Posted on 02/14/2014 4:07:38 PM PST by NYer
Surveying history for anything resembling same-sex marriage in any culture, clime, or era is a fruitless search. It has never been proposed, not even in ancient Greece, as some would like to argue. So why does this enigma of history seem like just the next progressive step in our own culture?
The answer, oddly enough, seems to be locked up in the birth control pill. Let me explain.
Healthy cultures and civilizations all have one thing in common. There is a deep understanding (even if not always acted upon or articulated) that my life has meaning because of the sacrifices I make for those who come after me, through loyalty to a clan, tribe or wider society. This simple "our lives for theirs" approach is what has animated history for centuries. Think of the building of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, which the early masons knew would never be finished in their lifetimes. "Our lives for theirs" is an easy barometer to see if a civilization is on the rise or on decline. When that order becomes inverted, like ancient Rome or late Renaissance Venice, where each man and woman lives just for himself, the civilization will decay and cease to exist.
The sexual revolution of the 1960s is a marked example of this inversion in the West with the arrival of the pill. Never in the history of the world had the fundamental link between human sexuality and reproduction been so decidedly unhinged, ushering in a new conception of sexuality. Sex became about many things: self-expression, self-gratification, exploration, desire, etc.…but not about its main reason for existence: to propagate the species. The general "our life for theirs" attitude lived out by parents for centuries suddenly became suspect as self-gratification came into vogue. "Why would anyone voluntarily put themselves through all that hard work to raise more than two children?" became the new model under which we live today.
While contraception of various sorts was nothing new, the wholesale use of it was. Without the "baby bonus," concepts of self-control, self-mastery, self-donation have not only became outdated, but an object of mockery. Denuding sex of its natural procreative character made sex simply about "me," not my spouse, my children, my family, or my community. Porn, "twerking," and the over-sexualization of young children are only the latest additions in the "sex is about me" trajectory.
Aristotle (384 -322 BC) was the first to argue for the link between what we find pleasurable and what is needed for a healthy polis, or more generally, society. An act was pleasurable to ensure that it would take place, but was not the most important reason for the action. Food tastes good so we will eat. The connection between sexual pleasure and procreation is why same-sex marriage has never been accepted in the history of the world before. It was always generally understood that such a "marriage" is not fruitful no matter what the feelings may be of those involved.
Generations of couples coupling without conceiving have led to the misperception that sexuality is, in fact, merely another contact sport, or whatever else you may want it to be, without a fixed meaning other than pleasure. Sex in the minds of most no longer has any natural link with making babies. And if the link dares to happen biologically when nature asserts herself, it is a failure, a mistake, an accident – not the natural course of things.
How, then, one asks, could Catholics be so cruel to want to deny same-sex marriage to those who just have a different idea about sex? Why limit ourselves to heterosexual activity within marriage? Can't pleasure and satisfaction be found elsewhere? Well, clearly they can, to a degree. But babies cannot. And the stable families necessary to raise healthy children, study after study has shown, cannot be reformulated into any shape of laissez-faire family. Statistics show that 95 percent of Catholics are using contraception to limit family size. Clearly there has been a dramatic failure to educate ourselves about what the Church teaches on love and sexuality in the pews, in classrooms, and in Catholic media. But at the heart of it, the Christian ethos, embodied in Christ's own sacrifice of himself for all of us, needs to be revived. Ultimately, are our actions life-giving or sterile? To this question, our answer should always be "our lives for theirs."
Statistics show that 95 percent of Catholics are using contraception to limit family size. Clearly there has been a dramatic failure to educate ourselves about what the Church teaches on love and sexuality in the pews, in classrooms, and in Catholic media. But at the heart of it, the Christian ethos, embodied in Christ's own sacrifice of himself for all of us, needs to be revived. Ultimately, are our actions life-giving or sterile? To this question, our answer should always be "our lives for theirs."
Sorry. I should have qualified that.
“Jesus was talking to Peter.”
Not in Galatians 1 He wasn’t.
“Catholics don’t seem to have any problem with it when they claim Jesus gave peter the keys to the kingdom and whatever he bound on earth was bound in heaven, but now nobody wants to take the responsibility when Jesus gives Peter responsibility for caring for the church.”
Again you accuse someone of believing something that no one here ever expressed any belief in. Show me where anyone said: “nobody wants to take the responsibility when Jesus gives Peter responsibility for caring for the church.” Why do you make up outright falsehoods like that?
“I guess apostolic succession doesn’t include accepting responsibility when things don’t go right, eh?”
I guess being a Protestant means being able to post falsehoods and not take responsibility for them, right?
Who here is shirking responsibility or advocating the shirking of responsibility? Certainly not me.
“How can they stay faithful to something they’ve never known?”
The same way the Japanese Catholics stayed faithful for 250 years without a single priest or bishop to guide them. http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/st-paul-miki-and-the-rise-of-japans-hidden-christians
“I grew up post-Vatican II. My family never missed Mass at our local parish church (wreckovated to resemble a masonic temple, without statues or other traditional decor, tabernacle off to the side, no recognition of the Real Presence, dancing women on the altar, etc.). It wasn’t until I came across a copy of a Leaflet Missal catalogue (thank God) that I had the slightest clue regarding the post-VII abruption.”
Oh, you mean weren’t dependent on a priest or bishop to teach you the ancient Catholic faith in the information age? Welcome to reality, bud. We all have the responsibility to teach ourselves the faith in adulthood.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
It's everyone's fault but the church.
Yeah, right.....
Thanks for the laugh.
“Thanks for the laugh.”
No, thank you metmom. After all who could prove the inherent dishonesty of Protestants as easily you have?
The states are simply interfering with faith. This is part of the global Progressive agenda.
And yet when non-Catholics claim the same thing, every man is accused of being his own pope and that's the problem with Protestantism. (according to most Catholics here)
Why the double standard?
Far as I know, every non-Catholic Christian feels the same way and yet when we practice what we preach, we're castigated for it.
The Catholic church, being a top down hierarchy, claiming it alone is capable of "correctly" interpreting Scripture, of having the power to retain or remit sins, of being the only ones to properly administer communion, for pronouncing anthemas on those who dare to think for themselves and disagree with it, then become responsible for correctly transmitting those beliefs to those who put themselves under its authority.
Those of us who realize that we answer to God alone, recognize our personal responsibility in ensuring that we are not going into error and correcting others when we see them doing the same.
“Why the double standard?”
There isn’t one.
“And yet when non-Catholics claim the same thing, every man is accused of being his own pope and that’s the problem with Protestantism. (according to most Catholics here)”
You’re comparing two different things and calling them the same. There is a difference between holding to what always was and making up something new. Catholics are to hold to what always was. Protestants make up new things. Protestantism itself is a new thing and ever changing and fragmenting.
Kind of like Catholic teaching that one has to be Catholic to be saved except when you don't?
Vatican 2 didn't change a thing?
Yeah,..... riiiggghhtt.....
If I am wrong, so what...Now’s your opportunity to correct me instead of just saying I’m wrong...What is the Catholic Church in its own definition???
Using your argument, when you said "Catholics" above you must have meant all Catholics. But you didn't, did you?
Same thing when I said "hierarchy".
Good...Then it won't be long that we can look forward to your priests skipping Mass altogether...Get some old time religion goin' on up around that altar...
You were wrong as usual. You should be used to it by now.
“If I am wrong, so what...”
If you’re wrong - and you were wrong - that would mean you should not be relied on by anyone.
“Now’s your opportunity to correct me instead of just saying I’m wrong...”
No, now is my opportunity to do whatever I want to do. You don’t create my opportunities. You simply damage your own.
“What is the Catholic Church in its own definition???”
Figure it out. Since you constantly insist by your posting in threads about the Catholic Church that you know about the Catholic Church - against all evidence - you should be able to figure it out. Or will we see that you were wrong again?
“Using your argument, when you said “Catholics” above you must have meant all Catholics. But you didn’t, did you? “
I most certainly did.
You really have no idea of how to make an argument do you?
The simple fact is just about all Catholics failed
So, according to you, apparently some didn't fail.
Likewise, my feelings about the hierarchy.
So, yeah just like the use of the term "Catholics" doesn't need to mean "all", my use of the term "hierarchy didn't mean "entire".
Since you can't offer any evidence that my post is wrong, there's no reason for anyone to believe it is...
Could you point me to the post where you were supposedly wrong?
Thanks, bud. Won't the bishops be happy to know that now that we've reached the information age, they can cancel CCD classes and First Communion training and Confirmation training and Pre Cana classes and RCIA.
Although the internet provides a useful pathway for conveying the Faith, its existence doesn't absolve the bishops of their responsibility to Teach, Sanctify and Govern. Jesus established the Church in order that His sheep would be fed. He didn't expect us to feed ourselves.
“You’re comparing two different things and calling them the same. There is a difference between holding to what always was and making up something new.”
Papists only think they’re holding on to something that “always was.” A reading of the church fathers puts to death such a stupid myth, and the scripture, the very word of God, is all with us. Not with the Papists and their stupid theology that thinks being submitted to the Pope is the end all and be all, even while most of them are ignorant of even the basics of their own doctrine.
Papists are more concerned with their Papacy than they are with the doctrine of eternal life. That’s why FRomans bash Christians while their Popes send atheists and other assorted infidels to “heaven”, at least in their teaching.
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.