents.  Therefore there is no basis for those people to oppose homosexuals raising children on grounds of abuse.

The Logical Fallacies

There are several logical fallacies with such a conclusion, and I will focus on three: Weak Analogy, Hasty Generalization, and Begging the Question.

Weak Analogy

In an analogy or comparison, we have two different  situations which are compared.  If we say that conditions [A], [B] and [C] are the same in both Situation 1 and 2, we might think that the conditions are acceptable to compare and contrast.  However, if relevant conditions [X], [Y] and [Z] are different, this may show the comparison is not accurate.

In this case, we have a false comparison comparing the abuse suffered by juvenile delinquents compared to the adolescents in this survey.  This is a comparison of apples and oranges.  We are comparing one sample of delinquents to one sample of lesbian couples with children.

A proper comparison would be to compare what percentage of those juvenile delinquents abused came from heterosexual homes compared to heterosexual families as a whole, and then compare this to those juvenile delinquents who were abused and came from homosexual homes to homosexual families as a whole.

Therefore, this study does not have equal conditions for comparison.

There is another problem with their comparison.  It is relevant is that all the couples made use of artificial insemination.  However, this report (see page 2) is being used to discuss homosexual couple adoptions and the objections to them:

Another claim about the origins of sexual orientation that has been put forth in litigation and public discourse by opponents of equality in marriage, adoption, and foster care for same-sex couples is that lesbian and gay parents are more likely to abuse their children sexually.

Quite simply, there is a difference between Artificial Insemination to have a child and to adopt a child.  You can't use the experience of one [artificial insemination] to argue in favor of the other [same sex couple adoption] without studying the experience of the other.

In short, the relevant issues which are different make any general conclusions drawn by this conclusion a weak analogy.

The Hasty Generalization

There is another problem with such a study .  The youth interviewed were in fact a total of 78 youths approximately 17 years of age (half male youth, half female youth) from 77 families which completed all stages of this study.  78 youth are in fact far too small a number to gauge the proper state of affairs of lesbian couples with children.  This is especially notable when the report describes the statistical breakdown of the geography of the couples:

Family region of residence (U.S.)
Northeast 47%
Midwest 1%
South 9%
West 43%

We should point out that 1% of 77 couples would be 0.77 families and 9% of the 77 couples would be 6.93 families.  In other words, in the entire Midwest, we have 1 family represented.  Sure we can assume this group rounded off, but one family in the entire Midwest?  That's asinine to assume they represent the entire lesbian population of the Midwest.

The footnote describes this situation as:

Between T3 and T5, the NLLFS families resided in large urban communities, midsized towns, and rural areas of California, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin

That's a pretty biased sample.  90% of the population is drawn from two regions.  Only 10% of the population from the South and Midwest (Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Wisconsin and Maryland).

Moreover, to make a blanket assumption (0% of lesbian "families" abuse their children) requires how such couples behave in other regions of the world.  Essentially this is a report on how 77 lesbian families (of which 56% broke up within 7 years of the birth of the child [see page 3]) in the US, with a majority in the West and the Northeast) treated their children.

First, we need to know what number of lesbian couples exist in the United States, especially in each region, then what percentage of them these children make up.  Since this study in fact tells us that this study was made up of 77 families with 78 adolescent children (see page 3 of this report).  Since we don't know from this report the number of lesbian couples with children, we cannot say that such a sample is representative of the whole.

Indeed, on page 8 of this report, the Gartrell-Bos-Goldberg study admits the flaw with the NLLFS study:

Despite these strengths, the NLLFS has several limitations.  First, it is a nonrandom sample. At the time that the NLLFS began in the mid-1980s, due to the long history of discrimination against lesbian and gay people, the prospect of recruiting a representative sample of planned lesbian families was even more remote than it is today (Bos et al., 2007). A second limitation is that the NLLFS and NSFG were neither matched nor controlled for socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, or region of residence. An analysis of a more economically diverse sample would be an important contribution given that same-sex couples raising children are more likely to live in poverty and have lower household incomes than married, heterosexual couples raising children (Albelda, Badgett, Schneebaum,& Gates, 2009; Julien, Jouvin, Jodoin, l’Archeveque, & Chartrand, 2008). In addition, now that it is possible to obtain more information about sperm donors, future studies might benefit from exploring the association between the offspring’s sexual orientation and that of both parents. Finally, although the NLLFS is the largest, longest-running prospective study of planned lesbian families, the findings would be strengthened by replication in a larger sample.

So, what is flawed is, according to Gartrell, Bos and Goldberg:

1. The sample is non-random.
2. The sample is not representative
3. The socio-economic status was not controlled in sample.
4. Race/ethnicity was not controlled in sample (adolescents were 87.1% white, 12.9% non-white).
5. The regions represented was not controlled in sample.
6. The sample is considered too small.
7. The study did not account for the sexual orientation of the sperm donor.

When you consider that any or all of these can throw off the actual results of the study, it would be a hasty generalization to assume that lesbian couples do not abuse their children on the basis of this study.

The Fallacy of Begging the Question

In discussing physical abuse, this study performs the Begging the Question fallacy when it comes to what is understood by physical abuse.  This study describes (page 7) the idea of less physical abuse among lesbian couples as:

In addition, corporal punishment is less commonly used by lesbian mothers as a disciplinary
measure than by heterosexual fathers (Gartrell et al., 1999, 2000, 2005, 2006; Golombok et al., 2003)

However, corporal punishment has not been established as physical abuse intrinsically, though there is no doubt that some can turn corporal punishment into physical abuse (the "link" referred to further on in the paragraph cited).  The point is, if parents do spank their children, is this automatically considered to be physical abuse?  Most parents, it would seem, would disagree.  So this is an issue which needs to be proven, not assumed to be true.

[In addition, this is a Weak analogy again.  Comparing Lesbian mothers with Heterosexual fathers misses a crucial comparison.  What is absent is the comparison with Homosexual fathers, as well as comparing lesbian mothers to heterosexual mothers]

Thus to conclude that there is more physical abuse among families with heterosexual male parents, basing it on the claim that corporal punishment is most likely to be done by a heterosexual male parent is to beg the question: that corporal punishment is abuse.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, this report makes use of a flawed sample, a weak comparison and an assumption that corporal punishment leads to physical abuse to argue that there is no basis for fears of homosexual couples adopting children.  Since the report by the NLLFS fails to meet the requirements for a controlled study with a representative sample which correspond to the questions asked, this report by the NLLFS cannot be said to prove its point.

No Matter How You Slice It, It is Still Baloney: Reflections on the Flawed Lesbian Family Study

Source: http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/pdf/Gartrell-Bos-Goldberg-2010.pdf

Introduction

On Facebook someone passed another link from the Huffington Post  claiming there is 0% instances of physical or sexual abuse among the children of lesbian couples.  The conclusion being drawn is that there are no dangers to children for being the child of a homosexual couple.  Suspecting that this claim was highly dubious (similar to the 100% support claimed by dictators), I looked up the actual report (linked above).

This report claims (page 6) that:

A key finding in the current study was that none of the NLLFS adolescents reported physical or sexual abuse by a parent or other caregiver. This finding contradicts the notion, offered in opposition to parenting by gay and lesbian people, that same-sex parents are likely to abuse their offspring sexually. (Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2010;Falk, 1989; Ford, 2010; Golombok & Tasker, 1994; Patterson, 1992)

They contrast this to other studies saying:

In the 17-year-old weighted subsample of the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence (NATSCEV) (Finkelhor et al., 2009a, b, c), it was found that the lifetime rates of victimization by a parent or other caregiver were: 26.1% of adolescents had been physically abused and 8.3% sexually assaulted (D. Finkelhor, personal communication, March 13, 2010)

The inference drawn by supporters is that a child living with a lesbian couple is safer than those with heterosexual parents.  Therefore there is no basis for those people to oppose homosexuals raising children on grounds of abuse.

The Logical Fallacies

There are several logical fallacies with such a conclusion, and I will focus on three: Weak Analogy, Hasty Generalization, and Begging the Question.

Weak Analogy

In an analogy or comparison, we have two different  situations which are compared.  If we say that conditions [A], [B] and [C] are the same in both Situation 1 and 2, we might think that the conditions are acceptable to compare and contrast.  However, if relevant conditions [X], [Y] and [Z] are different, this may show the comparison is not accurate.

In this case, we have a false comparison comparing the abuse suffered by juvenile delinquents compared to the adolescents in this survey.  This is a comparison of apples and oranges.  We are comparing one sample of delinquents to one sample of lesbian couples with children.

A proper comparison would be to compare what percentage of those juvenile delinquents abused came from heterosexual homes compared to heterosexual families as a whole, and then compare this to those juvenile delinquents who were abused and came from homosexual homes to homosexual families as a whole.

Therefore, this study does not have equal conditions for comparison.

There is another problem with their comparison.  It is relevant is that all the couples made use of artificial insemination.  However, this report (see page 2) is being used to discuss homosexual couple adoptions and the objections to them:

Another claim about the origins of sexual orientation that has been put forth in litigation and public discourse by opponents of equality in marriage, adoption, and foster care for same-sex couples is that lesbian and gay parents are more likely to abuse their children sexually.

Quite simply, there is a difference between Artificial Insemination to have a child and to adopt a child.  You can't use the experience of one [artificial insemination] to argue in favor of the other [same sex couple adoption] without studying the experience of the other.

In short, the relevant issues which are different make any general conclusions drawn by this conclusion a weak analogy.

The Hasty Generalization

There is another problem with such a study .  The youth interviewed were in fact a total of 78 youths approximately 17 years of age (half male youth, half female youth) from 77 families which completed all stages of this study.  78 youth are in fact far too small a number to gauge the proper state of affairs of lesbian couples with children.  This is especially notable when the report describes the statistical breakdown of the geography of the couples:

Family region of residence (U.S.)
Northeast 47%
Midwest 1%
South 9%
West 43%

We should point out that 1% of 77 couples would be 0.77 families and 9% of the 77 couples would be 6.93 families.  In other words, in the entire Midwest, we have 1 family represented.  Sure we can assume this group rounded off, but one family in the entire Midwest?  That's asinine to assume they represent the entire lesbian population of the Midwest.

The footnote describes this situation as:

Between T3 and T5, the NLLFS families resided in large urban communities, midsized towns, and rural areas of California, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin

That's a pretty biased sample.  90% of the population is drawn from two regions.  Only 10% of the population from the South and Midwest (Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Wisconsin and Maryland).

Moreover, to make a blanket assumption (0% of lesbian "families" abuse their children) requires how such couples behave in other regions of the world.  Essentially this is a report on how 77 lesbian families (of which 56% broke up within 7 years of the birth of the child [see page 3]) in the US, with a majority in the West and the Northeast) treated their children.

First, we need to know what number of lesbian couples exist in the United States, especially in each region, then what percentage of them these children make up.  Since this study in fact tells us that this study was made up of 77 families with 78 adolescent children (see page 3 of this report).  Since we don't know from this report the number of lesbian couples with children, we cannot say that such a sample is representative of the whole.

Indeed, on page 8 of this report, the Gartrell-Bos-Goldberg study admits the flaw with the NLLFS study:

Despite these strengths, the NLLFS has several limitations.  First, it is a nonrandom sample. At the time that the NLLFS began in the mid-1980s, due to the long history of discrimination against lesbian and gay people, the prospect of recruiting a representative sample of planned lesbian families was even more remote than it is today (Bos et al., 2007). A second limitation is that the NLLFS and NSFG were neither matched nor controlled for socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, or region of residence. An analysis of a more economically diverse sample would be an important contribution given that same-sex couples raising children are more likely to live in poverty and have lower household incomes than married, heterosexual couples raising children (Albelda, Badgett, Schneebaum,& Gates, 2009; Julien, Jouvin, Jodoin, l’Archeveque, & Chartrand, 2008). In addition, now that it is possible to obtain more information about sperm donors, future studies might benefit from exploring the association between the offspring’s sexual orientation and that of both parents. Finally, although the NLLFS is the largest, longest-running prospective study of planned lesbian families, the findings would be strengthened by replication in a larger sample.

So, what is flawed is, according to Gartrell, Bos and Goldberg:

1. The sample is non-random.
2. The sample is not representative
3. The socio-economic status was not controlled in sample.
4. Race/ethnicity was not controlled in sample (adolescents were 87.1% white, 12.9% non-white).
5. The regions represented was not controlled in sample.
6. The sample is considered too small.
7. The study did not account for the sexual orientation of the sperm donor.

When you consider that any or all of these can throw off the actual results of the study, it would be a hasty generalization to assume that lesbian couples do not abuse their children on the basis of this study.

The Fallacy of Begging the Question

In discussing physical abuse, this study performs the Begging the Question fallacy when it comes to what is understood by physical abuse.  This study describes (page 7) the idea of less physical abuse among lesbian couples as:

In addition, corporal punishment is less commonly used by lesbian mothers as a disciplinary
measure than by heterosexual fathers (Gartrell et al., 1999, 2000, 2005, 2006; Golombok et al., 2003)

However, corporal punishment has not been established as physical abuse intrinsically, though there is no doubt that some can turn corporal punishment into physical abuse (the "link" referred to further on in the paragraph cited).  The point is, if parents do spank their children, is this automatically considered to be physical abuse?  Most parents, it would seem, would disagree.  So this is an issue which needs to be proven, not assumed to be true.

[In addition, this is a Weak analogy again.  Comparing Lesbian mothers with Heterosexual fathers misses a crucial comparison.  What is absent is the comparison with Homosexual fathers, as well as comparing lesbian mothers to heterosexual mothers]

Thus to conclude that there is more physical abuse among families with heterosexual male parents, basing it on the claim that corporal punishment is most likely to be done by a heterosexual male parent is to beg the question: that corporal punishment is abuse.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, this report makes use of a flawed sample, a weak comparison and an assumption that corporal punishment leads to physical abuse to argue that there is no basis for fears of homosexual couples adopting children.  Since the report by the NLLFS fails to meet the requirements for a controlled study with a representative sample which correspond to the questions asked, this report by the NLLFS cannot be said to prove its point.

Critiquing an Melkite Archbishop's Proposal on a Married Priesthood

Source: A Lebanese archbishop’s practical argument for married priests « CNS Blog

Preliminary Note

I suspect what we really have here is a CNS blogger seeking to promote her own view about a married priesthood, rather than a Melkite Archbishop seeking to overturn the discipline of celibacy.  This is not written out of disrespect of the Archbishop of Tyre, but rather looking at an article which seems to be overly generalized.

The Article in Question

In CNS news, an article was published telling us of the Lebanese Melkite Archbishop, George Bakhouni of Tyre, speaking of the priest shortage in the West, saying he does not have a shortage of priests in his own archdiocese because Eastern Catholics have married priests.  The article generally uses sympathetic language instead of neutral language indicating that the author supports the idea.

The article describes his situation as:

For the archdiocese’s 10 parishes, “I have 12 priests. Eight of them are married and four are single, but two of the singles are serving in Italy,” the archbishop said.

This article also says,

“Christianity survived in the Middle East because of the married priests,” the bishop said. Because they are married with families and homes, they tend to stay even when conflicts and hardship send many celibate priests fleeing to safety.

The Archbishop tells us:

The Eastern tradition, he said, is “to choose someone who has his own work in the particular village, a good man, a faithful man, a Christian man. He will study a little bit, some theology and philosophy, and he will be ordained.”

The archbishop said it doesn’t matter that it’s impractical to send a married man to the seminary for six years. “We don’t want all of them to be doctors or theologians,” but witnesses. Priests don’t all have to be well spoken orators; they could even be fishermen, like the Apostles, he said.

The important thing, he said, is that they live exemplary lives among their fellow villagers, know a bit of theology and the Bible and that they are available to celebrate the sacraments.

This may sound appealing to us in the West, particularly with the modern Western aversion to a hierarchical Church.  However, before asking "where do I sign?" we need to ask whether such a thing would work elsewhere.

Are The Situations Equal?

This is indeed the Eastern tradition, and it seems to work in the region where his Excellency lives, however, before applying it to the West, one needs to consider whether the situations are equal, to avoid the fallacy of the false analogy.

Comparing the Melkite Archdiocese of Tyre to my own Diocese of Sacramento reveals some interesting things.  In his Excellency's archdiocese, he has 10 parishes and 12 priests.  In Sacramento, we have at least 90 parishes (I lost count) and 246 priests (192 diocesan, 54 religious priests in 2004) serving over 500,000 Catholics who make up about 16% of the total population in the region.

The question of course is whether the situations are similar.  Of course they are not.  In the Sacramento diocese we have priests who travel from place to place in small rural areas as well as those who serve larger fixed dioceses.

However, it is the celibate model which also exists in mission territory in Africa and South America, where priests must travel large distances to evangelize to those people who are only beginning to learn about Christ.

Comparing Apples and Oranges

I think the problem is, the situation in the Melkite Archdiocese of Tyre is more static, where the main function of the priest is described as "they live exemplary lives among their fellow villagers, know a bit of theology and the Bible and that they are available to celebrate the sacraments" is different from the role of the priest is more diverse.

For a comparison to work, we do need to remember that they must not have differences which make the comparison invalid.  If situations 1 and 2 have conditions A, B and C the same, but contradict on relevant issues X, Y and Z then to compare situations 1 and 2 would be inaccurate and misleading.

Thus it is not my intent to disparage one or build up another form.  Rather, I wish to point out that in the Catholic Church, there are many regions of the world, and what works in one region may not necessarily work in another region, and it is for the Magisterium, not the individual, to decide what is best for the Church.  Hence we do have other rites than just the Roman Rite.  The Church respects the traditions of her fellow Catholics in regions where the Eastern Rites are followed, and I acknowledge the wisdom of the Church.

The Church, in her wisdom, permits the married priesthood in the Eastern Rites and calls for celibacy for priests in the West.  The situations seem to fit the needs.  If it ever turns out differently, the Church can change her disciplines to meet the needs of the faithful.

However, it would be wrong to merely say "a married priesthood will solve the vocations crisis" as a blanket statement.  Such a statement is a Dicto Simpliciter fallacy, making a universal statement where there can be exceptions (exercise is good for most people, but if you have heart disease and are on a respirator, perhaps not).

If conditions in West and East are the same, then one can perhaps make a rule of thumb on married priesthoods.  However, if conditions are not the same, then it would be unwise to say "It works here, therefore it will work there" without considering there may be exceptions to the rule.

Conclusion

I do not think the Archbishop is making this error however.  Rather I think the author of this CNS blog is making this error in hopes that a married priesthood will somehow "fix" all the woes of the West.

Personally I think that is an oversimplification, ignoring the problem of the growing secularism of the West, and that such married priests would need faithful teachers so they would pass on the teachings of Christ faithfully.

This is the reform which is being undertaken in the West, and I suspect that once completed, perhaps we would find we did not need a married priesthood after all.

Critiquing an Melkite Archbishop's Proposal on a Married Priesthood

Source: A Lebanese archbishop’s practical argument for married priests « CNS Blog

Preliminary Note

I suspect what we really have here is a CNS blogger seeking to promote her own view about a married priesthood, rather than a Melkite Archbishop seeking to overturn the discipline of celibacy.  This is not written out of disrespect of the Archbishop of Tyre, but rather looking at an article which seems to be overly generalized.

The Article in Question

In CNS news, an article was published telling us of the Lebanese Melkite Archbishop, George Bakhouni of Tyre, speaking of the priest shortage in the West, saying he does not have a shortage of priests in his own archdiocese because Eastern Catholics have married priests.  The article generally uses sympathetic language instead of neutral language indicating that the author supports the idea.

The article describes his situation as:

For the archdiocese’s 10 parishes, “I have 12 priests. Eight of them are married and four are single, but two of the singles are serving in Italy,” the archbishop said.

This article also says,

“Christianity survived in the Middle East because of the married priests,” the bishop said. Because they are married with families and homes, they tend to stay even when conflicts and hardship send many celibate priests fleeing to safety.

The Archbishop tells us:

The Eastern tradition, he said, is “to choose someone who has his own work in the particular village, a good man, a faithful man, a Christian man. He will study a little bit, some theology and philosophy, and he will be ordained.”

The archbishop said it doesn’t matter that it’s impractical to send a married man to the seminary for six years. “We don’t want all of them to be doctors or theologians,” but witnesses. Priests don’t all have to be well spoken orators; they could even be fishermen, like the Apostles, he said.

The important thing, he said, is that they live exemplary lives among their fellow villagers, know a bit of theology and the Bible and that they are available to celebrate the sacraments.

This may sound appealing to us in the West, particularly with the modern Western aversion to a hierarchical Church.  However, before asking "where do I sign?" we need to ask whether such a thing would work elsewhere.

Are The Situations Equal?

This is indeed the Eastern tradition, and it seems to work in the region where his Excellency lives, however, before applying it to the West, one needs to consider whether the situations are equal, to avoid the fallacy of the false analogy.

Comparing the Melkite Archdiocese of Tyre to my own Diocese of Sacramento reveals some interesting things.  In his Excellency's archdiocese, he has 10 parishes and 12 priests.  In Sacramento, we have at least 90 parishes (I lost count) and 246 priests (192 diocesan, 54 religious priests in 2004) serving over 500,000 Catholics who make up about 16% of the total population in the region.

The question of course is whether the situations are similar.  Of course they are not.  In the Sacramento diocese we have priests who travel from place to place in small rural areas as well as those who serve larger fixed dioceses.

However, it is the celibate model which also exists in mission territory in Africa and South America, where priests must travel large distances to evangelize to those people who are only beginning to learn about Christ.

Comparing Apples and Oranges

I think the problem is, the situation in the Melkite Archdiocese of Tyre is more static, where the main function of the priest is described as "they live exemplary lives among their fellow villagers, know a bit of theology and the Bible and that they are available to celebrate the sacraments" is different from the role of the priest is more diverse.

For a comparison to work, we do need to remember that they must not have differences which make the comparison invalid.  If situations 1 and 2 have conditions A, B and C the same, but contradict on relevant issues X, Y and Z then to compare situations 1 and 2 would be inaccurate and misleading.

Thus it is not my intent to disparage one or build up another form.  Rather, I wish to point out that in the Catholic Church, there are many regions of the world, and what works in one region may not necessarily work in another region, and it is for the Magisterium, not the individual, to decide what is best for the Church.  Hence we do have other rites than just the Roman Rite.  The Church respects the traditions of her fellow Catholics in regions where the Eastern Rites are followed, and I acknowledge the wisdom of the Church.

The Church, in her wisdom, permits the married priesthood in the Eastern Rites and calls for celibacy for priests in the West.  The situations seem to fit the needs.  If it ever turns out differently, the Church can change her disciplines to meet the needs of the faithful.

However, it would be wrong to merely say "a married priesthood will solve the vocations crisis" as a blanket statement.  Such a statement is a Dicto Simpliciter fallacy, making a universal statement where there can be exceptions (exercise is good for most people, but if you have heart disease and are on a respirator, perhaps not).

If conditions in West and East are the same, then one can perhaps make a rule of thumb on married priesthoods.  However, if conditions are not the same, then it would be unwise to say "It works here, therefore it will work there" without considering there may be exceptions to the rule.

Conclusion

I do not think the Archbishop is making this error however.  Rather I think the author of this CNS blog is making this error in hopes that a married priesthood will somehow "fix" all the woes of the West.

Personally I think that is an oversimplification, ignoring the problem of the growing secularism of the West, and that such married priests would need faithful teachers so they would pass on the teachings of Christ faithfully.

This is the reform which is being undertaken in the West, and I suspect that once completed, perhaps we would find we did not need a married priesthood after all.

Reductio ad Absurdum: So Is it OK for A Child To Dress Up as Dan White?

Preliminary Note

In this time of Political Correctness, I entirely expect someone to miss the point of the article below and accuse me of holding the views which I merely provide as demonstrating what is wrong with the logical conclusion the attitude the article cited suggests.

So let me be clear, no I don't think the attitude of "it's none of your damn business" is a valid one, and this article is intending to show why it is not valid.

So let me be clear: My answer to the question asked in the title of my article is, "NO, it is NOT all right."

I suspect the accusations may fly anyway, but at least I have the preliminary note to point to when I suggest such a person has not read my article before replying.

Introduction

When it comes to dealing with logical claims in the blogosphere, it's hard to do a reductio ad absurdum anymore.  Somebody is actually advocating a thing you were about to propose as why an idea is ridiculous to begin with.

(The reductio ad absurdum is to point out the flaws in an argument by taking it to the logical extreme if we grant that the argument is true).

However, I will attempt to employ the reductio ad absurdum all the same and hope that someone has not already seriously proposed what I offer in refutation.

The Article In Question

The jumping off point is this example of an article, which someone linked on Facebook and showed up on my page.  I'm sure the intent was to promote tolerance, but the article seems to be nothing more than a showcase for illogic by the author of the piece.

The premise is a blogger's 5 year old son decides he wants to go to a Halloween as Daphne from Scooby Doo.   As far as it goes, this is not too unusual.  Children of that age are really too young to understand the connotations of dressing up as a different gender.  So the mother obliges him and gets him a costume.

The Initial Questionable Decision  

The blog's author describes it as follows:

So a few weeks before Halloween, Boo decides he wants to be Daphne from Scooby Doo, along with his best friend E. He had dressed as Scooby a couple of years ago.  I was hesitant to make the purchase, not because it was a cross gendered situation, but because 5 year olds have a tendency to change their minds. After requesting a couple of more times, I said sure and placed the order. He flipped out when it arrived. It was perfect.

Then as we got closer to the actual day, he stared to hem and haw about it. After some discussion it comes out that he is afraid people will laugh at him. I pointed out that some people will because it is a cute and clever costume. He insists their laughter would be of the ‘making fun’ kind. I blow it off. Seriously, who would make fun of a child in costume?

So in other words, the child impulsively chooses a costume and then begins to have second thoughts.  His mother overrides him, asking "who would make fun of a child in a costume?"

Anyone who remembers that age in school knows that anyone who goes out of the norm tends to get mocked by their peers.  It is a natural thing, and has no such motivations such as "homophobia."  But essentially, she overrides him and goes to the Party as Daphne.

The problems she has is not with the children (again, not entirely unexpected.  5 year olds are still young enough to not think about this too much), but with some parents.

Taking Offense With Offense

Mother gets offended with the fact some other mothers are put out, and calls them bullies.  She describes their actions in what is essentially a Straw Man argument:

But here’s the point, it is none of your damn business.

If you think that me allowing my son to be a female character for Halloween is somehow going to ‘make’ him gay then you are an idiot. Firstly, what a ridiculous concept. Secondly, if my son is gay, OK. I will love him no less. Thirdly, I am not worried that your son will grow up to be an actual ninja so back off.

If my daughter had dressed as Batman, no one would have thought twice about it. No one.

But it also was heartbreaking to me that my sweet, kind-hearted five year old was right to be worried. He knew that there were people like A, B, and C. And he, at 5, was concerned about how they would perceive him and what would happen to him.

Given that the author-mom did not describe anyone as saying that dressing as Daphne would make her son gay, we have to either assume she is omitting important information relevant to the story or else that the author-mom is merely attributing this view to them without actually knowing this to be a fact… in other words projecting her own concerns to others.

Essentially, the mother is declaring that her standards are all that matter, and anyone who voices disapproval over her standards is being intolerant

And Now… The Reductio Ad Absurdum

So lets look at the Reductio ad absurdum.  A South Park episode from the 1990s entitled "Pinkeye" features character Eric Cartman dressed up like Hitler for Halloween because he asked his mother for the costume.  You can see a brief clip HERE.  (Some readers might find the language offensive).

Back then, people could laugh at the poor taste of Eric Cartman's mother.  Today… someone might actually try to defend such a costume on the grounds that the mother is the one who calls the shots, and the problem is, using this author-mom's comments, they could. 

So let's apply the reductio ad absurdum to her argument.

Logically Speaking, if "None of Your Damn Business" is True, it means NOBODY can Complain

If it is "none of your damn business," then it is none of your damn business if a child wants to dress up as Hitler, or, perhaps closer to the title of the blog I am commenting on ("My Son is Gay"), dressing up as Dan White (who killed Harvey Milk in 1978).  If a woman wants her son to dress up in a costume as someone from Westboro Baptist Church, complete with sign and if we accept the "it is none of your damn business" argument as acceptable, there is nothing we can say.

I suspect most of you (and hopefully the author-mom) would object to a parent who had such a lack of judgment.  However I suspect some of you might say "That's different!"  However, when pressed, I suspect the argument would be "It's different to dress up as Daphne than it is to dress up as Hitler!"  Quite true… but entirely missing the point.

The mother's argument is essentially that she is not bothered by her son dressing up as Daphne, therefore it is nobody's business that he does, and anyone who is offended is intolerant.  If we accept this as an absolute norm, then perhaps people should have cut Prince Harry some slack for dressing as a Nazi.  After all, to apply the logic of this author, if he didn't mind, what gives anyone else the right to object?

Nobody believes "None of Your Damn Business" as an Absolute, so who decides where the line is drawn?

However, we don't accept this as an absolute norm, and rightfully so.  We do recognize that there are certainly standards, and that parents who fail to use good judgment when it comes to what their children do, especially in public, will trouble others.

So who decides where the line is drawn?  Remember, if there are no objective standards and all is subjective, then dressing like Hitler, dressing like Daphne… it's all the same, it depends on the individual choice.

However, if there is an objective sense of right and wrong, then one does have the right to get offended if a mother sends her son to school in such a way that strikes others as problematic — provided this offense is grounded in objective values and not personal taste. 

It is personal taste if I object to someone coming to school dressed all in white.  It is not merely personal taste if the student coming to school all dressed in white is dressed as a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

By What Standards?

So what the author of this "My Son is Gay" piece does wrong here is to give the impression that so long as she is all right with a thing, nobody has a right to complain.  However, it is not merely enough to say "Whatever society sanctions" either.  Apartheid in South Africa was sanctioned by those who were in power.  Exploitation of illegal aliens is largely sanctioned here in the United States.  I could go on, but I think these are enough to demonstrate the problem with assuming that what society approves of or tolerates is not necessarily acceptable.

Arguing from Truth, Not Emotion

You'll notice I haven't really said anything of approval or disapproval about the child's choice of costume.  This is intentional.  The point is, if we want to discuss whether a thing is appropriate or inappropriate, let's begin with seeking to establish what is true.  What were the exact position's of these mothers the author-mom objects to?  On what basis do they hold it?  For that matter, what is the motive of the author-mom in letting the child dress up in this costume to begin with?  Indulgence?  A belief in allowing the child maximum self expression?  Using her child to promote her own ideas of tolerance?

Who knows?  The author has really given us no information which would allow us to make an informed decision over who is in the right.  To attempt to make such a determination is the fallacy known as hypothesis contrary to fact: Treating a theory as fact, when in fact we would be merely assuming a motive).

Unfortunately, either the author-mom has left out crucial information or else she does not know either and is merely assuming.  So much outrage without actually asking "What exactly do you mean by this?"  Everyone assumes they know what this is about, and mothers only identified as "A", "B" and "C" are mocked and ridiculed without us ever knowing whether it is right to ridicule them or not.

You can call this what you like.

Just don't expect me to call it logical or rational.

Reductio ad Absurdum: So Is it OK for A Child To Dress Up as Dan White?

Preliminary Note

In this time of Political Correctness, I entirely expect someone to miss the point of the article below and accuse me of holding the views which I merely provide as demonstrating what is wrong with the logical conclusion the attitude the article cited suggests.

So let me be clear, no I don't think the attitude of "it's none of your damn business" is a valid one, and this article is intending to show why it is not valid.

So let me be clear: My answer to the question asked in the title of my article is, "NO, it is NOT all right."

I suspect the accusations may fly anyway, but at least I have the preliminary note to point to when I suggest such a person has not read my article before replying.

Introduction

When it comes to dealing with logical claims in the blogosphere, it's hard to do a reductio ad absurdum anymore.  Somebody is actually advocating a thing you were about to propose as why an idea is ridiculous to begin with.

(The reductio ad absurdum is to point out the flaws in an argument by taking it to the logical extreme if we grant that the argument is true).

However, I will attempt to employ the reductio ad absurdum all the same and hope that someone has not already seriously proposed what I offer in refutation.

The Article In Question

The jumping off point is this example of an article, which someone linked on Facebook and showed up on my page.  I'm sure the intent was to promote tolerance, but the article seems to be nothing more than a showcase for illogic by the author of the piece.

The premise is a blogger's 5 year old son decides he wants to go to a Halloween as Daphne from Scooby Doo.   As far as it goes, this is not too unusual.  Children of that age are really too young to understand the connotations of dressing up as a different gender.  So the mother obliges him and gets him a costume.

The Initial Questionable Decision  

The blog's author describes it as follows:

So a few weeks before Halloween, Boo decides he wants to be Daphne from Scooby Doo, along with his best friend E. He had dressed as Scooby a couple of years ago.  I was hesitant to make the purchase, not because it was a cross gendered situation, but because 5 year olds have a tendency to change their minds. After requesting a couple of more times, I said sure and placed the order. He flipped out when it arrived. It was perfect.

Then as we got closer to the actual day, he stared to hem and haw about it. After some discussion it comes out that he is afraid people will laugh at him. I pointed out that some people will because it is a cute and clever costume. He insists their laughter would be of the ‘making fun’ kind. I blow it off. Seriously, who would make fun of a child in costume?

So in other words, the child impulsively chooses a costume and then begins to have second thoughts.  His mother overrides him, asking "who would make fun of a child in a costume?"

Anyone who remembers that age in school knows that anyone who goes out of the norm tends to get mocked by their peers.  It is a natural thing, and has no such motivations such as "homophobia."  But essentially, she overrides him and goes to the Party as Daphne.

The problems she has is not with the children (again, not entirely unexpected.  5 year olds are still young enough to not think about this too much), but with some parents.

Taking Offense With Offense

Mother gets offended with the fact some other mothers are put out, and calls them bullies.  She describes their actions in what is essentially a Straw Man argument:

But here’s the point, it is none of your damn business.

If you think that me allowing my son to be a female character for Halloween is somehow going to ‘make’ him gay then you are an idiot. Firstly, what a ridiculous concept. Secondly, if my son is gay, OK. I will love him no less. Thirdly, I am not worried that your son will grow up to be an actual ninja so back off.

If my daughter had dressed as Batman, no one would have thought twice about it. No one.

But it also was heartbreaking to me that my sweet, kind-hearted five year old was right to be worried. He knew that there were people like A, B, and C. And he, at 5, was concerned about how they would perceive him and what would happen to him.

Given that the author-mom did not describe anyone as saying that dressing as Daphne would make her son gay, we have to either assume she is omitting important information relevant to the story or else that the author-mom is merely attributing this view to them without actually knowing this to be a fact… in other words projecting her own concerns to others.

Essentially, the mother is declaring that her standards are all that matter, and anyone who voices disapproval over her standards is being intolerant

And Now… The Reductio Ad Absurdum

So lets look at the Reductio ad absurdum.  A South Park episode from the 1990s entitled "Pinkeye" features character Eric Cartman dressed up like Hitler for Halloween because he asked his mother for the costume.  You can see a brief clip HERE.  (Some readers might find the language offensive).

Back then, people could laugh at the poor taste of Eric Cartman's mother.  Today… someone might actually try to defend such a costume on the grounds that the mother is the one who calls the shots, and the problem is, using this author-mom's comments, they could. 

So let's apply the reductio ad absurdum to her argument.

Logically Speaking, if "None of Your Damn Business" is True, it means NOBODY can Complain

If it is "none of your damn business," then it is none of your damn business if a child wants to dress up as Hitler, or, perhaps closer to the title of the blog I am commenting on ("My Son is Gay"), dressing up as Dan White (who killed Harvey Milk in 1978).  If a woman wants her son to dress up in a costume as someone from Westboro Baptist Church, complete with sign and if we accept the "it is none of your damn business" argument as acceptable, there is nothing we can say.

I suspect most of you (and hopefully the author-mom) would object to a parent who had such a lack of judgment.  However I suspect some of you might say "That's different!"  However, when pressed, I suspect the argument would be "It's different to dress up as Daphne than it is to dress up as Hitler!"  Quite true… but entirely missing the point.

The mother's argument is essentially that she is not bothered by her son dressing up as Daphne, therefore it is nobody's business that he does, and anyone who is offended is intolerant.  If we accept this as an absolute norm, then perhaps people should have cut Prince Harry some slack for dressing as a Nazi.  After all, to apply the logic of this author, if he didn't mind, what gives anyone else the right to object?

Nobody believes "None of Your Damn Business" as an Absolute, so who decides where the line is drawn?

However, we don't accept this as an absolute norm, and rightfully so.  We do recognize that there are certainly standards, and that parents who fail to use good judgment when it comes to what their children do, especially in public, will trouble others.

So who decides where the line is drawn?  Remember, if there are no objective standards and all is subjective, then dressing like Hitler, dressing like Daphne… it's all the same, it depends on the individual choice.

However, if there is an objective sense of right and wrong, then one does have the right to get offended if a mother sends her son to school in such a way that strikes others as problematic — provided this offense is grounded in objective values and not personal taste. 

It is personal taste if I object to someone coming to school dressed all in white.  It is not merely personal taste if the student coming to school all dressed in white is dressed as a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

By What Standards?

So what the author of this "My Son is Gay" piece does wrong here is to give the impression that so long as she is all right with a thing, nobody has a right to complain.  However, it is not merely enough to say "Whatever society sanctions" either.  Apartheid in South Africa was sanctioned by those who were in power.  Exploitation of illegal aliens is largely sanctioned here in the United States.  I could go on, but I think these are enough to demonstrate the problem with assuming that what society approves of or tolerates is not necessarily acceptable.

Arguing from Truth, Not Emotion

You'll notice I haven't really said anything of approval or disapproval about the child's choice of costume.  This is intentional.  The point is, if we want to discuss whether a thing is appropriate or inappropriate, let's begin with seeking to establish what is true.  What were the exact position's of these mothers the author-mom objects to?  On what basis do they hold it?  For that matter, what is the motive of the author-mom in letting the child dress up in this costume to begin with?  Indulgence?  A belief in allowing the child maximum self expression?  Using her child to promote her own ideas of tolerance?

Who knows?  The author has really given us no information which would allow us to make an informed decision over who is in the right.  To attempt to make such a determination is the fallacy known as hypothesis contrary to fact: Treating a theory as fact, when in fact we would be merely assuming a motive).

Unfortunately, either the author-mom has left out crucial information or else she does not know either and is merely assuming.  So much outrage without actually asking "What exactly do you mean by this?"  Everyone assumes they know what this is about, and mothers only identified as "A", "B" and "C" are mocked and ridiculed without us ever knowing whether it is right to ridicule them or not.

You can call this what you like.

Just don't expect me to call it logical or rational.

Thoughts on Infallibility (Article IIIa): On That Which the Church Does Not Teach

The Series Thus Far:

• Article I
• Article IIa
• Article IIb
• Article IIc
• Interlude
• Article IId
• Article IIe

Introduction

Now that I have dealt with Peter, his primacy and that he made decisions for the Church which were either protected from error or else throws the entire belief of Christianity into doubt, it is time to move on to what some people might have wanted me to cover from the beginning — the belief of Papal Infallibility itself.

However (you knew there had to be a catch, didn't you?) before we can do this, we effectively need to define what it is not.

Two Forms of Rejection

There tends to be two forms to the rejection of the authority of the Church as binding.

1. Those who reject the Catholic claim of infallibility and that the Church can be free from error when she teaches.
2. Those who deny that a part of Catholic teaching, which they dislike, is binding.

Non Catholics tend to fall into the first group.  Because they believe the Catholic Church teaches wrongly, it makes sense they would not believe that the Catholic Church could be protected from error.  Some Catholics fall into the first group, but unlike the non-Catholic, they are being hypocritical for remaining within the Church when they reject what it teaches on teaching without error.

The second position tends to be held by Cafeteria Catholics (Catholics who arbitrarily choose which teachings they will follow and which they will not).  Such individuals deny they are at odds with the Church, their argument going as follows:

1. I am a faithful Catholic
2. I am at odds with the Church on Teaching X.
3. Therefore Teaching X is not binding.

Such an argument is in fact based on the belief that "whatever I do is good" and those who indicate otherwise are in the wrong.  Ironically such a view denies that the Church itself can be infallible, but insists on the infallibility of the self in a way far beyond what the Church teaches on the subject.

What Catholics DO NOT Believe on Infallibility

The first step for this section of the series is to eliminate what is outside of the Catholic teaching on Infallibility.  I start with this because pretty much all the attacks which seek to deny this teaching are based on assumptions which Catholics do not believe.  Attacks which say "What about X?" which cover material which Catholics do not believe is covered by the doctrine on infallibility would be examples of the Straw man fallacy.

So let us look at some things which Infallibility is NOT:

1) Infallibility is not impeccability.  Belief that the Pope is infallible does not mean a belief that the Pope cannot sin.  The Pope is a man, just as much in need of Christ's salvation as the rest of us.  Therefore, people who attack infallibility on the personal conduct of some Pope do not refute infallibility.

2) Infallibility does not cover the Pope's views on a subject as a private individual. Nor is what the Pope says prior to being Pope covered by infallibility.  Infallibility comes attached to the office of the Pope, and is not a personal gift.  Nor does it involve subjects other than faith and morals.  If the Pope says he thinks investing in Microsoft is a good idea, and Microsoft stock tanks, this does not mean the Pope is not infallible.

3) Infallibility is not prophecy.  Nor is it new revelation.  The Pope cannot define new beliefs (even though some Anti-Catholics accuse us of exactly this).  The Pope is not like what Mormons believe of their leader.  His words are not revelation from God.  Now I recognize that some non-Catholic readers will say "What about X?  That contradicts the Bible!"  This will be a topic further on in this series.  For now, the short answer is, we do not contradict the Bible, and the issue is over who has the authority to interpret what the Bible means.

4) The Pope's infallibility does not deal with the administration or governance of the Church.  People who point to actions by the Papal States prior to 1870, to the handling of the Sexual Abuse scandals of today or the recent news of the Vatican Banking controversy must realize that we do not believe that such actions are covered by infallibility.

5) Infallibility is not disproved by the changing of Church disciplines.  Whether the Mass is in English or Latin, whether we receive the Eucharist on the hand or the tongue, whether the laity receives both the host and the chalice or just the host… these changes do not mean the Church contradicts herself.  Rather these are things the Church binds and looses depending on the needs of the faithful at the time.  If for example, there is a false view that one must receive both the host and the chalice or one does not properly receive the Eucharist (as Jan Hus wrongly believed), the Church can withhold the Chalice from the laity.  If the Church decides that it would be more beneficial for the Mass to be said in the vernacular or uniformly in Latin, it can make a binding decree.  However, in such disciplines, the Church was not wrong then and is now right.  Nor was it right in the past and wrong now.  Both were decisions which fit the needs of the time.

6) Finally, Infallible teachings are not what people misunderstand them to be.  If a person misunderstands a teaching of the Church (such "Catholics worship Mary!") and point to an Infallible statement as if it promotes this false understanding, the fault is with the individual who misunderstands, not with the Church which is misunderstood.

It is important to make these distinctions because essentially every attack against infallibility falls into these categories.  Since Catholics do not believe infallibility is involved in these situations, any attack against the Catholic belief in infallibility which invokes these areas are false and do not refute infallibility.

There are of course more things which infallibility is not.  However these will be brought up at the proper time (such as the "If it isn't declared infallible, it's merely an opinion and I can ignore it" canard so beloved by modernists and traditionalists).

To Be Continued

In the next article, I intend to move on to what the Church DOES teach about infallibility.