Now this really is rich.  Michael P. posts Christmas eve comments disparaging and insulting those who disagree with him about sexual morality, ignoring their arguments, insinuating that they are, or are like racists, and "diagnosing" them as victims of "socialization" or "psychology" that has produced in them an "aversion" to "unfamiliar modes of human sexuality."  When called on this unseemly conduct, he casts himself as the victim of insults.  But it doesn't end there.  He conscripts none other than Cathleen Kaveny into the dispute, who opines that Michael is indeed a victim of my throwing around "labels, accusations, and insults."  She's wrong about that, but more interesting is the irony of her saying it.  This is the same Cathleen Kaveny who insults her intellectual adversaries by labeling them "Rambo Catholics" (gee, there is sophsticated philosophical analysis) and accusing them of being "ecclesiastical bullies."  Wouldn't it be, um, better to engage their arguments rather than questioning their motives and calling them names?

As for Professor Kaveny's ex cathedra pronouncements on Germain Grisez's thought, I repeat the hope I expressed in response to Michael P.'s claim that Professor Kaveny's work and Jean Porter's are more faithful to the tradition running from Aristotle through Aquinas than the work of Professor Grisez and John Finnis.  Readers of MoJ needn't rely on my judgment or Michael's or Professor Kaveny's.  Just have a look at writings by Kaveny and Porter and have a look at writings by Grisez and Finnis.  Reader's will have no trouble judging for themselves which writers are superior to the others in analytical rigor, logical precision, interpretative soundness, and depth of insight.

I appreciated Michael P.'s nominating me for the deanship at Villanova.  I told him that were I to be appointed, three-quarters of the faculty would immediately resign.  We would need to rebuild the faculty quickly.  Therefore, I would accept the position only on the condition that Michael himself join the faculty.  Bob Hockett and Rick Garnett would have to join us, too.  I like Michael and enjoy arguing with him.  But I and his other friends would do him no good service by letting him get away with what he tried to get away with in that Christmas eve post.  If he is going to plead for people to have "open, truly open minds," then he needs to exemplify that virtue in making the plea.  He needs to be open-minded.  Concretely, that means taking other people's arguments seriously and giving them credit for thinking, even if one disagrees with their conclusions.  That means addressing their arguments, and not claiming or insinuating that their beliefs are rooted in "aversions" to the "unfamiliar" that they somehow got saddled with as a result of their "socialization" or as a consequence of their psychological make-up.

I hope that Michael will go back and re-read what he wrote.  I hope he will be open-minded enough to see why those against whom he made his allegations would perceive them as insulting, offensive, and hypocritcal.  This is an occasion for resolving to actually engage their arguments, not impugn their intellects or suggest that the poor schlubs, unlike sophisticated people, can't help being like racists since they are psychologically in the grip of "aversions" to the "unfamiliar."  ("Black bonding sexually with white? Yuk!")