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

[o_mlly]

I didn’t get there.

It appears you did. I never expected, “Well, by gosh, o_mlly, you are right!” but this quote is good enough for me for now:

… it is such a final act to take one’s life, one should err on the cautious side.

I didn’t get to a position where that which I was arguing could be remotely classed as objective morality.

You used the word “should”. “Should” refers to a moral obligation. Was your claim also objective?

An objective morality can also be a personal morality. Some would argue that should always be the case. As I agree with your personal morality, your conclusion is an objective proscription as far as we are concerned. You’d have to find someone who disagreed with you and offered persuasive contrary arguments in order that your outstanding insight could be cast back into the realm of personal opinion.

And you can’t get to a position whereby you can claim objective morality without God, because without God, it doesn’t exist. As we have seen.

We’ve seen just the opposite. We got to an objective moral prosription based on reason, not faith. As you wrote:

… That is a reasonable argument.

Gotta go. Got a bad case of nut grass in the yard. Amazon just delivered the lethal chemicals and I’m going to euthanize those darn weeds.

 

[Bradskii]

An objective morality can also be a personal morality. Some would argue that should always be the case.

My morality is my personal opinion on what is right or wrong. You seem confused as to the meaning of ‘objective’.

 

[o_mlly]

My morality is my personal opinion on what is right or wrong. You seem confused as to the meaning of ‘objective’.

I don’t think I am the one confused on the meaning of “objective”.

I recall you are a fan of the “golden rule”. I commented the rule on its own was vacuous. But now that you have a “personal morality” proscription you should apply the golden rule. The rule obligates you to consider your rule as a universal rule, that is objectively applicable to everyone. See Kant’s Categorical Imperative.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

My morality is my personal opinion on what is right or wrong. You seem confused as to the meaning of ‘objective’.

I don’t think I am the one confused on the meaning of “objective”.

I recall you are a fan of the “golden rule”. I commented the rule on its own was vacuous. But now that you have a “personal morality” proscription you should apply the golden rule. The rule obligates you to consider your rule as a universal rule, that is objectively applicable to everyone. See Kant’s Categorical Imperative.

How on earth can you describe a personal opinion on a moral matter as being objective? When the very meaning of objective is that which is not dictated by personal feelings.

And I have no idea what is meant by the golden rule ‘on it’s own’. It is only to be considered ‘on it’s own’ merits. ‘Do unto others…’ as someone once said. Vacuous? Good grief.

And it means that you should treat others as you would wish to be treated. And vica versa. But my wants and desires and moral opinions are not imperatives. They can not, and should not, be made compulsory for everyone else.

If I would like the option to end my own life (under certain conditions) then I am obliged to allow anyone else the same option. If they so wish. There is nothing imperative about it. I don’t expect you to agree and I definitely wouldn’t want it to be a universal law which would oblige you to accept my opinion.

I hope that you are not on the verge of claiming that because I believe that morality stems from one’s personal opinions on any given matter, then that should hold for everyone and it then becomes absolute. Which would be abject nonsense.

 

[o_mlly]

How on earth can you describe a personal opinion on a moral matter as being objective? When the very meaning of objective is that which is not dictated by personal feelings.

Any idea which coincides with truth is objectively true.

And I have no idea what is meant by the golden rule ‘on it’s own’. It is only to be considered ‘on it’s own’ merits. ‘Do unto others…’ as someone once said. Vacuous? Good grief.

And it means that you should treat others as you would wish to be treated. And vica versa. But my wants and desires and moral opinions are not imperatives. They can not, and should not, be made compulsory for everyone else.

Only those opinions you have which are true are compulsory for others. The golden rule is a merely a process rule used to validate the objective truth of any moral claim. Once a claim is made, the rule can be employed to test it validity. “Do [insert your claim here] others as you would have them do [insert identical claim here] you.” One who claims that others of the same status have moral duties that they do not and that others of the same status do not have rights that one’s self has is irrational.

I hope that you are not on the verge of claiming that because I believe that morality stems from one’s personal opinions on any given matter, then that should hold for everyone and it then becomes absolute. Which would be abject nonsense.

In that world of no norms, there are no sociopaths or psychopaths only criminals. That is nonsense.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

How on earth can you describe a personal opinion on a moral matter as being objective? When the very meaning of objective is that which is not dictated by personal feelings.

Any idea which coincides with truth is objectively true.

Facts are objectively true. Ideas are not.

And I think that signals the end of the discussion.

 

[o_mlly]

Facts are objectively true. Ideas are not.

And I think that signals the end of the discussion.

I don’t see how your claim about facts and ideas fits into the exchange but …

Facts and ideas are not separate domains.
Facts are a subset of ideas.
All ideas that possess the property of truth are facts.

I have an idea that you’d like to end the exchange. If you do not reply, my idea will be true and we may then call it a fact. But it still remains my idea.

 

[Bradskii]

We’re done. Take from the exchange what you will. And keep practicing that F chord. It does become easier.

 

[o_mlly]

We’re done. Take from the exchange what you will.

The 1960’s will be remembered as the decade that moved Western Civilization into its decadent stage. The period in which advocates of hedonism prevailed over those who practiced the virtues of temperance and justice. Unnatural acts somehow became normalized. Duties to self and others became marginalized and “my” rights emphasized. The erroneous right to take one’s own life metastasized to become the right to take my child’s life. Any act that increases pleasure is permitted and any life that limits access to that pleasure is expendable. What constrains the actions of such a mindset? Nothing.

Now we’re done.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

I am not as concerned about “how the sexual toxicity of the 1960s has harmed the Church” as much as I am about the lack of civility and demonization of others has gotten to be such a big thing in the Church and in the country as a whole.
At a time that we need more love and understanding, we have politicians who try to divide us in an effort to conquer us.
We will never agree on all issues of the times, but we can all agree to disagree without being disagreeable.
May prayers go out to everyone who struggles to deal with those whom they do not understand and/or like in this world.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

Please forgive me if my post distressed anyone or harmed their own, I wanted to see answers but not hinder anyone (at least intentionally but I know posting negative posts can be toxic and dangerous to others).

@JimG and @commenter as well as others if you don’t mind me asking, do you have much hope for the Church despite long-run demographic trende (love to her your reassurances); and if so, what of the fate of the millions and masses who got swept up by social and societal phenomena that was out of their control? Not everyone is fortunate to have a wonderful parish, wonderful friends and family to guide them along the right path, thus doesn’t it seem understandable why so many have ended up turning away. I bet many if not most are good and kind and wonderful people but it seems like they never had the chance like maybe the Church wasn’t able to reach out to them or the human dimensional failed?

What is to be their fate; how can someone be at fault if their own experiences determined who they are? I know this topic warrants a thread of its own but how would you respond to those who believe that one’s experiences will determine their fate like a form of predestination because it seems like if looking through human eyes, some people never had a chance; how would you respond to that?

 

[edwest211]

I am in total agreement. A great deal of evidence backs this up. That is precisely what happened. When each individual becomes god then the best thing that can happen is tribalism. That is, loose-knit groups of like-minded individuals. But that is not even a good result. It is sub-optimal. Optimal is something that was destroyed but that I lived through. Communities made up of people with shared values living out shared truths.

Laying waste to such communities was the goal. Replacing good, functional families with bad, dysfunctional families, to end with no families. Single women raising their children and accepting false and deadly propaganda. I heard, “I don’t need a man in my life.” as if that was good. Your child, which required that man, does need him.

Fortunately, God is waiting to remove the poison and heal those who were led astray.

 

[JimG]

Of course I have hope that the Church will endure. As for the long term demographics, consider the really long term.

God established a covenant with his people in the Old Testament, which is a story of God’s interaction with humanity from Adam and Eve to Melchizedek, from Abraham and the Patriarchs to the Israel of Jesus’ time, when he sent his only begotten Son to fulfill the covenant and expand it to embrace all peoples, perpetuating the one salvific sacrifice by means of the Eucharist.

People do not choose what era of history they grow up in. They are responsible only for their own actions, not their circumstances. Considering the new resources available today, such as Catholic Answers itself, EWTN, Catholic radio, and many lay apologists, yes, I am hopeful.

 

[edwest211]

Jesus Christ protects His Bride. I have heard Church officials who are very aware of what is going on. They are very aware of time-frames. The Church, they said, looks ahead by decades, even a century. One also said, “Too many Catholics are living like pagans.” I have seen no evidence that Catholics are happier when they live that way.

 

[Michael_Anthony]

But before the Sexual revolution of the 60s people ordinarily married no later than 24, and often around 18 without the current toxicity, if anything marrying later (especially the new 26/27 standard) is a product of the 60s not the solution.

 

[edwest211]

Well said. Total strangers distracted some, and not for the better.

 

[JimG]

Yes, nothing wrong with marrying before the age of 24. But to avoid poverty, don’t have sex before marriage.

 

[commenter]

f you don’t mind me asking, do you have much hope for the Church despite long-run demographic trende (love to her your reassurances); and if so, what of the fate of the millions and masses who got swept up by social and societal phenomena that was out of their control?

The Church itself is protected by God. The problem is fewer people will benefit from this particular means. God can of course use Protestant churches, for instance. But they don’t have the same protection for their teaching the Catholic Church does.

I agree with Pope Emeritus’ prediction the Catholic Church will be (immediately) smaller but (eventually) stronger because it will include only the genuine.

I try hard not to focus on the larger picture because that pulls my attention away from my own actions (prayer, works of Mercy, evangelism).

Fortunately the Church’s enemies underestimate the power of the supernatural. If they did, they would try to close down adoration chapels, and similar means God ministers to us, and we intercede to change human events far more than we realize.

 

[edwest211]

Well said. Church officials know the Church in the West will be smaller, followed by an increase. The supernatural is foolishness to some.