"we live in postmodernity, under an Enlightenment constitutional framework that makes the fulfillment of individual desire the summum bonum of political life"
This is the nub of it, social issuers. This is why our cause is doomed in America. This is why all of our activities can be considered rear guard actions aimed at forestalling what is in all likelihood inevitable.
This is the fruit of allowing all things to be bought and sold, all points of view to be regarded as "equal", and simple majorities to be regarded as final arbiters.
Legalism and states' rights strategies will work for awhile, but the battle is lost.
It was lost in 1964, with the passage of the Civil Rights bill, a bill that the USCCB and most everyone else, fall all over themselves to extoll.
The spectacle of rotund, pompous American bishops rolling around like the Three Stooges diving after a quarter has been capital entertainment these past four decades. But more and more, the fun is over. More and more they are required to acknowledge the reality of capitalist democracy, and are found wanting.
We all know the reason: $$$$$$$.
Religions will come to be regarded more and more as outmoded institutions that abuse their tax-exempt status to impede the pursuit of happiness. To avoid this, protestant prayer organizations (why even bother calling them "churches"?) will have to become even more irrelevant and dessicated than they are today.
And a great many Catholics will follow them -- not all of them laymen.
One way out of this is to follow our separated brethren in confusing prayer with entertainment, a la the mega-mall "churches" and "Hollywood Palace" style entertainment "services". The Novus Ordo is a landmark first step in this direction, but there is so much more to be learned.
After all, entertainers can say the most vile and stupid and are honored for it.
Didn't Catholics and Protestants cede the moral ground when they allowed marriage to be determined by the individual's whim, that is, no fault divorce?
And that is why I think the battle is lost, not because the philosophical ground slipped from underneath us, but because we lost the moral high ground and by our own volition. I wonder how many of those who hold to Lee Harris' "middle American high ethical baseline" simply don't have the high view of marriage that he suspects.
I would suggest that a society in which absolutes mattered would never have countenanced serial monogamy in the first place.
Either way, though, the end result is the same.
The eventual question will be, which matters more to the USCCB, tax exemption or dogma? Don't be too sure you know the answer.
Of course! Legislation to ensure that blacks were actually able to exercise their right to vote was the downfall of America.
This is the sort of nonsense that has helped to put Obama in power.
Well said, Ken. Increasingly, I observe, in my once solidly Catholic extended family, the young people are not bothering to get married. After all, why bother with the legalities which will just complicate the inevitable break-up when it occurs. And why bother with Baptism for the children, too? We have now added a prayer to our daily rosary for all the children in the family who have not been baptised and are not being raised to know and love God.
Civil rights will be the legal basis for every advance gay activists make. In for a penny, in for a pound.
John L,
If you think that civil rights is about negroes being able to exercise their right to vote, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you. Civil rights has been used by every competing special interest -- from blacks to hispanics to gays to feminists to abortionists to age-ists to atheist agitators and back again -- to advance their interests and nuts to the rest of ye. It is a sort of rabid unionism by other means, and seems to work for every special interest group except one: the unborn, who coincidentally do not vote. It has been used to undermine every traditional source of authority from states to parents. Whatever legitimate grievances civil rights legislation was meant to answer are long gone, replaced by its true fruits -- thugism such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have used to make themselves rich. It has done irreparable damage to America, and to churches within America, and to families within America. To pretend otherwise, as our bishops do, is to allow oneself to be deluded by proletarian romanticism, which happens a lot these days.
Well while we point fingers - how about this one.
In some cultures marriage becomes only final and valid with the birth of a CHILD.
Frankly from a societal point of view there is simply no difference between childless heterosexuals and childless homosexuals.
And yes the marital carnage inflicted these days by heterosexuals does not exactly help.
It is not pretty sometimes - but hey has it ever?
Is it really such a big surprise that even very average folks today behave like Henry VIII when it comes to the pursue of 'personal happiness'.
In some cultures marriage becomes only final and valid with the birth of a CHILD.
In some cultures they practice bride-burning and female circumcision. Is this also something we Catholics should ponder in order to achieve maximum multi-culturalism?
Well of course not - multiculturism is not the point.
I happen to be of the opinion that gays should have the ability to form strong commited relationships - the ability to have a civil wedding is certainly very appropriate in my view.
If our church - like a good many other religion will not allow for a religious wedding ceremony - that is fine with me - just one should not be surprised if society will drift futher towards full acceptance of homosexual unions.
I certainly very much welcome the desire of homosexual couples to adopt and/or conceive children.
Many heterosexual and homosexual couples will not have children - fine - As a society we should support all that do have adopted or naturally conceived children - no questions asked.
So no Mr. Shea other cultures actually do have not much use for our indeed very liberal interpretations - gay weddings are not a multiculti concept at all.
We here in the West are spearheading this one - a majortiy of cultures around the world will eventually follow.
So the strength of the commitment is what matters? Like the homosexual objects of your admiration, grega, you have it backwards.
Strong monogamous commitments in the homosexual community are for the most part a contrived myth. Ask any gay after several drinks...
Gay marriage is nothing like living together, in that while both are sinful, homosexuality is a far more severe sin. That is the element routinely disregarded in all the modern discussion. It is not just wrong: it is a perversion. Quite Victorian, I realize. In Scripture, Paul suggests widespread homosexuality is not a cause for judgement, but instead the result of judgement, God giving people over to their desires without restraint. But sin we cannot have any extended conversations about the seriousness of sin for fear of offending, we certainly cannot go in that direction. The Mormons shame us on this score, plain and simple.
Frankly from a societal point of view there is simply no difference between childless heterosexuals and childless homosexuals.
Really? You mean childless heterosexuals are just as likely to engage in perverted sex acts with members of the same sex as childless homosexuals?
As usual, Grega, you have an erroneous understanding of "society."
Ralph, I do not 'admire' homosexuals - in my opinion just like with us heterosexuals some are just wonderful people others you better stay as far away as possible.
In my opinion one of the the major reasons why our society is currently considering allowing homosexuals to live their orientation in the open and perhaps in some states go as far as allowing gay unions is indeed that our society is very much driven by personal freedom.
What we have on our hands here is one consequence of this - the large majority is not willing to accept the alternative.
And yes you can project that idea (not willing to accept the alternative) deep into the church. I perfectly well understand for example your grievances with Vatican II - I do not share them- but I can see what really irritates you and many around here about it.
Jordanes, in my view what people do in private is non of my business.
Homosexuality has been around from the beginning of times - sure as a society we could enforce much stricter rules -
but we obviously lost the appetite to do so the last 50 years.
The reasons for that are actually mostly pretty straight forward.
One reason is certainly that our society does not view large family size as essentially needed for the survival of the 'tribe' these days.
These things are in principle always subject to change of course - you can be assured that the luxury to allow two perfectly healthy males (or females)to not mate properly will be immediately withdrawn if a majority sees the urgency to multiply in greater abundance.
In my view the world will not come to an end because of gay sex - nuclear weapons on the other hand...
Grega speaks as a perfect embodiment of the go along-get along Catholicism that has been preached by American Catholic leaders since practically day one.
In earlier days America was dominated by Christians -- protestants with a strong Catholic minority. Despite all of the normal sinfulness and hypocrisy of men, the majority view was strongly Christian. It was easier, albeit still problematic, for bishops to preach "go along - get along" in those days.
Presently, however, our society has unravelled the logical consequences of its base assumptions [embodied in the Bill of Rights and even in the Constitution]. Where once we worshipped God, we now worship the abstract individual. Where once we valued unity, we now slobber over the many virtues of diversity. Where once we demanded that legal immigrants accept the burden of "becoming American", we now apologize to ILLEGAL "immigrants" for even questioning their quaint ways, even when those quaint ways come to account for huge percentages of crimes committed in certain areas of the country (like Los Angeles).
None of this is tyranny of the minority, as it has sometimes been mistakenly called. It is the good old-fashioned tyranny of the majority. What has changed is that the majority is no longer "our guys": instead, it is a majority of anti-religious secularists, boneheaded pagans, and putative Christians whose religious beliefs are secondary to their political and social convictions.
In the face of this cultural sea-change, our bishops -- many of whom have the same political and social spots as the laity -- continue to preach the defective go along - get along message of John Carroll. They are guided in their fatuousness by the ever-clueless optimism of Vatican II, whose chief documents were cobbled together by bishops much like themselves: hot to interact with the culture of modern man, infatuated with social activism, bored with spirituality, ever anxious to go along - get along with the separated brethren.
I think the battle to preserve a legal foundation for marriage was lost in the early seventies with the universal shift to unilateral no fault divorce. What ever marriage means to this or that couple marrying, the law and now the culture treat marriage as a legal framework that can be optionally chosen by a couple to regulate their relationship as long as they both choose to maintain that legal framework.
It is time to adjust pastoral practice to the fact that civil marriage is irrelevant to sacramental marriage except as an optional legal framework.
Getting along - what a 'terrible' concept in a world of 6 Billion indeed.
What is your alternative Ralph?
O.K. let's imagine the church leadership from the Pope on down gets tough along the lines you so deeply desire.
What would they say and do different?
In my view you would be amoung the first to bail the second these 'tough' leaders said something that you would not like.
You - like frankly most around St. Blog as well as in the progressive circles are not the type of humble catholics required to make any top down church work in the first place-
sure it is easy to insist that the church changes EXACTLY as one is convinced it ought to change - the going is however really tough when one has to deal with stuff one does not like.
Sure keep trash talking Vatican II, the soft Popes , Cardinals and Bishops all you want -
what does that say about your ability to accept the wisdom of the church?
You know the thing is the kind of church that you claim to desire so deeply would not allow you -the very amateurish opinionated outspoken lay person that you are to utter anything against the devine wisdom of the church leaders.
Sure ridicle the 'getting along' people in this world - it is a cute part of your persona - but deep down I sure hope you understand the rules of this little game - we all say our part but accept the collective direction.
That is true in society and church.
Jordanes, in my view what people do in private is none of my business.
Oh, really? Cannibalism in the privacy of your home is okay?
Grega, I'm all for getting along, generally speaking. But how do you "get along" with, say, practicing cannibals? How do you get along with Hannibal Lector who wants to have you over for dinner?
It used to be thought that some things were evil and we should have no part of them. What limits would you place on "getting along"? Would you try to "get along" with a fellow who insisted on regaling you with racist or pedophile stories? Would you try to "get along" with a eugenist who wanted to promote "safe sex" among African-Americans as a means of genocide by attrition?
Have you read Walker Percy's Love in the Ruins or Thanatos Syndrome? The well-intentioned people are often those from whom we have most to fear, suggests Percy -- a Catholic writer who needs to be rediscovered these days. Kids in the Hitler Youth would walk three miles to return a penny to its rightful owner and then turn around and report neighborhood Jews to the Gestapo. How would you advise "getting along" in such a milieu?
"In my view you would be amoung the first to bail the second these 'tough' leaders said something that you would not like."
But grega, in doing so I would only be observing the sage counsel of that hero of cafeteria Catholics, Fr Rahner:
"If a Catholic Christian, after sufficient proof of his conscience, believes that he has arrived, after full reflection and self-criticism, at a position which dissents from the papal norm and follows it . . . under the observance of those principles which have already been alluded to as commonly Christian, then such a Catholic needs to fear no subjective guilt or to consider himself as formally disobedient to the Church authority."
Too bad Rahner is dead; too bad he was not an American citizen: after all, there is an open senate seat in Illinois.
When grega says he believes what people do in private is none of his business, I'm pretty sure he means what *consenting adults* do in private is none of his business. That probably leaves cannibals out of the picture. Moreover, even if what consenting adults do in private *is* somehow grega's business, he probably doesn't want to sic the cops on them.
That's what it all comes down, doesn't it, when we're talking public policy? Whom do we sic the State's agents on? Most people aren't inclined to couch the debate in those terms, because they regard the State as a legitimate institution, rather than as a "band of thieves writ large," as Rothbard (and St. Augustine) so aptly put it.
The fact remains that Christ taught with authority on matters of faith and morality without giving us much guidance on what submission to His authority means in the context of rendering unto Caesar. Hence the perennial question: To what extent should Christian morality be legislated? Are traditionalist Catholics compelled to support legal bans on homosexuality, contraception, artificial insemination, divorce, heresy, failure to attend Mass on Sunday? If so, what do we tell the cops to do with the miscreants after we sic them on them? What would Jesus tell the cops to do?
Thank you Anarcho-Papist.
Yes that was the intended meaning of the 'what people do in private'
It is sure telling that the first thing that comes to the mind of our Host here is cannibalism - thanks a lot Professor - I trust you did not have to think too long and hard for that one.
Is this indeed indicative of the level of deep 'appreciation and respect' you have in your heart for our homosexual brothers and sisters?
I sure hope not.
Dr. Blosser no I have not read Walker Percy. As you know - die Gedanken sind frei - certainly any Author can write whatever he wants. "The well-intentioned people are often those from whom we have most to fear,.."
Uh I shudder how deep...I imagine you are well-intentioned - most of the time I am honestly well-intentioned - Ralph is well-intentioned and honest- boy we are a scary bunch aren't we?
What do you think you accomplish with the examples you cite? - Sure I get it you are convinced that Homosexuality is evil. Get in line the Middle East is filled with clerics and average folks that are willing to take that 'unique' thought the next step further.
What is next? If you indeed think homosexuality is evil and can be easily compared to pedophilia, cannibalism etc.? What are you waiting for Dr. Blosser - you are a smart man ..connect your dots -should we again arrest these evil homosexuals and send them to concentration camps?-That is what the Nazis (those indeed evil people that you love to cite rather often) had in store for open homosexuals?
Well, thanks god a good many of your fellow countrymen and women disagree these days with your view- if you ask me that is a great development.
Yes indeed as a society we sort through these things - these days interracial marriage is accpeted.
Women vote - former slaves are free -we just elected the first biracial President -imagine that - no not everything and everybody is just fine and wonderful - but sexual orientation per se is not the issue in my view.
And yes in my strong opinion what consenting adults do in the privacy of their house is non of my business.
Grega:
First, Happy Thanksgiving.
If consenting adults choose to lynch a black man, whom they consider not really human anyway, and they do it in the privacy of their own homes, is this still none of your business. If a married couple conceive a child and send him to public school for an education, the conception of the child is a private act, WITH PUBLIC CONSEQUENCES. Couldn't two consenting adults decide that it was better for one to survive than for both to starve? Would this still be none of our business? Could they consent to assassinate the president? The consent to act was accomplished in the privacy of their home, so what's wrong with that. May I imagine, furthermore, that you will be a strong opponent of "hate-crimes" legislation, which purports to know the reason, psychologically, why someone committed an action. Thought-crime, surely, is Orwellian?
About President-elect Obama, the irony is that, if his parents had followed the advice of Margaret Sanger et al, he wouldn't exist in the first place. Yet Planned Parenthood full-throatedly supports this man, and he, just as full-throatedly accepts their help.
Have you all seen the Doorpost Film "Volition" reported on LifeSite news? Excellent young people doing an excellent job.
Grega, Grega! No need to get so agitated over cannibalism, my friend. The example was immediate-at-hand, since I first hear US Surgeon General C. Everett Koop use it in a debate about abortion around 1979-80. It's not meant to be taken literally, though I suppose it could be; but to jolt us into re-thinking what we take for granted. "Between CONSENTING adults" has become an all-too-common shibboleth to excuse cultural liberals from thinking.
There are plenty of examples of situations where we don't permit "consenting adults" do whatever they want but intrude the coercive power of government to restrain a given behavior. Consenting adults can't legally drive with open alcoholic beverages, or drive without wearing their seatbelts. It's even illegal to commit suicide or to help another consenting adult do so -- that is, unless you are a properly certified physician in a state like Oregon.
The hard work is thinking through just what behavior is 'harmful' to individuals and their communities. Most will agree that we shouldn't be permitted to physically harm others (with the widespread and egregious exception of abortion). But what about morally corrupting a minor, or even another adult? Perhaps a person has the right to go to topless clubs, buy "adult" media, and run headlong towards hell if he wants to. But does he have the right to take others in his community with him? I don't think it would be that difficult to make the case that he doesn't.
Many seem to think that morality can't be legislated. I agree, if by that one means that he can't make people virtuous by legislation. I disagree, however, if by that one means that he can legislate anything from a point of view that is morally indifferent. The fact is that SOMEBODY's morality is getting legislated regardless of what we think. The question is: WHOSE morality?
Sometimes liberals point to the Taliban as contemporary equivalents of earlier Puritan theocracies, as if to say: Look, here's what happens when we legislate morality. Nobody wants this, right? Well, no, I don't suppose we want a thief's hand cut off if he's caught stealing. So is the alternative to legislate nothing, since, as Dostoevsky said, if God is dead, everything is permitted? Well, no, I doubt we want that either.
The fact is that our postmodern default is set in Dostoevsky's direction. Yet America remains a country in which there are more guns, more murders, more pornography, more promiscuous sex, more abortions, more adultery, more broken marriages, more single-parent families, more child abuse, more drug addiction, more drug overdoses, more pedophiles, more gays, lesbians, and transgendered individuals, more lawsuits, more bankruptcies than anywhere else in the world. So which of these things is so good for society that it should be given left to flourish unchecked?
As I said, it's impossible to legislate without imposing somebody's morality on someone. The question is what sort of government and legislation will we have? Government cannot coerce moral conversion, but it can regulate behavior. What government should do, INMO, is to make it difficult for evil to flourish by penalizing vice, and to make it easier for good to flourish by rewarding virtue. Even Aristotle knew that a decent constitution could not endure without being exhibiting partisanship of virtue and that the basics of virtue belong to what we can't not know.
Chris interesting the examples you come up with - do you want me to deduce that in your opinion gay sex and lynching a black person are morally of the same magnitude?
Come on - You can not be serious.
Our society is rather clear regarding the example you pull out of your nose.
Harming/injuring/killing a person gets you jailtime anytime regardless of 'privacy of your home' question-- homosexual sex does not.
I otherwise chilled out a bit over the long weekend - not all that difficult literally here in Minnesota actually.
PP you wrote "..make it difficult for evil to flourish by penalizing vice"
I am all for it - the problem is only we seem to disagree what evil is in some instances.
Homosexuality is for me not evil.
"Homosexuality is for me not evil."
This means either: (1) that you have not read or do not understand Juvenal, Scripture, Catholic Tradition, or Magisterial teaching; for even your own Pope describes homosexuality as an "intrinsic moral evil"; (2) you don't give a damn what the Juvenal, Scripture, Catholic Tradition, Magisterial teaching or the Pope have to say; or (3) you have sophisticated reasons for believing that Juvenal, Scripture, Catholic Tradition, Magisterial teaching and the Pope have completely misunderstood the facts.
You haven't produced any evidence for #3, my friend. You tend to describe yourself in modest terms (aw sucks, just an average joe). What are we to believe about you then? Either that you are abysmally ignorant or morally compromised??? Please, my friend, help us out here. Who would wish to draw such conclusions about you!?
Well - we deal with morals here.
As you know our church takes a rather pained handwringing approach regarding the issue. Perhaps in part because a rather significant percentage of the priesthood consists of chaste yet clearly homosexual leaning males.
Yes most certainly one has a hard time coming up with a airtight line of argument.
While there are plenty of 'sophisticated' opinions on either end of the spectrum the issue is not one that lends itself to simplified answers.
I can tell you one thing the very conservative and catholic mother (of 13 children) of one of our families gay friends is actually rather very much at peace with herself and the Lord despite the church position since her son is in a stable and loving commited relationship.
I happen to find the arguments for greater acceptance of homosexual the more convincing ones.
Heck I am even for gay adoption.
And yes if you must you can deduce that I find church teaching here lacking and that a mild 2) is applicable ( I like to believe that I give a 'damn' - but hey why mince words in essence I am indeed willing to not follow clear church advise).
Did you listen to the Pope before we headed into Iraq?
Same is true by the way for the issues of female ordination and contracpetion in my case.
The supreme court - in my opinion generally pretty 'sophisticated' people- decided against state sodomy laws. The floodgates are open - oh Sodom and G....
Thus indeed officially the house and bedroom of homosexuals are of limit.
And yes Chris this is a very different situation from the one example you raise.
The person that beats up another person in his/ her bedroom goes to jail. Homosexual lovers engaging in a consenting sexual realtionship - they are free to do so 24/7 if they must.
Nothing you can do about it - nor should in my opinion.
And yes that does represent the current societal Status Quo.
That is the society we live in - and it is a good one.
A much better one than the many societies around the world that indeed jail or kill homosexual persons.
There you have it in a nutshell.
Did you listen to the Pope before we headed into Iraq?
Grega, the Pope had a personal opinion about the Iraq invasion. The Church has no position on the Iraq invasion. Homosexuality, however, falls under matters of faith and morals, concerning which the Church has settled and irrevisable teachings.
The issue here, as you admit, is that you're willing disregard Church teaching since the drift of contemporary social consensus makes it inconvenient. I find your position as regrettable as I find it understandable.
Commenting by HaloScan
