Morality and the world

[serviichristii]

I share the opinions of the older generations of Catholics who see the world for what it really is; an increasingly secular and despicable world that only looks to God in times of desparation (Him or drugs).

I am very fortunate to be an active member in a Parish community that has maintained the reverence of old in the Mass, prioritized apostolic and evangelical duty, pushed for regular and weekly confession, and even started our own monthly all night adoration to go with weekly adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.

it’s gotten to the point where i dread Mondays not because of university, but because i have to leave behind such a community for another week. Not all parishes are are traditional, but my friends and I model ourselves on the people of old that my priest so fondly describes.

Thankyou so much to the older generations for providing the hard-nosed Catholic environment in which the strong willed priests of today continue to emulate.

 

[sw85]

If you go on percentages based on the world population then? Homesexual acts have been around from the Fall, just better hidden at times.

I was not referring there to proportions but rather to the legal impetus attached to homosexual behavior. I am not aware of any society anywhere that has ever practiced gay “marriage” on a large scale. Nero and Elegabalus, who were legendarily degenerate Roman emperors, were practicing homosexuals who “married” other men, but even they did not presume to elevate their homosexual flings to the level of a normative legal arrangement. Which means that, in our present succumbing to gay “marriage,” we are actually worse than the Roman Empire at its worst with respect to the sin of scandal.

So you support segregation of the races? Do you think the different races should have their own churches too?

If by “segregation of the races” you mean the traditional arrangement in Jim Crow America, no, I don’t. That arrangement was abhorrent for a lot of reasons, the worst of which is that it denied blacks the opportunity to form, defend, and live according to coherent subcultures (which is something they are entitled to do). Where they were able to do this they tended to produce sound and vibrant subcultures which gave us a lot of benefits.

I recognize the fact that some form of segregation is the normative arrangement. Generally it’s voluntary: people elect to live with people who look like them, act like them, believe what they believe, etc. Where something like diversity exists, we tend to wind up with ghetto-style segregation. This is a far superior arrangement to the Jim Crow nonsense because it allows people to live in pockets of, basically, home – to have the opportunity to build up a culture for themselves, to organize their society to their liking, etc. What we have today is actually the opposite of a ghetto arrangement, and it’s destroying culture. You wind up with what’s called microdiversity and macroconformity, or large within-groups variance and small between-groups variance. For instance, although there is tremendous diversity within a mall (all kinds of races, ethnicities, and religions represented in restaurants, clothing stores, etc.), every mall winds up looking exactly like every other mall.

If some form of (usually voluntary) segregation occurs naturally, it must be because it accords with some need of the human spirit. Therefore it should be respected. We should not try constantly to smash it with society-destroying multiculturalism/diversity programs.

Review your history. Minus the rose-tinted glasses please. The Romans (or any ancient conquering power for that matter) were ruthless when it came to expanding territory and maintaining power. Atheism pre-dates their empire all the way to the time of the Greeks. Infanticide was quite rampant considering that villages were often razed because of war and conquest. You also have the likes of the the Pharaoh from Exodus and King Herod.

OK, so, as I said, we are perhaps slightly better than the ancient world at its worst, which has going for it the fact that it was (a) pretty sparsely populated by comparison and (b) much worse off materially and politically. What’s our excuse?

Only if you were a white man.

Their condition was improving prior to the CRM so clearly that didn’t have much to do with it.

 

[severus68]

I was not referring there to proportions but rather to the legal impetus attached to homosexual behavior. I am not aware of any society anywhere that has ever practiced gay “marriage” on a large scale. Nero and Elegabalus, who were legendarily degenerate Roman emperors, were practicing homosexuals who “married” other men, but even they did not presume to elevate their homosexual flings to the level of a normative legal arrangement. Which means that, in our present succumbing to gay “marriage,” we are actually worse than the Roman Empire at its worst with respect to the sin of scandal.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

OK, so, as I said, we are perhaps slightly better than the ancient world at its worst, which has going for it the fact that it was (a) pretty sparsely populated by comparison and (b) much worse off materially and politically. What’s our excuse?

Excuse? There’s no excuse for immorality am I right? (Much less when the reason is as dubious and unrelated as population and technology.) The fact remains, it doesn’t matter what period we are. There’s problems if you know where to look (and trust me, I’ve been decried by a lot of people for being an expert of that ).

I for one though take comfort living in a time where my subdivision isn’t in any danger of a barbarian/bandit raid or an invading army.

Their condition was improving prior to the CRM so clearly that didn’t have much to do with it.

No improvement is enough to excuse rampant racism. You should be ashamed to insist on otherwise.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

As an old man or senior, I believe the world is going from bad to worse or much worse. A look at our politics, entertainment, civil laws and even some religious seems to confirm this more and more. As such, I believe the world is seperating itself more and more from traditional Christian beliefs and values. Is this one man’s opinion the general consenus or not?

This debate is so tired, my friend.

I believe it was Plato who was the first to reach such a conclusion in recorded Western history. Someone correct me if I’m thinking of someone else. Point being, people have been saying this stuff since like… forever…

From an American point of view - by law, blacks, native Americans, women, etc. are no longer treated as second class citizens. No more lynchings cause Bubba looked too long at Jimmy Bob’s daughter. “Massa” cannot have his slaves whipped, since he has no slaves to speak of. People are entitled, by law, to equal opportunity employment. Teen motherhood in the States is the lowest its been since the 1940’s (believe it or not!).

From a global perspective: terrorism exists, there are certainly wars to speak of all around the globe, wars in countries that you’ve probably never even heard of - but nothing equivalent to that of WW2 or WW1. All of humanity isn’t on the verge of total annihilation as it was during the cold war. Kind of a big deal. Starvation and deprivation are tremendous problems, but still, they’re less problematic than they used to be. Entire continents are not being brutally colonized as they were in the Age of Exploration, thus leading to the massive oppression or even eradication of entire civilizations - to whatever extent that is going on now, it PALES in comparison.

On the other hand, yes, virtue is declining: young men need to pull their pants up.

All in all…

 

[Birdpreacher]

Not to rain on the parade but the world is actually getting safer, a human is less likely to die due to violence these days then any other time period in human history. The world will be fine and life is beautiful now pep up!

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

And when streets were safer, families were intact, people made more money, etc. I know racial discrimination is one of the few things leftists allow to be recognized as sins but surely you can’t possibly think the trade-off has been worthwhile, even from a consequentialist standpoint.

I could see how racial segregation (and lynchings, and employment discrimination and unfair trials, etc.) isn’t a big deal to you, especially if you wouldn’t be among those being segregated, lynched, etc. But of course, human equality is purely a “leftist” concern, I’m sure it’s not equally important to the Church right?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

They should’ve been asked to form ethnic ghettos of their own, wherein they could order their social structure however they pleased and behaved accordingly, rather than live in and among whites but with fewer privileges. I really fail to see segregation as an evil qua evil, because it isn’t one. It’s everywhere among us, even now, in our nominally integrated, society. People just prefer to be with their own, and all our efforts to force them to live with and among one another are failing, and failing violently. So clearly this loyalty to particular groups and ties corresponds to a real and permanent need of the human spirit.

I don’t know about you, but “my own” is the human race. It was “Christ’s own” too.

 

[severus68]

I don’t know about you, but “my own” is the human race. It was “Christ’s own” too.

 

[severus68]

Excuse? There’s no excuse for immorality am I right? (Much less when the reason is as dubious and unrelated as population and technology.) The fact remains, it doesn’t matter what period we are. There’s problems if you know where to look (and trust me, I’ve been decried by a lot of people for being an expert of that ).

I for one though take comfort living in a time where my subdivision isn’t in any danger of a barbarian/bandit raid or an invading army.

No improvement is enough to excuse rampant racism. You should be ashamed to insist on otherwise.

 

[serviichristii]

Not to rain on the parade but the world is actually getting safer, a human is less likely to die due to violence these days then any other time period in human history. The world will be fine and life is beautiful now pep up!

so your definition of morality is violent killings?
what about the silent voices of the unborn?
what about those that were unborn not because of deliberate abortion, but by use the morning after pill which contains within it an inherently abortive effect?
this of course all stems from lust, which in its nature is not violent at all. No, the world is not safe, and anyone who thinks so needs to realize that the majority of the world is anti-God. If thats not immoral, then you’ve redefined the word.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

this of course all stems from lust, which in its nature is not violent at all. No, the world is not safe, and anyone who thinks so needs to realize that the majority of the world is anti-God. If thats not immoral, then you’ve redefined the word.

Uh hello? This world’s been a mess since the Fall. Big news there.

 

[serviichristii]

Uh hello? This world’s been a mess since the Fall. Big news there.

of course!
but to say that the world is a safer place just because theres a higher life expectancy etc is foolish!
also, just because the world will never stopbeing a mess, that doesn’t mean i cant bring to other peoples’ attention the issues that we are facing today!

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

of course!
but to say that the world is a safer place just because theres a higher life expectancy etc is foolish!
also, just because the world will never stopbeing a mess, that doesn’t mean i cant bring to other peoples’ attention the issues that we are facing today!

Actually he still has a point. Infanticide was just as rampant then as it is now. The only difference is, you get less violence in our century.

In the past, infanticide were the result of:

1. Wars
2. Famine
3. Bad medical conditions

All of which, in turn, were still the result of man’s evil one way or another (even evil under the guise of religion).

Frankly, any attempt to view any time period through rose-tinted glasses is the real folly.