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.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
I noticed that. Why switch the topic? Everyone agrees that child porn should be illegal. Not everyone agrees what constitutes general porn and what the law should be about it.
Not necessarily.
Yes, it is largely subjective. However, I believe there are some things that most every reasonable person would deem obscene.
I chose what I post. But since you asked, not all porn is child porn - that is so obvious it doesn't need to be stated. But all child porn is porn - the worst part of porn along with snuff and torture films. You apparently are confused. Take it easy.
Obviously you have not followed the news. No, not everyone is opposed to child porn. There is ACLU, not to mention all the pedophiles and others demanding it. Some judges have gone easy on offenders, sending the message that it is no big deal.
Ofcourse there are those. It wasn't an all inclusive "everyone". Certainly everyone on the FR.
Defining what is porn and what isn't is impossible. There are blue haired old Baptist ladies that consider a picture of a woman wearing shorts to be porn. Many many of said women would consider many of the pictures posted on FR to be porn. Do we respect their opinion and define it there? Certainly not!
Since when do "we" as the Republican party, or "conservative" movement, regard child rearing as a government responsibility?
Secondly, your effort to connect slavery to porn sorta fell on deaf ears, if you know what i mean.
I suggest you return to your vast hyperbole collection, and try something else. It ain't workin..........
That's what the forum is for. Responding about my seniority is a pretty lame form of response right there with criticising spelling. That makes me think you have more recently joined the planet than I had first thought.
I never equated slavery with porn. Stop misrepresenting my words. Your silly attempts at being cute in your words "ain't working." Read your own statement to see how ridiculous you sound. <
Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.
I’m no social scientist, and I don’t pretend to believe what John Q. Citizen thinks about this, but I’ve lived in prison for a long time now, and I’ve met a lot of men who were motivated to commit violence. Without exception, every one of them was deeply involved in pornography - deeply consumed by the addiction. The F.B.I.’s own study on serial homicide shows that the most common interest among serial killers is pornographers.
Are you suggesting, or is that person suggesting that porn turns people into serial killers?
I don't know of anyone who would disagree with that statement. Now the question is how to keep it from simply turning from a debate on what is or isn't obscene to one about who is or isn't "reasonable".
I'm not confused. I understand you.
I know from personal experience that porn can create and fuel violent tendecies in users.
The FBI knows as well. Researchers know as well. Ted Bundy experienced it himself, and his numerous victims know the truth all too well.
It's a fact, but one society wants to ignore in it's hedonistic heyday.
Garbage!
The porn label is based on emotional reactions to visual or verbal stimuli, which is in the entertainment arena, and as old as time.
Less than thirty years ago, showing a woman sharing a bed with a man, or selling underwear with live models would have considered blasphemy and banned.
Americans are the most sexually prudish people on the planet, and there are repercussions for this state of mind. Most countries that have had a more sexually free social structure during the past fifty years do not have the incidences of extreme sexual perversion exhibited by child molesters that we currently have. Did you ever question why this is? What are the underlying causes of this horrible crime? Why so many are now resulting in murder cases?
I see a direct relationship with the health of the sexual psychology of the society, and so little is written about this. The knee jerk reaction is to incarcerate the offender and throw away the key! This is not ever going to control the defect or the numbers of men and some women who have disorders of this magnitude.
I have no objection to rational limits on any social behavior, like guns, alcohol, drugs, or sex, but when you move the controls into the authoritarian category where prohibitions and punishments are meted out as a answer to the social ills, the exact opposite results almost always occur.
Some common sense and objectivity is needed in this area, and all this hyperbole and rash action is not going to help and will only repress and then amplify the problems.
What may be a bad influence to you, may well be a healthy curiosity and normal human activity to me. But this is not because I was taught this during my upbringing. It is because I have studied human behavior and sociology. I don't create demons where no demons exist and I don't judge you either.
If you want to discuss porn, you need to understand it and it's origins, and how other societies deal with human behavior.
What many anti-porn advocates do, is out of ignorance, IMO. To me, they appear to be blinded by fear and hyperbole, much as the Muslim societies where simple exposure of a body part can lead to stoning and death.
To me, this is the problem and not the solution to what is essentially a God given human condition. He made sex enjoyable to the Nth degree for a reason. He gave us imaginations to improve on it and take it to new levels, and people with do this without any outside help or stimulus.
Trying to ban any of this essentially normal behavior will cause great social deviancy from norms and it has done exactly this, in the U.S..
Sensible and rational limits however, are indeed necessary and prudent for any human behavior and most people welcome it..
I hope I have given you something to think about.
That is a concern. However, most discretionary criteria in American law revolves around the "average, reasonable American, applying x standard"
As much as I hate to say it, it's going to be unavoidable. We can try to minimize it by taking a moderate approach, but does that really solve the problem in the end?
Did someone steal her robe?
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.