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 Without the "baby bonus," concepts of self-control, self-mastery, self-donation have not only became outdated, but an object of mockery.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."
Thank you for making the distinction
I never said the “Catholic Church” has failed. It has been infected by Modernism/Protestantism/false antiquity/false ecumenism/false religious liberty. Freaking, you name it. The Crisis in the Church right now is UNPRECEDENTED.
And that is ONLY the hierarchy’s fault. NONE of this is the laity’s fault. How anyone could blame this on the laity is beyond me.
I’m not misunderstanding anything. You are. Your head is in the sand. Modernism existed prior to Vatican II and was rubber stamped by the hierarchy at the Vatican II Council...in the new liturgy as well as in doctrine. The fact that you don’t see that is not my issue. It’s yours. In fact it’s ours. Because as long as Catholics like yourself continue to defend this, the longer this crisis continues.
“Catholics are even more liberal than Protestants in general, and even weekly Catholics are less conservative than fundamental evangelicals”
The Catholic Church doctrine is written in stone. If there are those that profess to be Catholic that do not want to follow the tenants of the faith, please don’t let the door hit you in rear on the way out.
Protestants on the other-hand have no doctrine. You are on your own to interpret good from evil, and what’s right from what’s wrong. Good luck.
Exactly. Wolves in sheep's clothing.
Overlapping? Why wouldn’t Protestantism be a condition precedent to modernism? Isn’t modernism, by it’s subjective truth, the progeny of Protestanism?
Not interested GPH.
Uggh, sorry pet peeve of mine: it’s “tenets” not “tenants”
“Protestantism gave birth to Modernism. If Catholics wouldn’t act like Protestants there wouldn’t be any Modernism in the Church. Let the Protestants keep their filthy Modernism. We don’t want it”
AMEN. Every time I see Catholics holding hands at Mass during the Our Father I feel like cringing. Ever time I hear that feely-feely guitar being played I want to bust it in a hundred pieces. Every time I notice no genuflecting before someone sits down I want to tell them about it. So basically everytime I go to Mass and see the protestantism that infected the Catholic Church I feel a little sad inside. It’s time for the parish priests to start informing Catholics on how they should act as Catholics.
And the birth control and not carrying about marriage is all from protestantism spilling over in the Church, and priests keeping their mouth shut about any of it at Mass.
Really? How so? If Vatican II was not faithful to Traditional Catholic Teaching and the former is what Catholics are being taught now (either in word or in deed), how should they be expected to "remain faithful"? I think of those poor souls just after Vatican II. Not knowing WTH just hit them. But many of them "remained faithful" to a hierarchy who led them down the wrong path.
Unless of course you and I are talking about remaining faithful to two different things (you: post Vatican II teachings; me: pre-Vatican II teachings).
Wrong.
It's found here....
God did not leave us directionless.
Good and evil, right and wrong have not changed.
Would that be the Council of Trent?
Or Vatican 1?
Or Vatican 2?
It’s no coincidence that Paul VI abolished the Oath against Modernism.
“And that is ONLY the hierarchy’s fault. NONE of this is the laity’s fault.”
Let’s see if you can understand basic logic. You admitted the following: “It has been infected by Modernism/Protestantism/false antiquity/false ecumenism/false religious liberty.”
Protestantism. Are you claiming the Catholic hierarchy started that? Gee, I thought it was Luther. What pope, what council, what body of bishops started Protestantism? The answer is none of them. A priest started it. He seduced lay people - against the express wishes and dictates of his bishop - to his new found heresy. He convinced princes to join in and to protect him as he spread his filth. Luther was not a bishop. His supporters were by and large lay people. The Church opposed him. The Empire opposed him.
“How anyone could blame this on the laity is beyond me.”
Are not the laity responsible for their own sins?
“Because as long as Catholics like yourself continue to defend this, the longer this crisis continues.”
I’ve never defended “this”. I defend the Church. People become Modernists. The Church doesn’t. The Church can’t. The Church is indefectible. To believe otherwise is to separate yourself from the Church - which is what a Modernist would do.
Stop. I am not saying who started Protestantism. I am stating who has allowed it to infect the Catholic Church...in its doctrines and in its liturgy. That would certainly be the fault of the hierarchy.
During the Reformation, did the Catholic hierarchy allow it to seep into these things? Or did it go out of its way to make sure that it did not?
And there you go again accusing me of saying the Church is defectible (and therefore accusing me Modernism...lol). With that, I think you and I are done interacting here.
Frankly, your posts come across as one bound to defend Rome at any cost - to your own credibility. Like other refuted attempts, you have tried this before, but it is rendered void by the manifest fact that despite your inconsequential dismissal of the majority of Catholics, the church you defend treats them as members in life and in death. If you do not agree with her interpretation of canon law, then you may leave.
Protestants on the other-hand have no doctrine. You are on your own to interpret good from evil, and what’s right from what’s wrong. Good luck.
This also is an invalid argument, as your use of Protestantism has no meaning without a doctrinal definition of it, and providing one would negate your argument as well.
Meanwhile, as said, doctrinal unity in Rome is very limited to core truths, and much on paper, leaving much that can be subject to interpretation. Meanwhile, as said and shown , even without a universal centralized magisterium, those who are most committed to Scripture as literally being the Word of God testify to greater unity on core issues based on core truths than the majority of your members, including weekly attendees.
Thus your reactionary attempts to defend Rome continue to be an argument against her.
“Isn’t modernism, by it’s subjective truth, the progeny of Protestanism?”
No. Protestantism is heresy. Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies. When viewed in regard to times, Protestantism came first. When viewed in regard to heresies, Protestantism came first. When viewed in regard to philosophy, Protestantism came first.
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.