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 appears that if the Archbishop gets his wish, everyone in the US and world will have a government bureaucrat asking them (a) exactly what is it you're watching and why are you watching it, and (b) is that the kind of person we want you to be?
In a self-governing nation it is for each of us to decide on the desirability and necessity of these questions. IMHO.
1) Ecofreaks exaggerate almost everything.
2) Lake Erie was very badly polluted, and dredging is still problematic. Buried layers of silt from the "pollution years" are still contain the various poisons that were a problem then. Lake Erie is far from unique in this regard.
3) See above ... the zebra mussels are a mixed blessing, and I would recommend against introducing them as a pollution control measure. They arrived in the Great Lakes by accident.
I suppose the lesson is to think through your pollution control measures BEFORE implementing them, whether it's physical pollution or moral pollution that you wish to control. Still, it does no good to deny that pollution is pollution.
In some places. Let's not get too carried away with this ... for the most part, the Great Lakes fisheries are in pretty good shape.
***********
That wasn't what I got from the article, but we all have our own interpretations and values.
That's good to know. At the very least, it should be safer to visit the beaches.
Seems to me that's part of "self government".
I guess in that case were talking about "pollution absolutes". And in absolute terms anything short of pristine is polluted.
***In recent months, two Catholic bishops have begun some extraordinary work against pornography in their Midwest dioceses: ***
Eze 9:6 Slay utterly old [and] young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom [is] the mark; and begin AT MY SANCTUARY. Then they began at the ancient men which [were] before the house.
Where to start? How about the statues of Michaelangelo in Rome. The statue of David. The tomb of Julius. Sistene Chapel. Last Judgement. The forbidden art of Pompeii.
Should we differentiate between art and porn. Sometimes they look the same.
Not at all. Is that the way we handle toxic waste regulation, and is that how the Archbishop wants to see it handled?
Seems to me that's part of "self government".
That's not government, that's private sector.
In the physical realm, "pollution" can often be a matter of concentration, and perfection doesn't really exist. Enjoy that glass of dinosaur pee you're drinking. ;'}
In the moral realm the standard (God) is perfection, of which we all fall short. But we're still called cooperate with God's Grace to grow in holiness. Deliberately, knowingly wallowing in moral filth does not help us grow in holiness.
Good .. on that point, we agree.
That's not government, that's private sector.
The private sector is how we govern ourselves, because we have no king/dictator/oligarchy/whatever governing us from above.
Should we differentiate between art and porn. Sometimes they look the same.
***************
Of course there is a difference between art and pornography, and I think it is perfectly possible to make a distinction.
It should be something that the government is actively campaigning against. If they can spend a fortune to "fight" tobacco, which is legal, they can certainly start a campaign discouraging porn, which is legal and probably a lot more destructive in the long run.
And porn should certainly not be something that is forced on people at every turn - on the internet, in magazines, etc. It's got to go back to the dirty old man environments in which it used to hang out.
This is primarily a male problem - men are much more visual than women are, and seem to become addicted to increasing levels of sexual perversity and violence as a kind of trigger. I have a friend, young and attractive, whose husband never slept with her because he was watching Internet porn. When she finally divorced him, she discovered that he had charged something like $40,000 in porn bills to her charge cards.
That's a theological assesment, and probably appropriate for the forum it's posted in. My disagreements with the Archbishop and his opinions are over the political aspects of his assement of the problem and proposed solutions.
Good points, livius.
Control it on a local level - if a specific town or city makes it legal or illegal, it's within their right to do so.
It's called federalism.
That's all I have to say about that, feel free to read my profile for more information.
The State governments can if they want. "Campaigning" against tobacco is not supposed to be part of their job any more than "campaigning" against pornography. You act as if every abuse of the government by the left entitles you to an equal abuse of your own.
Pornography is a cancer on society. Livius has the appropriate analogy. If we as a society spend money on tobacco and illegal drug use, it is perfectly good sense to spend money in some measure to stigmatize porn users and prevent its easy access. Perhaps targetting sellers would be another way.
This garbage breaks up families and dehumanizes men and women. Involvement with children is an unspeakable crime.
In a world where homos now have special govt protection in many instances, I can understand a fear the federal government getting involved in another values campaign. But all laws come from someone's values. Why not make laws from values that have been known to nourish life and true love, the kind that sacrifices for another.
What motivates someone to look at porn habitually?
If a such a person had an active enough conscience to think about what he is doing, he might seek a priest. Who better than a priest who has been able to renounce sexual activity for a greater good. If someone is preoccupied with sex, maybe to speak with someone who is not would be the best way for the addict to figure out how to change?
Habitual porn users have loneliness or ego issues which have tempted him to seek porn as a way out. Such solutions of course are entirely bogus. Jesus Christ is easily the answer to loneliness and correction of an ego problem will be found if someone, maybe a priest, could tell him why he was ever born, that Christ himself came to serve, not to be served.
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.