U.S. Catholicism: Decline and Fall

[gentle_atheist]

I would advise people to choose their words carefully. Secularism is not good. Secularity is very good. The Church defends and promotes seclarity. It’s secularism that is problematic, because it’s inconsistent with the Gospel.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I’ll bite. What’s the difference?

 

[reggieM]

I would advise people to choose their words carefully. Secularism is not good. Secularity is very good. The Church defends and promotes seclarity. It’s secularism that is problematic, because it’s inconsistent with the Gospel.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

We can’t forget Secular Franciscans either.
… be in the world but not of the world …

 

[JReducation]

I’ll bite. What’s the difference?

Canonically, secular is any person who is not consecrated. Lay people are seculars. Diocesan priests and diocesan deacons are also secular men. Members of certain orders are also secular.

Consecrated are those who make vows as religious: brothers, sisters and nuns. Sometimes you will have priests who also join religious orders. They make vows. They cease to be seculars and are henceforth consecrated brothers, even though they are ordained. Many religious communities admit priests among their ranks, provided that there are not given any special privileges or rights because they are ordained.

Secularity is that which is proper for the person who is not consecrated, even if he is a priest or a deacon. This person has rights and duties in the secular world that the consecrated do not have. For example, a secular man or woman, whether he is a priest or not, belongs to a diocese. He has the right to own property, make money, determine his own life, participate in the affairs of the secular world. He also has the right to have opinions of his own. He determines how he or she will live the Gospel according to his state in life: ordained, married or single. He has a mission to make Christ present in the secular sphere. That may be at work, in his community, among his family and friends. Unless he has made a promise of celibacy, he has the right to marry and have children. With this comes the duty to raise a Christian family. He also has a moral duty to influence government and business according to the laws of the Church. This is the biggest difference between secularity and secularism.

Secularity, means that because a Christian is a secular man he has a moral duty to influence the political enviornment to bring it into compliance with the teachings of the Church. For example, we have elections coming up. Secular Catholics, including secular priests and deacons, have a moral duty to vote according to the mind of the Church, not the mind of the state or the national constitution. To vote according to the mind of the state or the national constitution is secularism, because it places the secular vision of the world and of government over the vision of the Church and the Gospel. In the USA we have many people who believe that they must support certain government decisions and policies, because we have separation of Church and state or because not every American is Catholic. This is secularism. This is in conflict with Cathoicism. The national philosophy never trumps the teachings of the Church, even if those teachings are not ex-Cathedra. Because they come from the authority of the Church, they must always precede the state and must govern the choices made by the secular man and woman.

The consecrated person, is not a secular person. Therefore, he or she does not participate in the affairs of the secular world, unless he is ordered to do so by the Church or by his religious community. Like the secular Catholic, when he or she does participate in an election (for example), he must represent the mind of the Church and safeguard the moral order according to the teachings of the Church and of the founder of his or her religiuos community.

Another difference is in the area of personal decision making, personal opinions, wishes, desires, hopes and plans. The consecrated peson forfeits these rights. He surrenders them when he makes his or her vow of poverty. He or she no longer owns his own will. Therefore, he obeys, even when authority is wrong. He has a moral obligation to obey under penalty of grave sin, which can lead to excommunication and dismissal, not always. He may only disobey if he is commanded to do something that has been defined as a sin. It cannot be something that he or she believes is a sin. What he or she believes is irrelevant. Those of us who are consecrated religious, do not enjoy the freedom of secularity. Therefore, we do not enjoy the freedom to act according to our opinions, wishes or personal goals. We do not aspire to own anything, to get ahead in society, to have families (we already have a family, our religious family), we do not even belong to a diocese. We are homeless. When we make vows, we give up our rights as members of the diocese in which we were baptized or in which we live. It’s called excardination.

Both the secular and the consecrated have a duty to avoid secularism or better said, we have the moral duty to avoid any way of thinking, acting, choosing, speaking, working or living that would exclude God and the teachings of the Catholic Church. But as I said above, the secular has the moral duty to work in society to bring society into conformity with the Church, not the Church into conformity with society. The Church chooses where and when she will conform to society, the faithful do not do that for her.

 

[JReducation]

Being as this is an election year, ths is a perfect time to think about seculariy. This is an opportunity for all secular Catholics to use their power, money, influence, and their vote to drive the civil society toward conformity with the teachings of the Church by voting according to the teachings of the Church. Whether or not we live in a nation that claims separation of Church and state is not relevant. Whatever the state says about itself becomes irrelevant when it conflicts with the Church. The opinion of the secular state is only valid, if it is shared by the Catholic Church. There are instances where the Church and state may agree. There are instances where the state oversteps its moral boundaries. To allow it to do so without impunity is secularism. To use the power that one has, be it financial, political or other, to driv society to fulfill the moral law and the Gospel is secularity. One is using one’s rights as a secular man for the right purpose. In other words, one in using one’s freedom as a means to an end, not as an end in itself.

When freedom becomese an end in itself, that’s secularism, not secularity. Seculaity uses freedom, it does not hold freedom as its goal in life. That which has been given as a means to holiness always remains a means. It can never become the god that man seeks.

Such gifts as freedom, sex, money, power, knowledge, property are means to holiness and to the creation of a holy society. They are not ends to be desired for their own sake. They are good only when used according to the teachings of the Church. Otherwise, they are moral goods that are abused or used for the wrong reason.

Again, secularity is the proper use of secular means to create a society where God and Church are central. Secularism is the incorrect use of secular means to create a society that exists to satisfy itself, rather than God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

JR, our pastor mentioned at the homily that there is a movement in Poland to declare Christ as the King of the country. Who knows, this may actually happen. It’s certainly not impossible in a highly Catholic country such as Poland.

What do you think the chances are for doing the same in the U.S.?

 

[JReducation]

JR, our pastor mentioned at the homily that there is a movement in Poland to declare Christ as the King of the country. Who knows, this may actually happen. It’s certainly not impossible in a highly Catholic country such as Poland.

What do you think the chances are for doing the same in the U.S.?

The last count that I heard, Catholics make up about 25% of the population in the USA. That’s just Romans. The census bureau would not know any other kind of Catholic if he came up and punched them in the nose. I bet with all the Catholics together and the Orthodox, the Apostolic Christians make up a much larger percentage of the US population.

I don’t know about making Christ the King the head of the nation or the patron of the nation. But I do know this. We have enough Catholics and Orthodox in the USA to form an independent nation within a nation. I have lived in countries that have three or four million people. Sixty-nine million Roman Catholics alone, add to that the Oriental Catholics and the Orthodox Christians and you have a significant population. These numbers have been confirmed by several independent sources. You can Google them.

If 69 million+ united against a government that

1. 
   *]is set on promoting a culture of death,
   
   *]wants to take the name of God out of our Declaration of Independence and out of our Constitution,
   
   *]wants to turn healthcare into a single payer system that will determine who lives and who dies, who is born and who is aborted,
   
   *]wants to use the death penalty indiscriminately when the real problem is a judicial system that is broken,
   
   *]claims to provide healthcare for the poor, but does not really do so,
   
   *]just frozen the cost of living increase on senior citizens and disabled citizens whose only source of income is Social Security (money which rightfully belongs to them),
   
   *]finances Planned Parenthood, but refuses to finance pro-life pregnancy centers,
   
   *]wastes the taxpayer’s money and gives little in return to the working man,
   
   *]fails to provide jobs for the unemployed, but gives financial assistance to companies that outsource jobs to other countries,
   
   *]considers pornography freedom of speech, but outlaws praying in schools and bans the presence of the Ten Commandments in courthouses,
   
   *]prosecutes priests who are sex offenders and covers up men who have impregnated girls who are minors, so they can get an abortion without having to testify in court,
   
   *] has done very little for the victims of AIDS, but promotes promiscuity in every public school,
   
   *]considers food and water medical care that can be withdrawn from the sick to accelerate their death,
   
   *]that doesn’t cover it all, but that’s enough for one paragraph . . .
   
   *]gives millions of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions and contraception in other countries, while the unemployed cannot apply for state Medicaid for food stamps if they get a lousy $300.00 a week to support a family
   
   *]show no respect for religious freedom when it profiles Muslims as terrorists and pro-lifers as radicals
   
   *]has no desire to help the poor when it refuses them visas to immigrate to the USA to improve their quality of life, but grants visas to wealthy foreigners who are known to have made their money at the expense of the poor in their homeland
   
   if 69 million united against such a government by voting according to the moral law, then Jesus would truly be King. If not, then we can honestly say that there is no such thing as Christendom in the USA. These are not all of the moral problems that we have, but it’s a good list to begin with. It is the moral duty of the secular man and woman to be aware of and to challenge these evils. As St. James said, you must show your faith and your works. One without the other is death faith. Prayer is good. Prayer and good works is the Christian ideal.
   
   Fraternally,
   
   Br. JR, OSF

 

[tpw]

Perhaps one of the most thoughtful pieces of work circulating on the issue of secularity (thanks for the corrective) is a collection of reflections and essays entitled “Secularity and the Gospel” 2006, Ronald Rolheiser, ed. Based on a series of conferences sponsored by Rolheiser’s community - Order of Mary Immaculate - between 2002 and 2005 in the US and Canada the book is one of the best I’ve seen to date which explores both the positives and negatives of secularity from a Catholic perspective.

The presenters were able to call ALL sides in the church to task re: their attitudes towards secularity…liberals for embracing it uncritically…conservatives for seeing it only as evil and fleeing from it. They also hold up blind spots both liberals and conservatives have re: secularity and the gospel.

This work could be one of those which helps us move beyond the deep divisions which certainly exist in the U.S. in the church itself provided all sides are willing to look at their positions critically and thoughtfully.

 

[tpw]

All Catholics should know that none of the changes in the Church were suggested, much less authorized by Vatican II:

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

A coordinated attack against the Church began in the late 1960s. In 1967, undewr the banner of academic “freedom,” some Catholic universities decided to cut their ties with Church hierarchy:

catholichistory.net/Events/LandOLakesStatement.htm

But the “freedom” parade was not over yet. The biggest assault was against Humanae Vitae which was issued in 1968. Pope Paul VI warned Catholics about what would happen if they used The Pill and other forms of artificial contraception. The Pill, although approved for use by the FDA in 1960, did not enter widespread use until 1967. The Pope saw what was coming, including increased promiscuity. The answer? Drown out the Pope.

Some Catholic theologians took out a full page ad in the New York Times denouncing Humanae Vitae. Some priests were convinced to sign a letter against it. Then they sent in the Hippies who moved in with their girlfriends and had sex with them. Marriage was a useless piece of paper to them and the Church was also useles. Have sex. Smoke dope.

That is what brought the Church, and many Catholics, to where we are today. Throw in Abortion and No-Fault Divorce and suddenly, you’ve got some reasons to avoid going to Church ever again.

Catholic Americans went from functional, observant Catholics to Catholics who decided to experiment with “alternative lifestyles.” Hey, your husband’s a pain? Divorce him. Unwanted pregnancy? Get rid of it. Dope? Sure, why not?

Oh yeah. We went from a Catholic culture that shunned divorce, pornography and lewd behavior to one that is surrrounded by Adult Bookstores, Topless Bars and Strip Clubs. Turn on the TV and what do you get? Viagra ads? Chris Rock going on and on and on about explicit sex? Two and a Half Men? The list goes on. Once there were movies about love and romance, which turned into two people having sex and declaring each other a couple, to two people having "just sex,’ about as meaningful as going to the bathroom.

I was there before and after Vatican II, and I had no reason to be any less Catholic after. I think writers of such articles need to know what was happening in Catholic seminaries in the 1970s. Prospective priests were taught Humane Vitae but they were also told the Church would change its stance on artificial contraception one day. The result? When these men became priests, they told parishioners that birth control was a personal conscience issue. That is changing now.

Not eating meat on Friday a big deal? Give me a break. I still see signs in the windows of restaurants offering a Friday Fish Fry.

Wake up my fellow Catholics, perverts and sex maniacs have changed things - not us.

God bless,
Ed

 

[tpw]

How interesting Ed that you - rightly - address the growth of pornography but say nothing about the forces of advertising, technology and commerce that have encouraged its growth. Why is that?

Secondly, theologians and priests who opposed Humane Vitae did so out of the sole concern for married couples. No responsible theologian that I’ve read EVER disagreed with the possibilities for the increase of promiscuity,etc. Paul VI’s lay commission didn’t disagree with this either. The sole issue was the use of artificial birth control by married couples. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with this particular concern - that alone was the issue which sparked such contention. To claim more is to misrepresent the state of the debate at that time.

Finally, the discussion about secularity is incomplete without addressing the issue of modern communications. Although Vatican II included a document which discussed the role of mass communications it has taken a very long time for the church to actually find ways of addressing it’s more problematic sides.

Even now it would seem much work remains to be done. If only Catholic universities and colleges would offer courses and outreach to those in the varied fields of mass communication to discuss how religion in general is addressed much good might be accomplished. Left to themselves journalists who are usually trained in fields of the social sciences or perhaps the liberal arts (both in a state of chaos at the moment) can only view religion and life in general - through a purely secular lens.

And what is needed on the parish and elementary and high school levels are tools to help parishioners and young people critically examined the messages sent out by mass media through pop culture mediums or advertising. And I guarantee you that won’t sit pretty with many Catholics in the advertising or marketing industries…

 

[HCC]

Isn’t it time for the Church to grow beyond the Second Vatican Council? A mere pastoral council which, were told, re-affirmed the truths of our faith to a modern world. Ok, we get that, the effects of which have been devastating.

That was 50 years ago, the world is a very different place. Isn’t it time to respond to the needs of a post-cold war world? Yet, our bishops sit around patting themselves on their backs for a job well done-50 years ago.

If I buy a nice looking tote bag with the manufactures’ guarantee that it will not fall apart, yet a week later the handles are already ripping, a hole is developing in the bottom of the bag and my things are falling out, I realize, I bought the bait, silly me and it is time to get a new bag. It’s called logic.

 

[pnewton]

Isn’t it time for the Church to grow beyond the Second Vatican Council? A mere pastoral council which, were told, re-affirmed the truths of our faith to a modern world. Ok, we get that, the effects of which have been devastating…
If I buy a nice looking tote bag with the manufactures’ guarantee that it will not fall apart, yet a week later the handles are already ripping, a hole is developing in the bottom of the bag and my things are falling out, I realize, I bought the bait, silly me and it is time to get a new bag. It’s called logic.

Perhaps the Church does not share your dismal assessment of the situation. I know that I do not.

 

[edwest2]

How interesting Ed that you - rightly - address the growth of pornography but say nothing about the forces of advertising, technology and commerce that have encouraged its growth. Why is that?

Secondly, theologians and priests who opposed Humane Vitae did so out of the sole concern for married couples. No responsible theologian that I’ve read EVER disagreed with the possibilities for the increase of promiscuity,etc. Paul VI’s lay commission didn’t disagree with this either. The sole issue was the use of artificial birth control by married couples. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with this particular concern - that alone was the issue which sparked such contention. To claim more is to misrepresent the state of the debate at that time.

Finally, the discussion about secularity is incomplete without addressing the issue of modern communications. Although Vatican II included a document which discussed the role of mass communications it has taken a very long time for the church to actually find ways of addressing it’s more problematic sides.

Even now it would seem much work remains to be done. If only Catholic universities and colleges would offer courses and outreach to those in the varied fields of mass communication to discuss how religion in general is addressed much good might be accomplished. Left to themselves journalists who are usually trained in fields of the social sciences or perhaps the liberal arts (both in a state of chaos at the moment) can only view religion and life in general - through a purely secular lens.

And what is needed on the parish and elementary and high school levels are tools to help parishioners and young people critically examined the messages sent out by mass media through pop culture mediums or advertising. And I guarantee you that won’t sit pretty with many Catholics in the advertising or marketing industries…

I usually do not address things like advertising, technology and commerce because most people I mention these things to do not want to hear about it or express an interest in hearing about it. But since you do, here goes.

First, I know for a fact that certain dissidents within the Church wanted, at the time, a relaxation of the celibacy rule for priests and these dissidents wanted other changes within the Church. You mention responsible theologians but do not mention those who were irresponsible or actually against some things taught by the Church.

You should read The Creation of the Media by Pulitzer Prize winning authour Paul Starr. There you will see how and why the media became what it is today.

After World War II, some military men that were skilled in writing propaganda ended up in advertising. Some were former members of the Office of Strategic Services, which became the CIA.

Technically, journalists are meant to report the facts, without bias. In the middle of the 20th Century, there were many media outlets that were independtly owned. And there were laws in place that did not allow one entity to own more than a strict number of TV stations, radio stations, newspapers and magazines. The goal was to keep the media in the hands of many so that many voices gave us local and national news and their own perspective. This ensured that the news and American views were not filtered through one owner who had his own views and perspectives. By the 1990s, laws were changed. Today, only a handful of companies own most media, including parts of the internet.

In the 1950s and 1960s, television was a guest in our home. There was a Catholic Legion of Decency that had some influence over Hollywood and television Producers. It dated back to the 1930s when Hollywood film producers were encouraged to avoid portraying lewd material.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_29061936_vigilanti-cura_en.html

The Legion quietly disappeared in the early 1970s. It, like the rest of the Church, was the victim of a series of attacks by artists and filmmakers that demanded the “freedom” to present adult material in a serious manner. I remember their lofty speeches about presenting certain themes and images in a serious manner for discerning adults. Already, in 1968, a pivotal year for “freedom,” the movie Rosemary’s Baby portrays a Catholic woman made pregnant by the devil.

In the 1980s, cable television was introduced and I recall the hype for it. No commercials and more “choices.” They never mentioned porn. Satellite TV and satellite radio? I doubt there were any Catholics wishing for Howard Stern’s program. Then I drove past a motel offering porn on cable. I’m certain no Catholics called the motels demanding porn in their rooms. And late last year, we are told cable giant Comcast will buy a controlling interest (51%) in NBC, one of the original network stations.

Then we get the internet in the 1990s. We now enter the abyss. Church parking lots empty and mall parking lots fill up. I remember driving to one suburban mall and there were cars as far as the eye could see. On Church signs, I saw: “Ch_rch. The only thing missing is U.”

Yep. 24/7 non-stop porn and other * interesting * diversions from around the world. The world was made safe for sex perverts, sex addicts and sexual deviants. On a free thought site, I read how a man who practiced bestiality did not wat “to be persecuted or prosecuted.”

Journalism has been compromized by owners who wish to avoid producing bad press for owners, advertizers and causes they support. The Detroit News has published so much in support of ‘medical marijuana’ I wonder when they will be purchased by the owners of High Times magazine.

con’t

 

[edwest2]

Adult Bookstores did not sell graphic porn until a handful of judges and lawyers gave them the OK. There were obscenity laws that had to be overturned first and related laws that related to the depiction of explicit sex acts. No one woke up one day and just wished this into existence. Printers had to be found that would print this stuff without complaint. I spoke with a freight salesman who told me that skids of porn magazines were always shipped covered by heavy black plastic.

The same for Topless Bars and Strip Clubs. Catholics did not champion them either.

In 1964, comedian Lenny Bruce was convicted on obscenity chages. In 2003, a group of people, including Robin Williams and Margaret Cho, went to New York and helped convince the Mayor to issue a pardon for Lenny Bruce. What had changed? This pardon was the first of its kind for New York.

And now, after gradually getting Catholics used to the things they love over a 40 year period, Catholics wonder how we got from point A to point B. It wasn’t about ending the prohibition from eating meat on Friday.

So, in the 1970s, not only do they legalize porn and lewd perfomance, they legalize abortion, and based on what? A deception. Once again, it was more important to a small group to have their way about abortion than to present facts honestly. Changing the law was the objective - facts or no facts.

priestsforlife.org/lte/lte27.html

Catholics were too trusting. We were gradually led by the hand by liars and manipulators who only needed a few judges to legalize what they wanted. How about No-Fault Divorce? Great idea? And what about families torn apart? Grieving children? Lost and angry in-laws? Who cares? Prior to No-Fault, divorces were messy and complicated, No-Fault would “streamline” the process they told us and clear those court dockets. Now it’s not uncommon for me to meet people with two divorces or who are on marriage number 3.

And Hollywood produced movies where the guy goes to the bar to tell his friends he got divorced. Do his friends show sadness and offer their condolences for the break up of a lifelong committment? Heck no. They tell him it’s for the best and he’ll find “someone better.”

If you need more details or clarifications, I’d be glad to provide it.

God bless,
Ed

 

[NE_Catholic]

If you need more details or clarifications, I’d be glad to provide it.

God bless,
Ed

Ed,
I grew up after most of all this, in the '80’s. I can tell you that most people my age that I knew were “Catholic In Name Only” and still are during special events. I don’t believe it was the liberalization of the laws. Vice has always been with us. In fact, in Boston (probably like most American Cities), prostitution was MORE in the open in the 60’s & 70’s then now, MUCH more. Crime & drugs in the 70’s & 80’s were just as bad. Most didn’t need the laws to be liberalized to find what they needed.

I feel the in the North East, “former” Catholics are just materialistic and want Sunday as a leisure day. Most aren’t leaving the church (I say leaving, but they run back for weddings and such) but are just “non practicing”

As far as people 20 to 35 years of age, most don’t care about ANYTHING spiritual. I fell into this same spell for 15+ years. I believed in God and Catholicism, but there was always “tomorrow” to repent and make ammends. This is the thinking of a generation of religious but not practicing.

Is the Catholic Church in major trouble? IMO, yes and no. Yes in urban areas where the Archdiosese built too many Churches thinking it would need them for an every increasing population. How could they fortell population shifts? And no in areas where there are still Catholic families enough in number or growing.

 

[edwest2]

I’ll have to disagree with you. I saw pimps and prostitutes in the 1970s. Problem is, it was not until later that the “victimless crime” propaganda started. I cataloged all this in my mind and I have ready access to sources that back this up. I did not just have personal experiences, I observed the gradual pornification of Western culture.

We went from Grace Kelly to American Pie. If you were in charge of Cultural Exachange for the United States today, what would you send to the head of a foreign country to introduce him to American culture? Jay and Silent Bob? Saw? The first season of Dexter?

In case you missed it, “alternative lifestyles” have been hammered into everyone’s consciousness. If you look at most issues today, they revolve around the misuse of human sexuality. There are too many guys out there who are divorced and their only friends are their dog and computer. I was driving past a certain location a few years ago, and saw a young lady holding a sign that read: “Deadbeat Dad Lives Here.”

No, I’m not saying porn and obscenity did not exist prior to the dates I mentioned, but the incredible marketing push for it has been unprecedented.

As far as drugs in the 1980s, I suggest you do some research. Crack cocaine suddenly appeared in Detroit, where I lived. Black people told the media, “We don’t have no boats and planes.” And it was devastating.

If Catholics are going to dig out of this mess, they are going to have to ignore the world regarding sex and marriage. We need to make a commitment before man and God and vow to stick with it. I know too many Catholics who are shacking up or drifting from boyfriend to boyfriend. There’s no point in spending the rest of your life alone, hurt and angry, because the woman you married was completely unknown to you aside from a few “test drives.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[kenofken]

I’ll have to disagree with you. I saw pimps and prostitutes in the 1970s. Problem is, it was not until later that the “victimless crime” propaganda started. I cataloged all this in my mind and I have ready access to sources that back this up. I did not just have personal experiences, I observed the gradual pornification of Western culture.

We went from Grace Kelly to American Pie. If you were in charge of Cultural Exachange for the United States today, what would you send to the head of a foreign country to introduce him to American culture? Jay and Silent Bob? Saw? The first season of Dexter?

In case you missed it, “alternative lifestyles” have been hammered into everyone’s consciousness. If you look at most issues today, they revolve around the misuse of human sexuality. There are too many guys out there who are divorced and their only friends are their dog and computer. I was driving past a certain location a few years ago, and saw a young lady holding a sign that read: “Deadbeat Dad Lives Here.”

No, I’m not saying porn and obscenity did not exist prior to the dates I mentioned, but the incredible marketing push for it has been unprecedented.

As far as drugs in the 1980s, I suggest you do some research. Crack cocaine suddenly appeared in Detroit, where I lived. Black people told the media, “We don’t have no boats and planes.” And it was devastating.

If Catholics are going to dig out of this mess, they are going to have to ignore the world regarding sex and marriage. We need to make a commitment before man and God and vow to stick with it. I know too many Catholics who are shacking up or drifting from boyfriend to boyfriend. There’s no point in spending the rest of your life alone, hurt and angry, because the woman you married was completely unknown to you aside from a few “test drives.”

God bless,
Ed

It’s part of the human condition, and a special occupational disease of conservatism, to believe that one’s generation was the last to know virtue. Pornography has been with us since humans learned how to paint on cave walls. I had an opportunity to stop at what may be the world’s best museum on sex in Amsterdam a few years ago and saw photos dating back to the 1860s. I can assure you that there is NOTHING new under the sun where porn is concerned. Nor were previous ages always as buttoned down as we often assume. In Victoran and Edwardian times, one had to act respectably in public, but it was an open secret that most gentlemen had involvements with mistresses and/or prostitutes. The courts of Rennaissance Europe were as lewd as anything available anywhere today. They had stuff going on that would make Larry Flynt blush.

Same goes for drugs. There is nothing on the streets today that was not discovered by the mid-20th Century, at the very latest. Crack cocaine is purely the result of the drug war and it’s attempt to force a Puritan morality on all of us. There would simply be no reason to produce crack if it had not been for dynamics of a criminal market. The technology is nothing new. Any chemist from the late 1890s could easily have come up with crack. It’s dirt simple acid base chemistry. It was the attempt to legislate morality that made it possible (and inevitable) for street thugs to turn a couple dollars worth of ingredients into a Fortune 500 enterprise.

 

[HCC]

Perhaps the Church does not share your dismal assessment of the situation. I know that I do not.

Dear pnewton,

Please do share with us how the Church is better off 50 years later?

Could it be…
-An increase in vocations? NO
-Respected priesthood/religious? NO
-Catholic schools closing? NO
-An increase in beautiful religious art/architecture/music? NO
-The faithful having a better grasp of the truths of their faith and Holy Scripture? NO
-Abundant liturgical abuses? NO
-Greater reverence for the Holy Eucharist? NO
-An increase in sincere conversions? NO
-Greater devotion amongst the faithful? NO
-All the divisions in the Church, e.g, liberal v conservative v traditional, etc…? NO
-New schismatic sects, right and left? NO
-Ordaining women priests? NO
-Great confusion amongst the flock? NO
-Greater apathy amongst the flock? NO
-The onslaught of new scandals in the media everyday? NO
-Rebellious women religious in open defiance of their bishops? NO

I can’t think of one way in which Holy Mother Church is holier, on better footing, more devout, pouring forth with abundant fruits than it was 50 years ago. Perhaps you have an insight I am missing. I would really like to hear how the Church is better off 50 years after the start of the Second Vatican Council. Please do share.

Thanks

 

[Layman]

Saying “These things have always been with us” is facile. They have, but they have never been so public.

In the past, people knew that divorce, violence, homosexuality, promiscuity, lying, cheating, stealing, occultism and porn were shameful. Now they’re discussed on daytime TV, with freakish people shouting “You can’t judge me!” over a baying studio audience. The comic books I read as a kid now have ‘adult’ themes. They’re getting horrible. So is TV., with vampires, sorcerors and murderers make to look heroic.

‘In real life’, what consequences are there? We might expect a generation of children to grow up affected. Perhaps more desensitised. Thinking that their local lesbian witch is cool. That a bit of pot or coke doesn’t harm anyone. That if you’re a virgin you’re a dope. That porn on a young man’s PC is a fact of life. “What, you want to be a priest? Are you mad??!!”

Maybe rates of crime amongst young men and illegitimate pregnancies amongst women give a clue. I’ve read that broken homes produce more of these. Why broken? Because fornication and self-gratification are now held to be inalienable rights. So Mum and Dad break up because they were never married in the first place and/or they think their ‘needs’ aren’t being met. Had a couple of kids, contracepted the rest, hit the mid-life crisis and there’s not much to bind them together. Not fear of Hell, anyway.

We’re the childen of the ‘Me’ Generation, after all.

 

[NE_Catholic]

It’s part of the human condition, and a special occupational disease of conservatism, to believe that one’s generation was the last to know virtue. Pornography has been with us since humans learned how to paint on cave walls. I had an opportunity to stop at what may be the world’s best museum on sex in Amsterdam a few years ago and saw photos dating back to the 1860s. I can assure you that there is NOTHING new under the sun where porn is concerned. Nor were previous ages always as buttoned down as we often assume. In Victoran and Edwardian times, one had to act respectably in public, but it was an open secret that most gentlemen had involvements with mistresses and/or prostitutes. The courts of Rennaissance Europe were as lewd as anything available anywhere today. They had stuff going on that would make Larry Flynt blush.

Same goes for drugs. There is nothing on the streets today that was not discovered by the mid-20th Century, at the very latest. Crack cocaine is purely the result of the drug war and it’s attempt to force a Puritan morality on all of us. There would simply be no reason to produce crack if it had not been for dynamics of a criminal market. The technology is nothing new. Any chemist from the late 1890s could easily have come up with crack. It’s dirt simple acid base chemistry. It was the attempt to legislate morality that made it possible (and inevitable) for street thugs to turn a couple dollars worth of ingredients into a Fortune 500 enterprise.

I have to agree with a lot of what you have posted. The kicker for me was a few years ago when I developed an interest in Early New England History and started reading local histories by authors of the late 19th Century. What I read turned my whole notion of Puritans upside down. It seems there were major problems in the Early 1600’s to almost the 1700’s of men coming to America and basically turning into drunks, womanizers, gamblers, etc. Deserting farms and families, “living off the land”. It seems the “Blue Laws” that secular people tend to think were developed for religious oppression were actually needed in many cases to ensure the survival of the young colonies.

Where I differ with you is where you assume “most” people were involved in vice or immoral activity. I don’t think so, even today.

 

[edwest2]

It’s part of the human condition, and a special occupational disease of conservatism, to believe that one’s generation was the last to know virtue. Pornography has been with us since humans learned how to paint on cave walls. I had an opportunity to stop at what may be the world’s best museum on sex in Amsterdam a few years ago and saw photos dating back to the 1860s. I can assure you that there is NOTHING new under the sun where porn is concerned. Nor were previous ages always as buttoned down as we often assume. In Victoran and Edwardian times, one had to act respectably in public, but it was an open secret that most gentlemen had involvements with mistresses and/or prostitutes. The courts of Rennaissance Europe were as lewd as anything available anywhere today. They had stuff going on that would make Larry Flynt blush.

Same goes for drugs. There is nothing on the streets today that was not discovered by the mid-20th Century, at the very latest. Crack cocaine is purely the result of the drug war and it’s attempt to force a Puritan morality on all of us. There would simply be no reason to produce crack if it had not been for dynamics of a criminal market. The technology is nothing new. Any chemist from the late 1890s could easily have come up with crack. It’s dirt simple acid base chemistry. It was the attempt to legislate morality that made it possible (and inevitable) for street thugs to turn a couple dollars worth of ingredients into a Fortune 500 enterprise.

The first statement is absolutely false. It’s called a generalization. There is no such thing as a conservative. No one is a cookie cutter copy of anyone else. It is the lie spread primarily by those who are called Leftists. I can assure you that your false view of world history is exactly that - false.

Prior to the 1980s, Crack did not exist. As I’ve tried to point out, poor inner-city dealers did not have labs or boats or planes to smuggle the stuff in. It was handed to them.

And you ignore all the actual immorality that has been legislated: graphic pornography, topless bars, strip clubs. Prior to the 1970s, all of that was illegal in some form. You don’t get it.

Your Puritan morality line ignores those that have died from using illegal drugs. Go to a hospital sometime and visit the people who were put there by illegal drugs. Talk to them.

Your attempt at over the top emphasis means nothing. You refuse to believe that there was a time period before the strip clubs, topless bars and adult bookstores. There was. I was there. And the sex maniacs and perverts decided to bring their filth into our neighborhoods. That’s a fact.

I am against legislating immorality and I will turn it down every time I see it.

Close the strip clubs.
Close the topless bars.
Close the adult bookstores.

By the way - a reminder to all reading this -none of you have to get permission to do whatever you want. Not from Catholics and not from the Church. So quit acting like any Catholic is standing in your way. Better yet - ask Jesus Christ to come into your life.

God bless,
Ed