(no subject)

[fpb]

To judge by my f-list and other Catholic bloggers I have seen, Mary Eberstadt's article on First Things about the vindication of Humanae Vitae has made more waves than anything in years. I suppose that is because it goes further than most Christians had been thinking of going. While most people are aware that abortion is at least controversial, very many outside the Catholic Church do not give contraception a second thought, and even many Catholics, especially of the older generation, imagine that the matter is settled and over. However, the evidence is that it is not. Mary Eberstadt's article was not the only one to say the same thing, and to judge by the reaction, it addresses a mood that is definitely growing among Christians, let alone Catholics. And since Christians and Catholics do not live in a vacuum, it is finding unnoticed echoes even among the ordinary secular types.

Comments

[stigandnasty919.livejournal.com]

It is certainly an interesting article. There were a few things I didn't like, her definition of Family Ties would not have included my family and her begrudging acceptance that human rights organisations have spoken out against forced sterilisation showed more about her own prejudices than anything else, but in general there were important points to think about.

I would question if she has sufficiently proven a cause and effect relationship between contraception and the negative impacts she attributes to it. It may be possible to produce an equally logical argument that the breakdown of the class system, or the industrialsation of society started western society on this path. I can't escape the feeling that there is something more fundemental behind all this. I have neither the time nor the skill with words to get the vaguely formed ideas down on paper.

But my idea basically comes down to the fact that western, Christian society was a well settled and evolved culture. It was stable and provided a generally agreed framework of morality which had developed over thousands of years. We are now in the early stages of a secular revolution, one that has brought with it unprecedented indivdualism. The stability in relationships and social structures that had developed are breaking down and nothing as stable has yet arisen to replace them. The revolution will either suceeed, and society will stabalise with a new norm, or it will fail and will either collapse or return to some sort of religious social structure.

The notion is still brewing somewhere in the back of my mind but this article has helped to develop it a little.

[fishlivejournal.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Why would secular society settle around *one* norm? After all, there isn't a single standard to hold secular society to, so norms developing in different areas/groups would have no reason be similar.

Agreed on the cause/effect. The earliest case of sexual abuse by a priest that I am personally aware of (as in, have spoken to the victim) occurred during the 1930's. Further all of the literature I've read on child abuse indicates that the problem is not new, it was just more effectively hushed up in the past. Certainly the Salvos were rescuing children from sexual abuse in the 1890's.

And of course anyone with a conscience was opposed to contraception - and masturbation - in past centuries. When serious study of biology means Aristotle, and quackery has a claim to have grown a foetus in a glass of wine solely from sperm - then there isn't a distinction between abortion, contraception, or masturbation. All three then had to be viewed as clear cut murder, with a fully developed human being left to die. [shrugs] And a century ago, washing venom off a snake bite and cutting away the surrounding flesh was the ethically right thing to do. Doing that now is criminal negligence.

Still, her first shot - against people calling themselves Catholic but not being prepared to actually *be* Catholic - is a simple demand for honesty. She shouldn't even need to say this, it should be obvious.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The earliest case of sexual abuse by a priest that I am aware of dates to 1325 AD, and I suggest that you consider what philosophical pederasty really amounted to in Athens and similar places long before that. Pederastic inititation of youths is common in several societies, as every anthropologist knows. Where there are fair young bodies, there is temptation. Child abuse is not more flourishing among priests than among schoolteachrs, scoutmasters, social workers, parents and foster parents, and orphanage workers. If anything, it is less so - if the statistic that up to 8% of American state school teachers have at some point been involved in sexual relations with minors is true. Even so, there was a definite spike in homosexual abuse by priests in the seventies and eighties; the reasons for this are cultural and, if you remember what the seventies were like, not too difficult to understand.

I am afraid you are grossly wrong about the history of contraception. Since antiquity saw nothing sacred about children (consider the vile practice of infanticide and exposure, which Spartans and Romans looked on with definite pride - even Tacitus considered it positively disgusting that Jews never, for any reason, killed their children), your whole argument about homunculi and such falls flat. There was no taboo on abortion, though the act itself was difficult, and contraception was frequent and regarded as useful. Juvenal points out that a childless old man or woman with a large inheritance to hand on are in a very advantageous position, and people will compete for their favours. Other Roman writers confirm this picture, and agree that widespread contraception and unnatural sex led to the extinction of most of the famous families of republican Rome.

correct three times.

[fishlivejournal.livejournal.com]

Sadly, you are quite correct about child abuse, it has a long and horrible history.

And of course, you are quite correct, the priesthood is only one of the avenues that child molesters take in their search for victims. Any role giving them a position of power over children will be sought - I have been peripherally involved in the battle to keep them out of the Scouting movement. I did not intend to imply that this is unique to your priesthood; still, given media emphasis I can see that I should have been clearer in stating this.
Sadly though, it is going to keep getting worse within the priesthood, as other opportunities are closed off, especially as media coverage makes the priesthood seem more tempting to child molesters looking for something to exploit. And protesting media bias won't change this, quite the contrary. The only solution is a combination of constant vigilance and the ruthless and public punishment of those caught.
That 8% figure is probably far lower than the actual figure. The major problem with fighting child abuse is that people don't realise how big the problem is.

Finally - yes, the Pagan world was nauseating. Replace 'anyone with a conscience' with 'any Christian or Jew with a conscience'.

Re: correct three times.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Just one thing: if other avenues are closed off - and the complete lack of any real punishment in the teaching profession suggests otherwise - why should you assume that the priesthood would remain open? The same pressures, mainly bad publicity, apply, and some, such as predatory lawsuits, apply a lot more (since, under American law, you can exact a lot more from the Church than from a public school). What is more, you seem not to consider that the priesthood is a hard profession to enter - including the equivalent of a degree course as well as several levels of assessment - and that the Pope has made it very clear that seminaries and other institutions are expected to positively reject unsuitable candidates.

[stigandnasty919.livejournal.com]

As I said, this is not thought through fully, but any new secular 'norm' would probably include regional variations. But the fact that we now live in a world dominated by media may mean that the 'norm' develops in that way.

And do you think that the non-secular world has/had "a single standard?"

[fishlivejournal.livejournal.com]

There isn't a non-secular world. The Christian, Islamic, Buddhist etc worlds are all wildly different, and there are variations within each. Still, each has a core. The idea of the media as a core for the secular world is interesting, but given the media must pander to its audience(s), it would be better served simply running different services for each variant. Those variants wouldn't necessarily be regional though.

[stigandnasty919.livejournal.com]

That was really my point. That the secular and non-secular world were similar. No one core, but lots of variations.

I think we can see already that american culture dominates in the media. Simply because it is cheaper to buy a show already made for a big home audience that to make another. So my daughter talks about high-school and watches Nick Jr etc here in Ireland. The same shows are shown in France, India, Japan etc.