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.
It must be some totally different kind of porn than I've seen. The fact that someone would look at violent porn indicates to me that he is violent. It seems to me that it is false logic to find a commonality like porn in prisoners and they conclude that the porn is the cause.
It's like finding that people in bar fights are very likely to be into weight lifting, therefore weight lifting causes bar fights. The numbers imply a proof but it is a faulty proof.
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?
Not likely. Reading back through the posts just on this thread there seems to be an underlying perception that pornography is already pervasive, and that we should hold that as evidence that the "average, reasonable American" isn't fit to make that determination or we wouldn't need to be having this debate.
Well, since those people make up probably over 80% of American society, who then should make that determination?
Look, it's not going to be perfect. But it will be better than right now--which is having absolutely nothing.
It's going to have to start with them, build a consensus, and then slowly work around it.
In a self-governing nation the answer to that should be self-evident.
Look, it's not going to be perfect. But it will be better than right now--which is having absolutely nothing.
We have a fair amount of control over public venues at the local level, and control of what we do personally. Sometimes I think the federal bureaucrats have managed to convince people that their claims that if you can't regulate everything, you can't really regulate anything actually have merit.
It's going to have to start with them, build a consensus, and then slowly work around it.
They weren't call "laboratories of democracy" for nothing.
And I already stated it, but you just said not too long ago that the "average, reasonable American" should NOT be making that determination.
"We have a fair amount of control over public venues at the local level, and control of what we do personally. Sometimes I think the federal bureaucrats have managed to convince people that their claims that if you can't regulate everything, you can't really regulate anything actually have merit."
I'm against any and all government regulation on people's activities above and beyond what's absolutely necessary. We can argue until the cows come home whether regulating "porn" is necessary.
That said, it's something that ought to be done, the moral decay of society has reached a point where doing something is infinitely better than doing nothing at all.
Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant (and thought I said) that some of the posts on this thread seem to indicate that perception exists among some of the participants. I did not say that I shared it.
Bad choice of words, in a thread about pornography.
"and that we should hold that as evidence that the "average, reasonable American" isn't fit to make that determination"
These are your words, sir. I don't think you couldn't be clearer.
:-) (he could go blind!)
The post is still there.
If I can't convey to you and have you understand the difference between expressing an assesment of someone else's opinion, and holding that opinion myself then I don't see much future in continuing this.
I guess you've chosed your counsel.
Are you a married person? Did you not go to pre-cana?
Bravo Sierra! The only way you can learn about being married, truly, is to be married, or to have been married. Take what you're saying and apply it to the secular world: What you're saying, more or less, could be applied to psychiatrists---they should "know more" about the human condition because people spill their guts to them.
Yet we all know pyschiatrists are often most in need of psychiatry themselves. If you trust a psychiatrist to govern your heart, or give you sound, solid, unbiased advice about what's best for you, let me know---you might be interested in purchasing the deed to the Zakim Bridge from me.
Oh, brother. Just because you are petrified to death of your sexual urges doesn't mean sexual urges all come from Satan.
No, I believe you were unequivocally clear in that opinion (which, btw, is not merely the assessment of somebody else's own opinion).
And I demonstrated that holding this opinion and supporting the opinion that we need to do something about "porn" are mutually exclusive. Therefore, there's no point in continuing this, er, conversation...
Also, psychiatrists only talk to the critical cases - it costs money to see a shrink, but the priest is always there for everybody, the untroubled, the mildly troubled, and the very troubled.
The idea that you can only learn about marriage by being married is the same thinking that promotes the idea that only black people can understand "black issues", only women can understand how women think, etc. and nobody else is qualified to have an opinion or voice one. It flies in the face of the universality of the human condition.
And I wonder how many married couples have actually thought in depth about the transcendental meaning of marriage, as the late Pope John Paul the Great did in his masterful study of the theology of the body . . .
And I demonstrated that holding this opinion and supporting the opinion that we need to do something about "porn" are mutually exclusive. Therefore, there's no point in continuing this, er, conversation...
Being in a position to know for certain whether that is actually my opinion or not, I can also say for certain that you have misunderstood what my opinion is.
If you are unwilling to accept my own assesment of what my opinion is, then you are correct. There is no way this "er, conversation" can continue in a rational manner. Nor could any "conversation" under such circumstances.
There's no misunderstanding. Your position is clear, and anyone reading this thread can see that.
Moreover, you're not assessing anything--that much is obvious.
It's clear this dialogue is going nowhere. I'm out.
Have a nice day.
Have a nice day.
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.