Pornography "One of the Most Pervasive and Destructive Problems in Our Society" – Philly Cardinal

LifeSiteNews ^ | 6/9/06 | Hilary White

[wagglebee]

Cardinal Justin Rigali, writing in the Catholic Standard and Times, the newspaper of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, said that the modern media’s obsession with pornography is “one of the most pervasive and destructive problems in our society.”
 
“Our society," the Cardinal wrote, “is inundated with sex and sensuality largely from the media. Films, television programs, and advertisements are loaded with sexual reference as well as the promotion of sexual promiscuity.”
 
The all-pervasiveness of sexual imagery in the media has led to the vast proliferation of pornography on the internet where it is accessible to anyone who can use a keyboard. It is also increasingly frustrating for law enforcement officials around the world that sexual predators have begun using the internet to target children.
 
In November, 2004, a US Senate hearing discussing the dangers of addiction heard evidence that addiction to pornography has ruined lives and destroyed families. Virginia Tech, professor James B. Weaver said studies show that extended exposure to pornography creates "sexual callousness, the erosion of family values and diminished sexual satisfaction."
 
Rigali called pornography “a cancer upon contemporary culture.” “Addictive in nature, many have been entangled in its lure and have caused great psychological and emotional harm to themselves and even to spouses and other family members.”
 
At the same senate committee hearing in 2004, US lawmakers heard evidence that corroborates the Cardinal’s assertion. University of Pennsylvania sexual trauma program co-director Mary Anne Layden said pornography addiction has similar effects on the brain as heroin or crack cocaine addiction.
 
The Cardinal writes, “Violence, sexual abuse, psychological trauma and ruptured relationships are the fruit of pornography, which, astonishingly, is a multi-billion dollar industry.”
 
Read Cardinal Rigali’s article:
http://www.cst-phl.com/main.html

[steve-b]

You believe that the federal government should come into a local community and force them to accept all kinds of vice which they have agreed, among themselves, that they do not want in their community.

Obviously not, as it would be impossible for the federal government to do so without violating the property rights of one of the parties to this agreement.

Or are you using a definition of "agreement" that does not require all parties to actually agree?

(If so, then I'll need to calibrate whatever language you are using so that I can translate it into English. To assist with this calibration, let's start with your definitions of the words "alone", "sex", and "is".)

[Antoninus]

Obviously, the Constitution does not guarantee a "right" to maintain a business when your potential customers decline to patronize it, any more than it guarantees an audience to your free speech when your potential listeners decline to pay any attention to it.

NOWHERE does the Constitution guarantee a private-property owner rights to operate a business on his property that transgresses the moral standards of a local community.

[Antoninus]

Or are you using a definition of "agreement" that does not require all parties to actually agree?

Let's go back to my example. A local community outlaws prostitution. A prostitute buys a house that happens to be the twin of your house and opens up for 'business.' She does not "agree" with the local ordinance outlawing her trade.

Are you saying that the town should have no legal remedy in this case and that any attempt to stop her from operating her 'business' out of her house would violate her civil rights as a private property owner?

Would you be happy to live next-door to her, recognizing her "right" to do whatever she pleases on her private property?

Pie-in-the-sky liberal-tarianism sounds wonderful until it's tested against real-world examples, at which point, its absurdity becomes obvious.

[steve-b]

That's what I said. Is there an echo in here?

[DungeonMaster]

I think divorce is a bigger problem and porn is not very closely related.

[supercat]

So you think our Constitution guarantees the fundamental right of a sleaze-merchant to operate a strip club in a town that votes overwhelmingly to prohibit it? If that's your belief, please state it plainly.

A town has a right to forbid someone from operating a strip club in such fashion as to create a public nuisance. A town IMHO should not have the authority to use overly intrusive means to ensure that nobody could possibly be operating a strip club anywhere.

[supercat]

Are you saying that the town should have no legal remedy in this case and that any attempt to stop her from operating her 'business' out of her house would violate her civil rights as a private property owner?

I would say that if she conducts her business in such a way as to cause annoyance to her neighbors, then her neighbors should have a right to complain. If she conducts her business in such a way that the only way anyone would ever know about it would be via covert surveillance, then the neighbors do not have a right to complain.

More generally, I think that a search warrant should require one of two things:

1. Enough evidence to establish a prima facie case that a specifically-identifiable criminal act has been committed, and probable cause to believe that the search will yield evidence of said crime.

2. Enough evidence to establish a prima facie case that a search will yield evidence of a crime.

Specifically-identifiable criminal acts would be things like the theft of a particular piece of property from a particular victim, a bodily injury which was committed at a particular time against an unknown victim, etc. Something more specific than "There was almost certainly an illegal purchase of some sort of drugs somewhere yesterday."

I know that requirement goes beyond the Constitutional minimum, but I don't think the Founders had even considered the notion of having so many complainant-less crimes.

[murphE]

This "truth" is testable -- if one finds a single example of an atheist who resists temptation, then it fails.

Any person may be able to resist any particular temptation, as well as perform acts of natural goodness apart from divine grace, but he will not be able to resist every temptation and will have a strong inclination to evil. The idea that man has the ability to solve the problem of evil through psychology, education or technology etc. apart from divine grace is error.