How the sexual toxicity of the 1960s has harmed the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There were positives that came from the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Do you know how many women in the 50s were sexually assaulted/raped and thought of themselves as damaged goods because of the stigma against premarital sex?

My mom was sexually abused in the 50s and she just told me about it like a few months ago.

Can we have a thread about how harmful the attitudes toward sex and women used to be a long time ago too? Because the tendency on this forum is to assume that everything then was hunky dory. It wasn’t. Women had it pretty bad then too.
 
I know. But that’s not the point. Marketing sexual deviancy was the whole point in the late 1960s. Humanae Vitae is shot down in 1968 by dissidents inside the Church. Catholic theologians, going beyond their authority, took out a full page ad in the New York Times to ‘correct’ the Pope and confuse the faithful. Shortly after, in the 1970s, seminarians were told the Church would soften or change its teaching about contraception. It never did but the damage was done. When approached by parishioners, they gave the wrong answer: it was a personal conscience decision.

Everyone was always free to do what they wanted. But persons unknown opened Adult Bookstores in the 1970s to solidify the message and to increase temptations.
 
Do you seriously think that pornography didn’t exist until the 70s?
 
I can provide a complete list regarding the gradual increase in the amount and type of degenerate pornography going back to the 1940s. The ‘new’ message is that people who like 1940s era porn should feel free to “enjoy” it. It somehow went from dirty to OK. A wrong message.

The graphic pornography that was heavily marketed starting in the 1970s was rare and very well hidden in the past.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
I know. But that’s not the point. Marketing sexual deviancy was the whole point in the late 1960s. Humanae Vitae is shot down in 1968 by dissidents inside the Church. Catholic theologians, going beyond their authority, took out a full page ad in the New York Times to ‘correct’ the Pope and confuse the faithful. Shortly after, in the 1970s, seminarians were told the Church would soften or change its teaching about contraception. It never did but the damage was done. When approached by parishioners, they gave the wrong answer: it was a personal conscience decision.

Everyone was always free to do what they wanted. But persons unknown opened Adult Bookstores in the 1970s to solidify the message and to increase temptations.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the First Amendment and a Free Society. Sucks doesn’t it. So much better when people could be charged with sodomy for not having sex in the “proper” fashion. We need to bring that back, along with deeming homosexuals mentally ill and committing them, just like the good old days before the deviants took over the DSM. We can ban divorce, get women back in the kitchen where they belong, and not permit deviant feminists from telling women that they have a right to choose their own path.

Back to the 1950s, when a white man could walk into his country club and the only black man he’d see was the one serving him drinks! When gay men could be harassed by police, when lesbians were thrown in insane asylums, where “marital debt” meant spousal rape was a-okay, where girls were taught their place was in the kitchen waiting for their husband to come home.

Yeah, all them hippies and deviants, they sure did wreck society.
 
They did but you deflect and tell people your version of history. In 1955, Martin Luther King, Jr. began the Civil Rights Movement. He did not need anyone’s permission. He used non-violence. And it worked. Catholics and other Christians supported him.
 
I’m not deflecting. You act as if the 1950s was some wonderous age and all that is wrong in the world began in the 1960s. In saying the 60s were no worse than the 50s
 
edwest211 said:
I am here to present factual information. To correct distortions and bias attached to comments made here. The Pentagon needed good data on new and improved weapon systems. The best way to get it was under actual combat conditions. As I wrote, the enemy had no B-52 bombers or aircraft carriers. A number of raids by B-52s devastated entire areas. The cost in enemy lives was high. American troop levels peaked in 1968 at 536,100. By 1973, it was down to 50. The number of South Vietnamese troops increased as American troop levels decreased.
Click to expand...
To repeat. Once again. You said that the US went to war in Vietnam to prevent the domino effect. To repeat. Once again. How did the dominoes fall after you lost? A win, you say, would have prevented it. Yet you lost and it still didn’t happen.

Now you have the temerity to say that the US sent 50,000 of it’s sons to die in a foreign land because they ‘needed good data on new and improved weapon systems’.

Is that why millions were killed? To test weapons?

And again, your complaints are about women not being kept in kitchens. And pornography. Not the countless deaths. What world do you live in, Ed?
 
Last edited:
The 1960s (starting in 1965) were a lot worse and I have factual information to back that up. Along with Woodstock for the public, there is the founding of NARAL in 1969 to promote abortion. They lied.
 
Ed, Himanae Vitae wasnt ‘shot down by dissidents’. It was fiercely opposed - in principle, well before it’s promulgation and well before it became official teaching - by a huge percentage, if not a majority, of both laity and clergy.

Not to say Paul VI was wrong, he wasn’t.

But it was the epitome of ‘hard teaching’ that many have had serious struggles with ever since. Not just the ones who want consequence-free sex, for fun, but ones with real physical and financial crosses to bear that make abiding by Church teaching incredibly difficult.
 
Last edited:
Nice try, with the usual caveats at the end. Read some history. The top brass were considering dropping a nuclear bomb on the Ho Chi Minh Trail. They didn’t for cold, practical reasons. The decision was based on an assessment that the flow of supplies would be delayed by 3 or 4 weeks, and the negative repercussions from our Allies that would result were also taken into account. The North was receiving supplies from Russia and China, another consideration.
 
Last edited:
You’ll have to back that up. I have a paperback that was written for the laity to explain Humanae Vitae. It was shot down by people who thought they knew better than the Pope. All they wanted was to see deviant sexual activity get the Church’s stamp of approval. When it went the ‘wrong way,’ they were waiting to denounce it.
 
edwest211 said:
Nice try, with the usual caveats at the end. Read some history. The top brass were considered dropping a nuclear bomb on the Ho Chi Minh Trail. They didn’t for cold, practical reasons. The decision was based on an assessment that the flow of supplies would be delayed by 3 or 4 weeks, and the negative repercussions from our Allies were also taken into account. The North was receiving supplies from Russia and China, another consideration.
Click to expand...
This is unfeeling. There is no compassion being exhibited here. Just a chance for you to exhibit some facts and figures.

How about the fact of 1.3 million deaths? And still you ignore the main reason you said you went into the war - to prevent communism happening. Which didn’t happen after you lost.

Now you keep doubling down on this new claim that it was all a chance to work out how best to reduce countries to rubble.

Tell me, Ed. Have you ever been outside the US?
 
edwest211 said:
The 1960s (starting in 1965) were a lot worse and I have factual information to back that up. Along with Woodstock for the public, there is the founding of NARAL in 1969 to promote abortion. They lied.
Click to expand...
A lot worse because kids went to an outdoor concert? As to abortion, well, even then, not as many Americans were opposed as you seem to want to infer. You also are essentially inferring that everyone out there is a pack of idiots who just follow trends, and that no one who takes a position opposed to your own views could have been thoughtful. Basically it’s Ed’s way or the highway. Your idea of a free society seems largely to be “free to agree with me, or you’re a pervert”.
 
Do you think that, while the Church has the power to define the dogma and discipline of the Catholic Church, Humanae Vitae was a case of the Church delving too far into people’s personal private married lives?
 
I saw and heard the radicals. “Don’t trust anyone over 30!” “Go nekkid.” “Be animalistic. Go all the way.”

Woodstock was not designed with kids in mind. Photos and quotes from the concert are proof that it was all about promoting dope, Eastern mysticism and ‘free love.’

About abortion. Here’s a quote from Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL, 1969.

“I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions. This legitimizes my credentials to speak to you with some authority on the issue. I was one of the founders of the National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws in the U.S. in 1968. A truthful poll of opinion then would have found that most Americans were against permissive abortion. Yet within five years we had convinced the Supreme Court to issue the decision which legalized abortion throughout America in 1973 and produced virtual abortion on demand up to birth.”

Source: An Ex-Abortionist speaks

I’d appreciate you not putting words in my mouth.
 
Last edited:
Ed, look.up the Wkipedia entry on HV. John XXIII formed a consultative committee on the issue of contraception, inclusing laity, theologians and clergy. The final report was delivered to Paul VI.

64 of the committee members were in support of allowing contraception in at least some circumstances. A grand whopping total of 4 - out of 68 - were of the view that there should be a total ban on contraception. These were people hand picked to guide the Popes, who were not known for radicalism.
 
Then why did Pope Paul VI go the ‘wrong’ way? He decided to reaffirm the Church’s constant teaching about contraception. In 1967, he had to deal with people in the Church who wanted a change to priestly celibacy.
 
Because the advisors were probably well intentioned but wrong. Not radical dissidents determined to bring the Church down from within by any means. But perhaps overly swayed by the significant practical impacts that they foresaw a ban on contraception would have. And you only need to read stories from posters here about the problems they face to see that it is a genuine struggle for many.
 
Last edited:
Really? You sum.up the whole of 60s America with Woodstock? That is a bit like treating the TV show ER as a real life documentary about the workings of a hospital. Woodstock sticks.in the memory precisely because it was so OUT of the norm. The norm was people like my parents- working marrying raising kids and living relatively unexceptional lives. Certainly not.buying into drugs, free love or the other more nonsensical fringe elements of the counter-culture.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top