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 Without the "baby bonus," concepts of self-control, self-mastery, self-donation have not only became outdated, but an object of mockery.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."
I hear you. There’s much work to be done.
“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”?”
The same way many Catholics I know do so. They simply do it. Is it that hard? Is it really hard to find out what the ancient and constant teachings of the Church are on the vast majority and moral and faith issues? Nope.
“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.”
They only had to remain faithful to the Church. No one can lead you astray when you stay faithful to the Church. It isn’t hard to do.
“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).”
I simply remain true to the faith. I suggest you do the same. There is no “post” or “pre” involved. I attend a Latin Mass parish and have done so for many, many years. There is no “pre” or “post” at my parish. There is no “pre” or “post” in my theology.
What were Jesus' last words to Peter?
"Feed my lambs", "Tend my sheep", and "Feed my sheep". (John 21)
The responsibility is the leadership's. Nowhere are the sheep ever commanded to care for the shepherd.
Ephesians 4:11-14 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.
And to whom much is given, much will be required. And if they haven't done that, they have abdicated their responsibility and are accountable for themselves and the souls they led astray.
“Stop.”
No.
“I am not saying who started Protestantism.”
I did say.
“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.”
And the laity too.
“During the Reformation, did the Catholic hierarchy allow it to seep into these things?”
Why don’t you answer that question?
“Or did it go out of its way to make sure that it did not?”
Again, why don’t you answer that question? The right answer is not nearly as cut and dry as you want it to be.
PWND
“And there you go again accusing me of saying the Church is defectible (and therefore accusing me Modernism...lol).”
Then explain how you can both attack and believe in the Church’s indefectibility at the same time. You’ll probably respond that you never attacked it. Then how do you reconcile that response with your previous comments about the hierarchy?
“With that, I think you and I are done interacting here.”
Take your ball and go home. You’re not crying are you?
Protestants have a million different opinions onb what particular scripture means. And they are all right, just ask them.
Vatican 2 expanded on Vatican 1. Can’t help if it was misinterpreted. Try reading it sometimes.
“It’s the SHEPHERD’s job to care for the sheep. It’s not up to the sheep to care for themselves or the shepherd. They are not capable of it. That’s why God gave them a shepherd.”
As you so often do - at least twice now in this thread alone - you imply someone said something that no one here has said. You wrote: “It’s not up to the sheep to care for themselves or the shepherd.” No one here said it was their job to “care for...the shepherd”. Nobody said that.
Read Galatians 1:6-10. Clearly Paul expects the Christian faithful to take responsibility and do what is right even if an “angel from heaven” told them otherwise. No mention is made of a shepherd there.
Attacking certain actions of certain hierarchy doesn’t = belief in a defectable Church. I thought you were the one who keeps insisting that they are only INDIVIDUALS!!eleventy!!!
Sorry to disappoint you. I don’t cry over interactions with forum strangers. I do cry over the ignorance in the Neo-Catholic world however.
Good day.
“Attacking certain actions of certain hierarchy doesn’t = belief in a defectable Church.”
Oooooohhhhhh, so now we’re back to INDIVIDUALS (”certain hierarchy”), huh? So it wasn’t the hierarchy at all, but some bishops in the hierarchy. This is, of course, in sharp contrast to what you posted earlier: “Individual Catholics are not to blame. The heirarchy is to blame. 100%.” And: “The blame falls on the hierarchy.”
“I thought you were the one who keeps insisting that they are only INDIVIDUALS!!eleventy!!!”
Yep. And now essentially you’re claiming you agreed with me the whole time.
“Sorry to disappoint you. I don’t cry over interactions with forum strangers.”
No disappointment on my part.
“I do cry over the ignorance in the Neo-Catholic world however.”
You’re the only one between us pushing ignorance.
“Good day.”
It will be.
No, I wasn’t agreeing with you. You were placing blame on individuals including the laity. I was placing blame on certain individuals, namely the hierarchy. Two different things.
Don’t twist what I said to fit your agenda.
“No, I wasn’t agreeing with you.”
Yeah, actually you were.
“You were placing blame on individuals including the laity.”
You think “laity” is an individual?
“I was placing blame on certain individuals, namely the hierarchy. Two different things.”
No, you were placing blame on the ENTIRE hierarchy and insisting on the hierarchy is responsible. You were wrong on both counts.
“Don’t twist what I said to fit your agenda.”
I don’t. I leave all the twisting up to you. You twist plenty. I simply deal with what you post. Hence, I posted your own comments which show you are now saying something different than what you said before. Your own words convict you.
To say the hierarchy does not mean the entire hierarchy. I recognize that there are some who wish to do the right thing. There are good traditional hierarchy out there, but by and large I blame the hierarchy. Still doesn’t mean the whole hierarchy has defected. I was comparing placing blame on laity vs hierarchy in general terms.
But it seems you’ve made up your mind on what I meant.
Exactly.
Like what?
Is there something too hard about *Thou shalt not steal* that’s too hard to understand?
Lying? Adultery? Murder?
God makes it pretty clear what He considers good and evil.
Jesus was talking to Peter.
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.
I guess apostolic succession doesn’t include accepting responsibility when things don’t go right, eh?
Hey now, don’t include all Catholics here. There’s at least two of us on this thread who feel differently.
How can they stay faithful to something they've never known?
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.
“To say the hierarchy does not mean the entire hierarchy.”
Really? So what is the difference between “hierarchy” and “hierarchy”?
“I recognize that there are some who wish to do the right thing.”
Wish? So they don’t actually do the right thing they just wish to do it? And how do you know what they wish to do? How many bishops have you talked to recently? How many of them have shared their wishes with you?
“There are good traditional hierarchy out there, but by and large I blame the hierarchy.”
Yes, you do - and so what? Your opinion is just your opinion and you seem to have no logic behind it whatsoever.
“Still doesn’t mean the whole hierarchy has defected.”
Then why did you say “hierarchy” when you mean some bishops?
“I was comparing placing blame on laity vs hierarchy in general terms.”
No. You blamed it on the hierarchy without anyone even mentioning the laity at that point.
“But it seems you’ve made up your mind on what I meant.”
Have you?
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.