วีดีโอ

Very true on all fronts!

Hi, thanks so much for your comment. I haven't gotten around to those videos yet but will soon. Thanks again.

@@daviddeane I’m so glad! I came here after your Larry Chapp interview on his Gaudiumetspes22 channel. Have quoted sections verbatim in subsequent discussions with a friend and with family. Am saving up to buy your book from your publisher. Thank you, as my sense is of peril. Am looking forward (to your next instalment on this channel).

Thanks so much David! Next video within 10 days (by March 16th) and then regularly thereafter :)

@@daviddeaneThat was quick! Thank you. Looking forward to them.

You are SO kind Denise! Thank you so much.

Thanks Bob, these 3 were chosen as they're the areas in which Catholic moral theology is (a) failing (b) most adrift from the core grammar of traditional moral theology, and (c) most clearly at odds with the core grammar of moral thinking in the modern secular West. Whether they follow through or not, most governments, corporations, media, and all academics think the environment should be cared for, the less fortunate should be helped and so on. In contrast, the hatred, misogyny, and bigotry Catholics are accused of in relation to the these 3 areas unveils the fact that there is a thing called Catholic moral reasoning and it is distinct from the dominant one in the modern West. I want to show this because I think the dominant one is lethal. It has us on the brink of destroying the planet and gave us such highlights as skin colour based racism (as chapter 1 shows). It fails to facilitate others (as oppressed Muslims in France know too well) and may help save us from environmental catastrophe only because it will have encouraged a global nuclear war instead! We need to critique it, and this requires showing what it is and showing an alternative to it. The three areas, I hope, allow for this.

@@daviddeane Thank you -- this makes me look forward to the book even more! (Btw, this is your law prof friend; Bob is my TH-cam alter ego)😄

@@bobc5427 ah! Very good :) I assumed it was another Bob, but I’m glad it’s you 😊

I really appreciate you as a dialog partner Kate. Thanks you so much for it ❤️ My goal isn’t to enrage, the frequent conflation of love with sexual acts and the conflation of identity with sexual acts is impossible to maintain without rejecting Jesus, scripture and 2000 years of tradition on a fundamental aspect of reality. As such it’s something that Christian’s haven’t thought enough about as Christians. We think about it as modern secular subjects - and only in relation to modern secular citizenry do terms like left and right have currency. The book encourages us to do something we don’t often do, think about it as Christians. Using lines of scripture to support secular left or secular right wing stances ain’t thinking as a Christian. Hopefully the book makes a convincing argument for what thinking using a Christian logic looks like. We shall see! Thanks again!

@@daviddeane Thank you for the dopamine hit of a TH-cam reply! I agree completely with your final thoughts there, with respect to thinking as a Christian - proof texting isn't doing theology! (And I also agree that "left" and "right" are secular terms; and I confess that I am guilty of imprecise use of language. I should have referred to myself as a Christian on the political left.) I am also going to refrain from replying to your thoughts on sexual orientation/identity until that video 🙂(Though I will share a story here from a conversation I had a week ago with a gentleman as we planned his husband's funeral. They had been together for 42 years, and I could have spent all day listening to his stories about their life together. One thing that he said though, with respect to the homophobia that they had experienced, is that for many people, as soon as they think about a person being gay, their minds immediately jump to sex rather than love and relationship and the family that they built together.)

@@draig2614 Indeed, there is no theological text or thinker in the tradition who sees anything apart from the sexual acts as immoral (in this area). Anselm of Canterbury's love wasn't a problem. Their theology functions in relation to an ontology of desire which is infinitely more sophisticated than anything we find today. The conversation in scripture and tradition is a conversation about acts. Aquinas wouldn't think Dante was sinning by loving Beatrice when they weren't married! Dante doesn't see himself as a sinner :) But if he and Beatrice had sex without being married he'd think he was sinning. LOve is no problem. Acts can be problems. To engage the tradition and scripture is always to speak about acts, to speak about love instead of, or abstracted from, that, is to commit to an ontology so different from their's (and scriptures, and Jesus' in Matt 19:4) that it can only be done through a wholescale rejection of their ontology and a replacement with our own, post hollywood romance, post Freud (and the identification of sexual desire as the "real" person) ontology.

Amen Cathy! Amen! :)

Did you mention that because I stole some of Malick's shots for the B Roll? I guess he would be on the same page as me and so would be ok with it :)

@@daviddeane Yes, and no. Mostly just good timing that your video dropped as I am struggling my way through the movie. It is beautiful and gut wrenching. I am finding myself taking breaks while watching to think about the horror of watching a man and his family come to terms with a horrifying reality.

@@philipnickerson210 100%

Thanks so much Michelle! Your copy will be in the first batch that arrives :)