Posted on 03/21/2007 9:14:58 AM PDT by Frank Sheed
A friend recently quipped to me that if Americans were as good at the “war on terror” as we are in our “war on common sense,” the world would be a much safer place. He was talking about our country’s increasingly confused attitudes toward sex.
Last week offered a good example. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, said that “I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well-served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.”
Note that Pace did not say that, “homosexual persons are evil.” He said that homosexual acts are wrong. And of course he’s right. We might question the general’s choice to comment in the context he did, but not his content. He simply stated the Western moral tradition. We should respect his courage for saying it. Every human being has an inalienable dignity as an image of God. But as part of that dignity, we also have free will, and our choices — our behaviors — create wholeness or havoc around us, depending on their moral content.
Our sexual behavior is never merely a “private” matter. Human sexuality is deeply linked to issues of identity, fertility and new life. Our sexual behavior always has social implications because it directly or indirectly impacts others. Therefore it helps shape the wider culture. This is not a uniquely Christian point of view. Most Americans clearly agree with Gen. Pace. The only thing strange about his remarks was the theatrical wave of shock they generated from critics. In fact, with the good exception of Sen. Sam Brownback and some others, many members of Congress scrambled to criticize Gen. Pace — despite the moral beliefs of the people who elected them.
The bickering over Gen. Pace is just an icon of wider problems. The sexual confusion at the top of U.S. society now has an echo in every corner of American life. Sexually transmitted disease, child sexual abuse, adult Internet predators, divorce, cohabitation and nearly every other indicator of a dysfunctional society stand at epidemic levels. But very few people want to name the biggest single environmental crisis we face: a multi-billion dollar pornography industry that pours garbage into our homes every day through the Web and other media.
Forty years ago, when steel mills pumped hundreds of tons of toxic waste each week into the Great Lakes — literally “killing” Lake Erie and damaging the health of tens of thousands of families — citizens got organized. They forced the mills to clean up or shut down. We need to do the same today. Citizens need to stop the pornography industry now — not out of some kind of Victorian prudery, but because pornography poisons the human heart, imagination and soul just as those steel mills once poisoned our air and water, only worse.
Pornography is never “innocent entertainment,” no matter how private it might seem. It turns human beings into objects. It coarsens our appetites. It darkens our ability to see real human beauty. It creates impossible expectations about sexual intimacy. It kills enduring romance and friendship between the sexes. And ultimately it’s a lie and a cheat. Pornography is a cheap, quick, empty copy of the real thing — the real joy of sexual intimacy shared by a man and woman who have joined their lives in a loving marriage.
In recent months, two Catholic bishops have begun some extraordinary work against pornography in their Midwest dioceses: Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph, Mo., and Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kan.
Bishop Finn’s excellent pastoral letter, “Blessed Are the Pure in Heart: The Dignity of the Human Person and the Dangers of Pornography,” has a wealth of good information about the scope of pornography, the damage it does and many practical tips to fighting it in our homes. Archbishop Naumann’s anti-pornography initiative, “As for Me and My House, We Will Serve the Lord,” includes a DVD and workbook with valuable resources for fighting pornography, teaching chastity and wholesome sexuality, and helping others who have been hurt by pornography addiction.
We can’t do much to fix the sexual confusion at the top of our society, beyond writing to our elected officials and demanding candidates who will advance our convictions when the time comes to vote. But we can do a lot about the poison in our homes and local communities. Pornography is poison. It should be controlled like any other toxic waste. And don’t be fooled. This isn’t “censorship.” It’s a matter of public health and common sense.
Bishop Finn’s pastoral letter can be found online at www.diocese-kcsj.org; click on “Bishop,” then on the pastoral letter. For information on Archbishop Naumann’s anti-pornography initiative, contact the Archdiocese of Kansas City, Kan., at 913-721-1097.
if enough people cared, similar definitions could be made for porn. just like every non-natural death is not premeditated homicide, there are various degrees of porn
more could be done to discourage porn. a lot could be done by private individuals, groups, and companies, if we were free from government forcing us to be "morally neutral" how we could enforce a social stigma.
I appreciate your comments to this thread. They are very much on target.
See #98.
The fact is that there are people here who consider the entire Dutch Baroque era and Michelangelo's David to be "pornography" and there are (probably) a few here that believe that Penthouse, Hustler, etc. are not immoral.
Don't get me wrong--I'm opposed to smut. What I'm saying is that we need to define what it is, and that's half the battle.
Why?
"Pornography" is largely subjective and taken by the individual. For example, I personally don't find naked paintings from the 17th century to be obscene, but I do find most nudie media as being obscene. It's entirely possible you might have a completely different idea as to what's acceptable.
Of course, this isn't to say that there is some guidance (IMHO, Scripture and Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body are excellent). Those can, and I believe will prove invaluable in trying to define "pornography."
what you say is true enough, but porn is an interstate business too. There is a federal role given 2007 standards
Porn is defined as #2354 in the Catechism. It is made all the more offensive and heinous when it includes minors, for example.
Exactly. There are some who would object to King David on display.
So the same can be said for just about any other issue in the world (poverty, disease, etc.).
"just like every non-natural death is not premeditated homicide, there are various degrees of porn"
I agree. And that must be a necessity
And while I'm personally in agreement with the Catholic Church's (and Abp. Chaput's letter), we live in a society where the criminal law, while based on Christian values, must be somewhat secular to be compatible with a democracy which upholds freedom of belief.
IIRC, Lord Devlin made similar remarks in 1965, a few years after the infamous Wolfenden Report came out...
Given 2007 standards, we're never going "roll back decades of federal government largesse", we're going to live with it, and more. I know, you think it's just too hard to actually change it, and we should just take our cut and write the rest off, but I disagree.
For us Catholics, yes. As a Catholic, I agree completely with that (and that's what governs my personal belief on the topic).
However, Catholicism is the religion only 80 million or so of the 300 million who live in this country, and it wouldn't be an illogical guess that a good number are lapsed or non-practicing. While that makes us by far the largest single religious group in the U.S. (a full quarter of the population), that doesn't give us free rein to implement that across the board.
This is the onus of why I believe we need to have a secular definition of porn if we are going to combat it in this country. Do I believe that porn needs to go by the wayside? Absolutely.
But I also believe that if we are in disagreement as to what needs to go, then it's wasted effort on the part of all of us. Whereas, if we define what smut is, it makes it a lot easier to regulate and/or eliminate.
Damage done by porn has been documented, including promoting of rape.
I have very personal experience with how intertwined rape and porn really are.
Three wrongs don't make a right. While the bishop's comments on porn and sexuality in America have some major elements of truth, the proposed cure is worse than the disease.
Nobody chooses to have cancer. People choose to view porn.
I am not a Catholic, but I do appreciate the efforts of your Church on this matter and others. I do believe this is a condition of the heart and soul and not government per say, but we do need the former "polite society" we once had in this country.
Thanks for your post to me. Good definition IMO.
Actually I think you and I are in agreement on this.
You wouldn't know it by this thread. So far, all I've seen is allegations of what the porn made the people do. Apparently there is no free will or personal responsibility involved.
Yes, we do.
Sadly, we now live in a society that explicitly needs things spelled out to them. Most of my peers haven't the slightest idea of sexual morality, for instance...
As just a single example in a sea, is the Kama Sutra pornography ?
That is the moral and proper way to combat porn. Goobermint edicts are not.
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.