Posted on 09/21/2005 5:35:38 PM PDT by sionnsar
Things are getting worse very quickly now. The list of what we are required to approve is growing ever longer. Consider just the domain of sexual practice. First we were to approve sex before marriage, then without marriage, now against marriage. First with one, then with a series, now with a crowd. First with the other sex, then with the same. First between adults, then between children, then between adults and children. The last item has not been added yet, but will be soon: you can tell from the change in language, just as you can tell the approach of winter from the change in the color of leaves. As any sin passes through its stages from temptation, to toleration, to approval, its name is first euphemized, then avoided, then forgotten. A colleague tells me that some of his fellow legal scholars call child molestation “intergenerational intimacy”: that’s euphemism. A good-hearted editor tried to talk me out of using the term “sodomy”: that’s avoidance. My students don’t know the word “fornication” at all: that’s forgetfulness.
The pattern is repeated in the house of death. First we were to approve of killing unborn babies, then babies in process of birth; next came newborns with physical defects, now newborns in perfect health. Nobel-prize laureate James Watson proposes that parents of newborns be granted a grace period during which they may have their babies killed, and in 1994 a committee of the American Medical Association proposed harvesting organs from some sick babies even before they die. First we were to approve of suicide, then to approve of assisting it. Now we are to approve of a requirement to assist it, for, as Ernest van den Haag has argued, it is “unwarranted” for doctors not to kill patients who seek death. First we were to approve of killing the sick and unconscious, then of killing the conscious and consenting. Now we are to approve of killing the conscious and protesting, for in the United States, doctors starved and dehydrated stroke patient Marjorie Nighbert to death despite her pleading “I’m hungry,” “I’m thirsty,” “Please feed me,” and “I want food.” Such cases are only to be expected when food and water are now often classified as optional treatments rather than humane care; we have not long to go before joining the Netherlands, where involuntary euthanasia is common. Dutch physician and author Bert Keizer has described his response when a nursing home resident choked on her food: he shot her full of morphine and waited for her to die. Such a deed by a doctor in the land that resisted the Nazis.
Why do things get worse so fast? Of course we have names for the process, like “collapse,” “decay,” and “slippery slope.” By conjuring images—a stricken house, a gangrenous limb, a sliding talus—they make us feel we understand. Now, I am no enemy to word-pictures, but a civilization is not really a house, a limb, or a heap of rocks; it cannot literally fall in, rot, or skid out from underfoot. Images can only illustrate an explanation; they cannot substitute for one. So why do things get worse so fast? It would be well to know, in case the process can be arrested.
The usual explanation is that conscience is weakened by neglect. Once a wrong is done, the next wrong comes more easily. On this view conscience is mainly a restraint, a resistance, a passive barrier. It doesn’t so much drive us on as hold us back, and when persistently attacked, the restraining wall gets thinner and thinner and finally disappears. Often this explanation is combined with another: that conscience comes from culture, that it is built up in us from outside. In this view the heart is malleable. We don’t clearly know what is right and wrong, and when our teachers change the lessons, our consciences change their contents. What once we deemed wrong, we deem right; what once we deemed right, we deem wrong.
There is something to these explanations, but neither can account for the sheer dynamism of wickedness—for the fact that we aren’t gently wafted into the abyss but violently propel ourselves into it. Nor, as I will show, can either one account for the peculiar quality of our present moral confusion.
I suggest a different explanation. Conscience is not a passive barrier but an active force; though it can hold us back, it can also drive us on. Moreover, conscience comes not from without but from within: though culture can trim the fringes, the core cannot be changed. The reason things get worse so fast must somehow lie not in the weakness of conscience but in its strength, not in its shapelessness but in its shape[….]
We’ve seen that although conscience works in everyone, it doesn’t restrain everyone. In all of us some of the time, in some of us all of the time, its fearsome energy merely “multiplies transgressions.” Bent backwards by denial, it is more likely to catalyze moral collapse than hold it back.
But conscience is not the only expression of the natural law in human nature. Thomas Aquinas defined law as a form of discipline that compels through fear of punishment. In the case of human law, punishment means suffering the civil consequences of violation; in the case of natural law it means suffering the natural consequences of violation. If I cut myself, I bleed. If I get drunk, I have a hangover. If I sleep with many women, I lose the power to care for anyone, and sow pregnancies, pain, and suspicion.
Unfortunately, the disciplinary effect of natural consequences is diminished in at least two ways. These two diminishers are the main reason why the discipline takes so long, so that the best that can be hoped for in most cultures is a pendulum swing between moral laxity and moral strictness.
The first diminisher is a simple time lag: not every consequence of violating the natural law strikes immediately. Some results make themselves felt only after several generations, and by that time people are so deeply sunk in denial that even more pain is necessary to bring them to their senses. A good example of a long-term consequence is the increase of venereal disease. When I was a boy we all knew about syphilis and gonorrhea, but because of penicillin they were supposed to be on the way out. Today the two horrors are becoming antibiotic-resistant, and AIDS, herpes, chlamydia, genital warts, human papilloma virus, and more than a dozen other sexually transmitted diseases, most of them formerly rare, are ravaging the population. Other long-term consequences of violating the laws of sex are poverty, because single women have no one to help them raise their children; crime, because boys grow into adolescence without a father’s influence; and child abuse, because although spouses tend to greet babies with joy, live-ins tend to greet them with jealousy and resentment. Each generation is less able to maintain families than the one before. Truly the iniquities of the fathers—and mothers—are visited upon the children and the children’s children to the third and fourth generation.
The second diminisher comes from us: “Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good,” we exert our ingenuity to escape from the natural consequences of breaking the natural law. Not all social practices have this effect. For instance, threatening drunk drivers with legal penalties supplements the discipline of natural consequences rather than undermining it. Nor is the effect always intended. We don’t devise social insurance programs in order to encourage improvidence, though they do have this result. It isn’t even always wrong. It would be abominable to refuse treatment to a lifelong smoker with emphysema, even though he may have been buoyed in his habit by the confidence that the doctors would save him. But to act with the purpose of compensating for immorality is always wrong, as when we set up secondary school clinics to dispense pills and condoms to teenagers.
Here is an axiom: We cannot alter human nature, physical, emotional, or spiritual. A corollary is that no matter how cleverly devised, our contrivances never do succeed in canceling out the natural consequences of breaking the natural law. At best they delay them, and for several reasons they can even make them worse. In the first place they alter incentives: People with ready access to pills and condoms see less reason to be abstinent. In the second place they encourage wishful thinking: Most people grossly exaggerate their effectiveness in preventing disease and pregnancy and completely ignore the risks. In the third place they reverse the force of example: Before long the practice of abstinence erodes even among people who don’t take precautions. Finally they transform thought: Members of the contraceptive culture think liberty from the natural consequences of their decisions is somehow owed to them.
There comes a time when even the law shares their view. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reauthorized the private use of lethal violence against life in the womb, the Supreme Court admitted that its original abortion ruling might have been wrong, but upheld it anyway. As it explained, “For two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized their intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. . . . An entire generation has come of age free to assume [this] concept of liberty.” To put the thought more simply, what we did has separated sex from responsibility for resulting life for so long that to change the rules on people now would be unfair.
Naught avails; our efforts to thwart the law of natural consequences merely make the penalty more crushing when it comes. The only question is whether our culture will be able to survive the return stroke of the piston.
To survive what is bearing down on us, we must learn four hard lessons: to acknowledge the natural law as a true and universal morality; to be on guard against our own attempts to overwrite it with new laws that are really rationalizations for wrong; to fear the natural consequences of its violation, recognizing their inexorability; and to forbear from all further attempts to compensate for immorality, returning on the path that brought us to this place.
Unfortunately, the condition of human beings since before recorded history is that we don’t want to learn hard lessons. We would rather remain in denial. What power can break through such a barrier?
The only Power that ever has. Thomas Aquinas writes that when a nation suffers tyranny, those who enthroned the tyrant may first try to remove him, then call upon the emperor for help. When these human means fail, they should consider their sins and pray. We are now so thoroughly under the tyranny of our vices that it would be difficult for us to recognize an external tyrant at all. By our own hands we enthroned them: our strength no longer suffices for their removal: they have suspended the senate of right reason and the assembly of the virtues: the emperor, our will, is held hostage: and it is time to pray.
Nothing new can be written on the heart, but nothing needs to be; all we need is the grace of God to see what is already there. We don’t want to read the letters, because they burn; but they do burn, so at last we must read them. This is why the nation can repent. This is why the plague can be arrested. This is why the culture of death can be redeemed. “For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before thee . . . a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.”
Your post brought to mind something I just finished reading, which was Cardinal Ratzinger's Sermon on Relativism at the "Mass for Election of the Supreme Pontiff." It is an important message at a time when people are increasingly confused by a dichotomous culture wherein the moral lines keep shifting. Here's the link, you might enjoy reading it if you haven't already.
http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak200504190839.asp
(EXCERPT)
"...why do things get worse so fast? It would be well to know, in case the process can be arrested.
The usual explanation is that conscience is weakened by neglect. Once a wrong is done, the next wrong comes more easily. On this view conscience is mainly a restraint, a resistance, a passive barrier. It doesn’t so much drive us on as hold us back, and when persistently attacked, the restraining wall gets thinner and thinner and finally disappears. Often this explanation is combined with another: that conscience comes from culture, that it is built up in us from outside. In this view the heart is malleable. We don’t clearly know what is right and wrong, and when our teachers change the lessons, our consciences change their contents. What once we deemed wrong, we deem right; what once we deemed right, we deem wrong.
There is something to these explanations, but neither can account for the sheer dynamism of wickedness—for the fact that we aren’t gently wafted into the abyss but violently propel ourselves into it. Nor, as I will show, can either one account for the peculiar quality of our present moral confusion.
I suggest a different explanation. Conscience is not a passive barrier but an active force; though it can hold us back, it can also drive us on. Moreover, conscience comes not from without but from within: though culture can trim the fringes, the core cannot be changed. The reason things get worse so fast must somehow lie not in the weakness of conscience but in its strength, not in its shapelessness but in its shape[….]
...Thomas Aquinas writes that when a nation suffers tyranny, those who enthroned the tyrant may first try to remove him, then call upon the emperor for help. When these human means fail, they should consider their sins and pray. We are now so thoroughly under the tyranny of our vices that it would be difficult for us to recognize an external tyrant at all. By our own hands we enthroned them: our strength no longer suffices for their removal: they have suspended the senate of right reason and the assembly of the virtues: the emperor, our will, is held hostage: and it is time to pray.
Nothing new can be written on the heart, but nothing needs to be; all we need is the grace of God to see what is already there. We don’t want to read the letters, because they burn; but they do burn, so at last we must read them. This is why the nation can repent. This is why the plague can be arrested. This is why the culture of death can be redeemed. “For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before thee . . . a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.”
AMEN. Thanks for posting this.
This is so frightening, but I have watched it coming for years now in the medical profession.
"Look up, for your redemption draws near."
Excellent, brother. Thank you for posting this.
Excellent, brother. Thank you for posting this.
Those two are not equivalent. "Total depravity" means only that men cannot choose God on their own; it does not mean that men are completely morally peverse. Indeed, Romans 2 contemplates the idea of natural law.
Sorry, pal, you've been overtaken by events. Adolescent boys have already been thrown to the wolves (male and female), and it's only a matter of time before the culture unquestionably accepts it for girls, as well. After all, abortion fixes everything, right?
Well, you're right as to the meaning of "total depravity" and I appreciate the correction. Man, is not "utterly depraved".
However, aside from this correction I would still stand by what I have written. Man in his state of sinfulness find it difficult (albeit not impossible) to do good things. The church is meant to be a light to the world to do good works. If the church refuses to deal with these issues and denounce them, what is the difference and where is the saltiness?
Excellent insight. Why protest clandestine or unjust murders of a tyrant when the culture wishes to enthrone the killing of the helpless and needy? One man's murder is another man's euthanasia.
It's all just a matter of words.....perspective.
Or is it.
Is there an uncrossable line between right and wrong?
We deceive ourselves. Man continuance in "smaller" sin leads to a hardening of the heart so that he is callous towards "larger" sins. Sin no longer seems like sin. Fornication, divorce, drunkenness, etc. are all the mainstay and no one cares. So we move to greater sins like abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia.
Man always have had a history of moving that line of wrong. God has had a history of pushing it back.
You are over-emphasizing the influence of the Church on secular society. This is no longer the Medieval Age when Church and State were in very close union, and morals could be better controlled by this union. Today, the Church is seen as a personal means of reaching to God. It is based on our society's view of individualism, relativism and "tolerance". These ideas stretch the limits of what is considered objectively good and objectively evil. This pluralism is not caused by the Church, nor can the Church itself do much besides speak out against secular society.
Things are much worse than in the days of early Christianity. Back then, religion was considered a natural extension of one's daily life. Whether they were pagan or not, religion and morality was taught in schools as part of culture. Now, the Courts have determined, beyond the dictates of the Constitution, to do away with this ancient freedom. Even if the "Church" (according to your definition) comes to said agreements, do you really think that people will turn away from homosexuality, abortion, and the like?
The only way to turn our society around is to evangelize it and convert it. The Church must continue to speak out against evil, but it is only when we bring people into the Church will they then find out how much having God as an active part of their lives enhances it and gives it purpose. Then, the voice of the people will be heard (at least that is how our government is SUPPOSED to work!)
Regards
Today Churches mirror secular society and few see this as a problem. We have the same rate of divorce, people living together out of matrimony, and abortion. It won't be long before we have the same level of unrepentant homosexuals attending. We go to church and hear the things we want to hear, not the things that makes us squirm in our seats. No talk of hell. No talk of repentance. No talk of how we fall far short of God.
The Church no longer speak up about these things. Oh, to be sure there are Church writings on various topics, but how many times have you heard a discussion on divorce, promiscuity or keeping oneself unstained from the world? Sadly most "Christians" today laugh at such "old fashioned" notions or ignore them. And how likely are we to kick someone out of the congregation for practicing such things? Priests and pastors no longer talk about these things for fear of offending.
So the focus is on how much God loves you, have a waffer, drop some money in the collection plate and see you next week. Forget about telling anyone to clean up their act. It's too "preachy". We don't want to hear it.
"The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule on their own authority; and My people love it so! But what will you do at the end of it?" Jer 5:31
This may sound like I've been reading too much Hal Lindsey, but ... there is an anti-Christ coming. The world is being prepared to receive him.
It is tempting for Americans to look at a Hitler, a Stalin, or a Pol Pot and think, "That can't happen here." Don't be too sure about that this time. Pride goeth before a fall.
As far as statistics go, I am presuming you are considering those who claim to be part of a community, but are probably not active within it. When one considers the ENTIRE community, I would agree with your idea - that the Church reflects the secular society. I believe that if one polls those who are active and actually try to implement a conservative communities' approach to walking in Chirst, I find the statistics are more favorable. Recall Mt 7:21 - "not all who say 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven but those who do the will of my Father in heaven". Merely participating in a worship service to feel good about yourself does not make one the "salt of the earth". This is a problem in all Christian communities - perhaps for different reasons.
Unfortunately, the secular press, in their effort to get condonement of their disgusting and immoral sensibilities, likes to point to the fact that many within the Church simply are saying 'Lord, Lord'. The Church seems to have two separate realms - those who follow Christ through their daily walk, and the rest...All we can do is pray that these people will be conform to God's ways and pick up their crosses and follow Him.
We go to church and hear the things we want to hear, not the things that makes us squirm in our seats. No talk of hell. No talk of repentance. No talk of how we fall far short of God.
That is generally true. Most people, because they don't take God very seriously (as shown by their actions, not their mouths) will not want to hear such speeches. However, I am lucky to have an orthodox priest at our parish, and he has no problem bringing up the evil of contraception or abortion when the readings can be taken in that direction. So it is a matter of the individual pastor/priest to put his money where his mouth is. I believe we are beginning to see more orthodox men who take their faith seriously coming out of the seminaries. Of course, I can only speak for Catholics, in a limited sense.
Again, everyone is a product of their cultures, so it is difficult to go against the "flow". I think many pastors are worried about losing parishoners, so many construct sermons that appeal to the hearers - that is how things work in our society - place the blame elsewhere, pump up the self-esteem, tolerate everything, and don't worry about anything, as long as we don't "harm" someone else. The Early Church had to fight many of these battles, as well. It would be interesting to see how they combated them. I believe part of it is based on your theme - more counter-cultural preaching would do wonders. Sure, some would likely be offended. But from my experience of my own orthodox priest, I find the ones who complain aren't really walking the walk anyways.
I suppose it is the nature of the beast that man wants to place himself as the judge of what is right and what is wrong.
Regards
Thanks for the ping!
Once again I think those are excellent points. When I speak of the Church/church I speak of it in general terms. While I believe we both would admit there are many tares out there, the "true" Church has never degraded. Whether it is increasing or decreasing is a matter of speculation based upon flawed statistics since only God knows the heart. I should remind myself that when Elijah felt that he was all alone in the world God reminded him that there were still 7,000 who were in reserve.
Total Depravity does not mean that man is completely evil - i.e. depraved men can love their families. Rather, the idea is that no element of man's nature (mind, body, spirit, will) is free from the taint of sin. A subtle yet significant difference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.