A Video with Walter Hooper and One or Two Differences with him

Usually comments under a video are first done under the video in comboxes and then put on assorted retorts blog or its French sister blog répliques assorties. Now, this time comboxes were closed. I posted first link to video to my FB wall, not thinking I would comment, it was all so good or at least innocent as far as it went : then about ten minutes before the end, Walter Hooper started saying things that made me stop. So I posted these under the link on the FB wall. Which means it technically comes under this blog.

Which fits, because I mentioned Walter Hooper earlier here.

Walter Hooper: A Disciple of C. S. Lewis Who Became Catholic - The Journey Home (7-21-2003)
EWTN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEX9Smwqg2Q

46:29 Walter Hooper misquoted CSL and Declaration of Independence.

Decl. didn't state and CSL didn't quote it as "right to happiness by any lawful means" BUT as "[right to] pursue happiness by any lawful means".

The distinction is important. We all pursue happiness, we do not all get it.

We "have a right" to buy a journey to a tourist resort, we do not have a right to rule over it so as to eliminate anything in it which might make us unhappy. We have (more or less, cfr. St Francis of Sales on this one) a right to play poker about 1 pound sterling bets, but we do not each have the right to be the one who wins the 5 pound sterling around the table. We have a right to wax our moustaches, but not a right to be found handsome by the lady we prefer because of our moustaches. They have a right to shave their legs (perhaps, and moreover "don't need it if they are blondes", some non-blondes asked me what I shaved my legs with and then understood my body hair doesn't show because I am blonde), but they do not have a right to be found handsome by whatever man they prefer because they shaved their legs.

We have a right to buy and sell, but not an automatic right to be the seller sufficiently favoured by buyers to live without economic worries.

In other words, we have a right to hope for good luck, but we are not cheated if we don't get it.

However, I would add, some seem at times to have arranged so someone doesn't get the luck which is coming his way, that is called envy. And sometimes it uses illicit means and makes a life unnecessarily full of miseries.

Testing someone about his willingness to abide by this principle is beyond a certain point not a lawful means or way of caring for his happiness and certainly the gloating over people one "educates" or "larns" is not a lawful means for one's own happiness. Indeed, in The Four Loves, CSL describes men in authority whose affection for men under their authority or previously so becomes a tyrannical exaction of them admitting such authority, sometimes even when it is no longer there.

47:10 "The homosexual wants to marry another homosexual"

Well, take a gay couple and a lesbian couple, ideally living in two different places, let them do a partner switch, one man from the gay couple moving to where the lesbian couple lives, one woman from the lesbian couple moving to where the gay couple lives. That could be arranged.

Of course, when a homosexual does make a real marriage, it doesn't always happen that the other person in it is also homosexual. The wife of Josh Weed is or was somwhat of a tomboy but as far as I know she was never lesbian.

As I am from Sweden, there is a gay couple and a lesbian couple over there, both claiming to be Christians, and both VERY much in the media. I had to deal with this problem of moral theology before leaving. It was omnipresent. Even if you are not in Swedish Church, if you live on the territory, they send you their material for free, and in one issue the son of the better known gay with one of the lesbians was featured.

47:30 a bit before "you are broken and you need healing"?

WELLLL ... that is my issue with Vatican-II-ism on this level.

They are sinners and need conversion. No one should tell them they are "mentally ill" and need therapy.

If they are in any way willing to abide by the commandments, whether by letting a marital choice override their inclination and its consequences or whether by letting perfect chastity or an attempt to do it so, that should be enough for a curate to accept they are sane.

53:31 "Mother Teresa"?

It seems she recommended NFP to the poor in Calcutta.

I would not canonise her if I were Pope, and for whoever did pretend to do so, I would not think he is or was Pope.

Pope Michael has not canonised her. Papal Claimant Alexander IX has retroactively excommunicated her. Probably also for not being a Christian missionary, for n ot trying to convert from Hinduism or Islam. He's a Feeneyite and canonised (or succeeds one who canonised) or (in either case) pretended to canonise Fr Leonard Feeney.

I am not totally agreeing with Alexander IX, she may not be in Hell at all, but she was weak and - not canonisable, I would say.