How long is a generation?
Usually about 30 years.
90 years is a long time. Perhaps sexual license isn’t so much a cause but a symptom if you will. It signifies the inability of a top-down leadership to structure things.
Consider what is happening in Japan.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Weirdly, the sexual revolution is anti-sex. It empties sex of both its fruitfulness (contraception, abortion) and its intimacy (swinging, hook-ups) so that all that’s left is just another kind of physical pleasure. And there are more physically pleasurable things now, like opiates. All-out hedonism destroys people, but we aren’t quite there yet, not entirely. We’re still in a post-Christian heretical culture that’s trying to justify some semblance of morality, however warped and misguided. A lot has already collapsed, but complete collapse is not inevitable, especially where the church (even in spite of the horrible failures of her leaders) is still faithfully preserving the “City of God.”
" Total sexual freedom: If total sexual freedom was embraced by a culture, that culture collapsed within three generations to the lowest state of flourishing"
Most societies only makes sense if you embrace the rules the religion that built it. The young reject that. If their where no God, this would be rational. The young are building up a new civilization in their own self interest. One in which you are not invited to.
“When strict prenuptial chastity was no longer the norm, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking also disappeared within three generations .”
Liar, rational thinking has not disappeared. Stop being so triggered by the secular culture that disagrees with you on the nature of sex.
" Total sexual freedom: If total sexual freedom was embraced by a culture, that culture collapsed within three generations to the lowest state of flourishing — which Unwin describes as “inert” and at a “dead level of conception” and is characterized by people who have little interest in much else other than their own wants and needs."
You see that last statement. That is called ECONOMIC SELF INTEREST. The free market always wins. Next off, when was America concerned about the poor. See Fredrick Douglas’s writing Slave holding Religion, see the United States KILLING those who went on strike in the past.
“For the first part of the 1900’s, mainstream Western culture was rationalist and experienced enormous technological advances — from horse-and-buggy to cars; from hot air balloons to supersonic flight and spacecraft landing people on the moon; from slide rules to computers.”
Stop wining. Easy scientific advancements have been done and the only things that remain are almost out of scope for an individual man with no funding. Every year, it takes more education to get into science. It takes more funding to do science. It is harder to advance science.
“Her research indicates that increased sexual freedom … extreme identity groups at war with each other”
Let us ignore the (Religious) KKK that rose to power in America in some of your lifetimes.
This has all the air of a triggered conservative with a ever increasing victim complex.
To believe in the American principle of freedom while at the same time espousing a belief that all fertile people who are not in the religious life MUST have kids is hypocrisy.
Widespread acceptance of homosexual behavior is undoubtedly a sign of societal collapse.
I agree that it is a sign of the Christian societies collapse. I reject the notion that the very principle of society is collapsing. A new society is being built that rejects God and us.
I don’t endorse homosexual behavior and I don’t endorse atheism, rather claims must be correct.
I was following well, until this:
[Ask James Martin, SJ. He’ll tell you that we’re doing just fine.]
Fr. Z is putting words in Fr. Martin’s mouth. A truer statement would be “I imagine that he’ll tell you that we’re doing just fine,” because it is, in fact, an interpretation which arose in Fr. Z’s imagination.
Why must critics always read into someone’s statement? Isn’t it better to read the other’s statement as it stands?
I also wonder why Fr. Z does not call him Father James Martin.
I would also like to point out that “societal collapse” is not necessarily some noisy, spectacular event that the day after everybody agrees “yup, that’s it it’s all over”.
It doesn’t mean the infrastructure vanishes and the people move away leaving a ghost town behind.
There may still be successes and money and pageantry.
It’s generally a decay that takes place over time, until something that was big is now very small.
Where did I say that it did?
The Catholic Church does not teach that all fertile people not in religious life must have kids. Celibacy is an option even for laypeople, and if you get married you’re not required to try for children.
You are required to be open to life: but that means no artificial contraception, not GET THEE WITH CHILD, WOMAN.
Of course the Church does not teach that every couple must have children. From a secular standpoint, however, the looming crisis of the current century will likely be the declining total fertility rates around the world coupled with aging populations. That will lead to population decline, stressed pension systems, likely accompanied by economic decline. Some nations are putting into place economic incentives for families to have more children.
Father Z gives only a short overview of the matter. The following article gives a more extended survey of the civilizational consequences of what may be called “cheap sex:”
The Rise of Birth Control & the Decline of Civilization
The article, “The Rise of Birth Control & the Decline of Civilization” was good and simple to follow. As I read it I started to think that it’s fundamentally about the principle of ‘delayed gratification’ being removed from society. Cheap sex may be the primary means of societal collapse with respect to delayed gratification, but there are others as well. Cheap entertainment is just one that comes to mind.
With all this cheap stuff there’s just enough people who’s lives fall flat, and they don’t do much of anything. Apparently, this article is saying that if enough people fall flat, it causes the society to collapse.
Most everyone today has heard the phrase “failure to launch” as it relates to young men in the US.
It would be helpful to know WHY it causes the sky to fall. As in: A sexual revolution causes cultures to collapse because…’
And a definition of ‘sexual revolution’ would be handy (the book was written in tbe 30’s) plus a description of what a culture collapse actually meant to the author.
Anyone any ideas…?
Did you read the article, “The Rise of Birth Control & the Decline of Civilization”? I think it cited Unwin’s study at one point. It also gives a reason for a collapse.
I’m guessing you’d have to read up on Unwin’s study to answer those questions.