Britain, Ruination & Wisdom

I read from a book earlier this morning that powerfully describes the ruin of Britain; I am an American citizen, but probably because my mother was born in Great Britain (Dumbarton, Scotland) I have a lively interest in that island. (It is also the one European nation where I can speak the native language....)

The story line for ruination is all too familiar, but in short it could as well apply to my own country: after surviving a war with a brutal (and godless) enemy, this Christian nation recovers and sees prosperity. Plenty leads to luxury and a certain licentiousness takes root, a subversion of sexual mores.  And then follows a detachment from any notion of truth, so that even certain self-serving lies are warmly embraced. In high office, men are elected without much concern for "character" as for their abilities to play the game, even if resorting to a certain "ruthlessness." Not only many of the Christian laity, but their "shepherds" also became "confused" about "right and wrong."

But this doesn't all happen overnight. Initially, an older generation remembers the desolations of war and harder times; many retain some of the Christian virtues that sustained them in the times of scarcity and war, and they see an initial recovery, a certain prosperity, as being built on solid moral and virtues. High office holders and clergy give lip-service (and not rarely even obedience) to the moral order.

But a new generation arises "ignorant of the time of troubles"--didn't experience it firsthand--but only "experience... the present prosperity." The majority rushes headlong "guided only by sensual inventions," but there are yet many who have memory of better things and live accordingly, bearing witness to eternal Truth, Who is Christ.

For these observations, which I've paraphrased above, a tip of the hat goes to the author of the book I mentioned above, On the Ruin of Britain, by Gildas Sapiens [the Wise], b. c. 500, Dumbarton, Scotland, d. 569, Brittany), whose feast day it is today, January 29, 2009. He begins:

WHATEVER my attempt shall be in this epistle, made more in tears than in denunciation, in poor style, I allow, but with good intent, let no man regard me as if about to speak under the influence of contempt for men in general, or with an idea of superiority to all, because I weep the general decay of good, and the heaping up of evils, with tearful complaint. On the contrary, let him think of me as a man that will speak out of a feeling of condolence with my country's losses and its miseries, and sharing in the joy of remedies.

"The joy of remedies." What a wonderful phrase! Healing may be hard, but it has a beauty to it. I am reminded that nothing is inevitable, except taxes, death, and the judgment of the Almighty. After Gildas, missionaries from Ireland, Iona, Lindisfarne, and from Rome converted the pagans. They kept on going to the pagan tribes of the Continent. Faith may wax and wane, but it shall not die, and it can return in force in unexpected places.

The Fellowship of St. James exists for "Christ, Creed, and Culture." Please join us today by subscribing to Touchstone and by supporting Mere Comments such as these with a financial contribution. Your generous gift at this time will assist the many thousands of readers of our publications and visitors to our website in their Christian faith. We believe, we teach, we learn, we pray, we serve, and we witness as best we can, all by the grace of God. Remember Gildas the Wise today.

Comments

[Judy K. Warner]

Jim, what a wonderful story. I'm going to send it on.

[Stuart Koehl]

I made the acquaintance of Gildas and the "Ruination" (Excidio) when I began studying Arthurian Britain. The medieval romances of Arthur, the myth of Camelot never appealed to me, particularly in its bowdlerized T.H. White form as taken up by Learner and Lowe. The notion of Arthur single-handedly raising Britain out of the dark ages and bringing them the glories of the New Frontier always struck me as a forced and false allegory.

On the other hand, I found the historic Arthur, such as is known about him and his times, extremely compelling, in part because it is the diametric opposite of the story as most people know it, and its tragedy is thus more moving and real.

"Arthur", as he is known from the chronicles and the bardic poems, is not a king--may not even be aristocratic, in fact. He is the Dux Bellorum, the War Leader of the embattled Romano-Britons, who almost single-handedly arrests the seemingly unstoppable advance of the Saxons and brings Britain a last generation of peace and stability.

Gildas claims to have been born in the year of Arthur's great victory at Mons Badonicus (probably somewhere around Bath), which not only stopped the Saxons, but knocked them back on their heels and stopped their annexation of Britain for more than thirty years. Some time around the year 530 or 540, Arthur was killed in battle, either fighting with or against someone named Medraut. Thereafter, the fragile unity that Arthur had built fragmented, as petty British kings battled for position against each other, no longer maintaining the united front against the Saxons, who, by 560, had overrun all but Cornwall, Wales, and some bits of Cumbria and Northumbria.

Until recently, most scholars believed Arthur, like Troy (or Jesus, for that matter), was pure legend; today, the consensus is changing to a belief that Arthur was an historical person, and that the chronicles give the bare outline of his life. Gildas, like most other chroniclers, was a cleric, probably a monk, and he accurately tells the tale of Britains descent into chaos and destruction. What is interesting is how little time he gives to Arthur. He speaks at length about Badon, and the rollback of the Saxons, and of the problems that have emerged in his lifetime, but of Arthur there is no mention (which caused some scholars to claim this proved Arthur did not exist).

But other, earlier British chronicles do mention Arthur in connection with Badon, as do numerous British poems, So why does not Gildas speak of him? Some have said that Arthur was a pagan, and a Christian monk was loathe to give a pagan credit for saving Britain. But other sources speak of Arthur at Badon "bearing the cross in his arms" as he fought the Saxons (which probably means he put the labarum on his shield, as Roman soldiers under the Christian emperors were wont to do). So if Arthur was a Christian, why is he given short shrift by Christian sources? The most likely answer is Arthur angered the Church, probably by requisitioning Church property to support his army. He won, but but was a bad man, so Gildas acknowledges the victory and ignores the victor.

The tragedy of Arthur is just this: Here was a hard man, who lived in hard times, who spent his life and spilled his blood protecting a small pocket of civilization--Christian civilization--from barbarian hordes. He succeeded in his lifetime in driving them back, and in the process gave the Romano-British badly needed time. Not time to rally against the Saxons and drive them out--that was never in the cards, demography being what it was. But he gained a generation, maybe fifty years or so, in which the savage Saxons (and they were savages) lived with and alongside fairly civilized Britons who had absorbed a good deal of Romanitas. Thus, when the final conquest of Britain came, in the century after 560, the Saxons themselves had changed, had become more civilized and tractable. Perhaps if Arthur's successors had not squabbled so much, even more time could have been won, and thus less dislocation would have resulted. But it seems clear to me that without the breathing space won by Arthur, Augustine's mission to the Saxons would have been much more difficult, if it succeeded at all (remember, Charlemagne only converted the Frisians and Saxons after killing most of them and replacing them with Franks), and thus the whole history of Europe would have been very different.

But Arthur himself was lost in the process, forgotten for almost half a millennium until rescued from the obscurity of Welsh poetry by Geoffrey of Monmouth, but resurrected as a pale shadow of the real man, who deserves to be remembered, and who ought to be a real example for us as we confront the barbarians at the gates: in hard times, hard men must do hard things, and lesser men will always resent them, and feel uncomfortable in their presence, and when possible will do what they can to drag them down. Even when the hard men win, they are often discarded, forgotten and abandoned, but we should thank God that such men live among us, and are willing to come forth when needed, even if, perhaps, they already suspect that theirs will be a thankless job/

[bonobo]

(It is also the one European nation where I can speak the native language....)

Mr. Kushiner, I reckon you could do quite well in Ireland speaking to its inhabitants in the second official language of that European nation...:)

[Gian]

Is there a necessary connection between prosperity and licentiousness?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Is there a necessary connection between prosperity and licentiousness?<<<

License requires leisure, leisure requires wealth. On the other hand, the peasantry and proletariat have always been pretty randy, though they tend to stick to the basics, and not the more esoteric and decadent practices of the aristocracy and intelligentsia.

[Gian]

But is general prosperity also sufficient condition for licentiousness?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> But is general prosperity also sufficient condition for licentiousness?<<<

Humanity is sufficient cause for licentiousness. Having become subject to death and corruption through the fall of Adam, man has developed instincts and appetites needed to survive. These instincts become distorted passions which lead man to sin; i.e., to put his own wants and needs above those of the Lord, thereby alienating us from God. As Paul said, through one man sin came into the world, and death through sin, because all men have sinned. There is not a man who lives who does not sin in thought or word or deed, and thus, without the redeeming grace of Christ, man will fall into license because he is alienated from God through his sins.

[Rob G]

"License requires leisure, leisure requires wealth. On the other hand, the peasantry and proletariat have always been pretty randy, though they tend to stick to the basics, and not the more esoteric and decadent practices of the aristocracy and intelligentsia."

This is generally true, at least up to the Progressive era. Starting then, and continuing on to the Sexual Revolution, however, the elites have done a pretty decent job of getting their perversions to filter down to the masses.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>This is generally true, at least up to the Progressive era. Starting then, and continuing on to the Sexual Revolution, however, the elites have done a pretty decent job of getting their perversions to filter down to the masses.<<<

Could this be due to the greater wealth and leisure time available to the proles? Are the vacuum cleaner, washing machine, dish washer and microwave ovens occasions of sin? And, of course, we all know the moral hazard created by putting back seats in automobiles.

[Rob G]

"Could this be due to the greater wealth and leisure time available to the proles? Are the vacuum cleaner, washing machine, dish washer and microwave ovens occasions of sin?"

Why, of course! Silly me! After all this leisure time appeared, the masses had pretty much nothing to do. Picnics, baseball games, and parades were getting boring. Same with church and concerts in the park.

Then one day it dawned on them: "Hey! How about some coprophilic porn, or maybe some S & M? That'll help pass the time!"

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Why, of course! Silly me! After all this leisure time appeared, the masses had pretty much nothing to do. Picnics, baseball games, and parades were getting boring. Same with church and concerts in the park.<<<

Well, I could mention what the masses did with their time before then, whether in the slums of Paris, the stews of London or the Five Points of New York (Chicago, San Francisco, and almost every other major city had its equivalents). But, as I said, back then the license in which the poor engaged was pretty basic stuff--fornication, adultery, prostitution, alcoholism, blood sports (popular among all social classes, cock fighting, dog fighting, bear baiting and bare knuckles boxing were great levelers). In almost all of these cities, brothels were ubiquitous, frequently outnumbering churches, let alone libraries, theaters, schools, etc. Venereal disease was endemic, and pornography was cheap and prolific. Crime was rampant, too, until the reforms of the early 20th century, with murder rates that make Detroit look tame. At various times and places, drug addiction was common, mainly because opium and cocaine were legal and cheap.

In other words, your picture of the past as a world of bourgeois sensibility and respectability is highly selective and misleading. It also discounts how a man (the double standard being firmly in place, it was usually men) could go to church, enjoy a good parade or picnic, and still visit the neighborhood whorehouse once the sun went down. The main difference I discern today is a basic lack of shame about such things, not their absence or frequency in the past.

[Rob G]

"The main difference I discern today is a basic lack of shame about such things, not their absence or frequency in the past."

True, but it is a vicious circle, is it not? Lack of shame results in more indulgences in these behaviors, which results in increased availability of those behaviors and/or an increase in the level of obscenity in said behaviors, along with an ever-increasing amount of shamelessness, etc., etc. And it just continues to spiral.

You can't honestly believe that there always as much porn in circulation as there is now. I myself can remember a time when it wasn't our biggest export.

Sometimes I wonder why you blog here or read Touchstone at all. Your views on things related to the "culture wars" tend to be in opposition to those of the editors and writers for the mag.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Lack of shame results in more indulgences in these behaviors, which results in increased availability of those behaviors and/or an increase in the level of obscenity in said behaviors, along with an ever-increasing amount of shamelessness, etc., etc. And it just continues to spiral.<<<

It can be. There have been many such cycles in human history. As I have noted, many of them reverse themselves, and in amazingly short order. The reason is simple--dysfunctional behaviors do not lend themselves to success or survival, and since the majority of people at all times and in all places want both, a backlash rapidly ensues.

>>>You can't honestly believe that there always as much porn in circulation as there is now. I myself can remember a time when it wasn't our biggest export.<<<

Actually, it was pretty ubiquitous, if you take into account population and the limited media for its production and dissemination. To take just the Civil War era as an example, see "The Story the Soldiers Wouldn't Tell: Sex in the Civil War", by Thomas P. Lowry. Considering that photography was in its infancy, some pretty hair-raising stuff was in circulation.

>>>Sometimes I wonder why you blog here or read Touchstone at all. Your views on things related to the "culture wars" tend to be in opposition to those of the editors and writers for the mag.<<<

Well, a couple of reasons. I generally agree with the objectives of the magazine, and I enjoy the company. On the other hand, I refuse to engage in any of this "O tempora, O mores!" nonsense. If you are going to fight a war--even a culture war--the first thing you have to do is understand the terrain and the enemy. Nobody is done any favors when the past is painted in glowing pastel hues as a land where everyone was good and noble and pure, and the present as a cesspit of unalloyed evil. As an historian, I'm pretty comfortable in accepting that human depravity is pretty constant across all ages.

And, as an historian, I get affronted by attempts to invent or spin the past to support present-day objectives.

For instance, in the current issue Allan Carlson's cover article "Meaningful Intercourse" is replete with errors of historical fact, oversimplification, misinterpretation and outright invention. The section on sexual mores in first century Rome is just one continuous howler for anyone who has bothered to study the period, and the bit about gnostics had me laughing so hard snot came out my nose. Then there is his assertion that the Fathers and Mothers of the Church crafted a new sexual order based on "procreative marriage", which is a bit of a theological stretch, at least so far as the Greek Fathers are concerned.

Let's just say the whole article was not intellectually serious, and that someone with different perspectives on sexual mores could have demolished it with ease and made things very bad for the cause. This is what happens when you decide to drink your own bath water, instead of using a critical eye on everything.

[Rob G]

"Actually, it was pretty ubiquitous, if you take into account population and the limited media for its production and dissemination"

Don't think so, as it's gotten demonstrably A) worse and B) more prevalent just in the 30+ years I've paid attention to such things. As John Ford said, if our ancestors could see us now, they'd be mightily ashamed. I know my grandparents would, and they've only been dead 20 years.

"Nobody is done any favors when [A] the past is painted in glowing pastel hues as a land where everyone was good and noble and pure, and [B] the present as a cesspit of unalloyed evil. As an historian, I'm pretty comfortable in accepting that human depravity is pretty constant across all ages."

No one here that I know of believes either A or B. The dichotomy you create is a false one. Likewise, I don't think that anyone here believes that humans were less depraved in the past then they are now. What is at issue is the cultural acceptance of that depravity.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Don't think so, as it's gotten demonstrably A) worse and B) more prevalent just in the 30+ years I've paid attention to such things. <<<

I suppose you are prepared to produce some sort of statistical or historical analysis of this hypothesis? Otherwise, on what do you base it, other than personal experience and anecdote?

>>>As John Ford said, if our ancestors could see us now, they'd be mightily ashamed.<<<

Hmmm. Seems to me that Cato the Censor said that in his day, Cicero in his, Marcus Aurelius in his, Tertullius in his, Julian the Apostate in his. . . you get the idea. Even in American history, you can't go two generations past the founding of Plymouth before you begin reading this kind of thing. Apparently, the world has been going downhill since the beginning.

>>>What is at issue is the cultural acceptance of that depravity.<<<

As I said, such things tend to be transient. Understanding this is a necessary first step to reversing the rot.

[Rob G]

"I suppose you are prepared to produce some sort of statistical or historical analysis of this hypothesis?"

Shouldn't have to...it should be fairly clear to anyone who doesn't have his head in the clouds. Just look, for instance, at the proliferation of strip clubs and porn shops. Or how about "men's magazines"? Most of the ones that used to feature only naked women and (sometimes) simulated sex, now show full penetration -- vaginal, oral & anal. Softcore is now hardcore.
Ever-increasing use of vulgar language in music and on TV? PG13 ratings for movies that a dozen years ago would have been 'R's? The prevalence of bachelor and bachelorette parties that feature strippers? Women's sex toy parties instead of Tupperware? Homosexuality and transvestism out of the closet and into your livingroom?

Really, need I go on?

[David Gray]

>Otherwise, on what do you base it, other than personal experience and anecdote?

I fall back on Father Reardon's full press body slam a little while back...

[Rob G]

"I fall back on Father Reardon's full press body slam a little while back..."

I think I missed that one, Dave. Where did that occur?

[Bobby Winters]

In the words of Billy Joel:

CHORUS
We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it

[David Gray]

>I think I missed that one, Dave. Where did that occur?

Offline email...

[W.E.D. Godbold]

I dunno guys,
I know some of my family history and, while I honor my forefathers (and -mothers) I wouldn't be sanguine about the sorts of things they did. It is easy to say that they would have done better than we did or not approved of stuff that is going one, but really? Some of the stuff they did while young in WWII was pretty grim and nasty. I think it's good that we give them the benefit of the doubt in our minds and "know" that they were morally superior to ourselves. But this is probably a polite fiction. Adultery (for men) was more winked at in previous times than it is now. Alcoholism was as well. Some things get better and others get worse. Is there an improving trend? I don't know. It's hard to argue in the absence of sociological surveys and those sorts of instruments can only *begin* to reveal the situation in a particular time.

I don't buy Stuart's line on pornography *not* being worse now than it ever has been, though, but I have seen studies that suggest that people are actually more continent now (in *not* fornicating/committing adultery) than they have been partly because of pornography being so prevalent. Of course Jesus' standard of keeping your mind pure is still being rampantly violated...but so it has probably ever been since the expulsion.

The one difference in the world, though, is the presence of the Holy Ghost, guaranteed as a downpayment to all who are baptized in Jesus' name. He is the X-factor in all tales of moral improvement. He is the only One that renders us capable of moral heroism. And there are more Christians (absolutely and as a percentage basis of the population) than there have ever been. I think this has to mean something.

[David Gray]

>I know some of my family history and, while I honor my forefathers (and -mothers) I wouldn't be sanguine about the sorts of things they did. It is easy to say that they would have done better than we did or not approved of stuff that is going one, but really? Some of the stuff they did while young in WWII was pretty grim and nasty.

Stuart would say you are just invoking anecdotal evidence.

I knew my grandparents very well and they were stunned at how bad things had gotten by the 70s and 80s.

[David Gray]

>And there are more Christians (absolutely and as a percentage basis of the population) than there have ever been.

US population? European? If so where on earth do you get your figures? Maybe more even if you count in the Third World.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

I'm going from the sociologist guy Jenkins (I think) studies on worldwide Christianity. It's supposed to be even better by 2050.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Fr. Reardon in "Daily Reflections" recently had an interesting observation on "metanoia"--how it is a state of life and directed at Christians far more than folks outside the Church. We should be in a constant state of repenting, returning to God since we're being constantly pulled away from Him by principalities, etc. Practice metanoia. It's what we're called to do.

[David Gray]

>I'm going from the sociologist guy Jenkins (I think) studies on worldwide Christianity.

I suspect most of us are talking about the West. In that sense there are, in that respect, arguably better signs for Africa and China than for the West.

[Jim Kushiner]

"On the other hand, I refuse to engage in any of this "O tempora, O mores!" nonsense. If you are going to fight a war--even a culture war--the first thing you have to do is understand the terrain and the enemy. Nobody is done any favors when the past is painted in glowing pastel hues as a land where everyone was good and noble and pure, and the present as a cesspit of unalloyed evil. As an historian, I'm pretty comfortable in accepting that human depravity is pretty constant across all ages.

"And, as an historian, I get affronted by attempts to invent or spin the past to support present-day objectives.

"For instance, in the current issue Allan Carlson's cover article "Meaningful Intercourse" is replete with errors of historical fact, oversimplification, misinterpretation and outright invention. The section on sexual mores in first century Rome is just one continuous howler for anyone who has bothered to study the period, and the bit about gnostics had me laughing so hard snot came out my nose. Then there is his assertion that the Fathers and Mothers of the Church crafted a new sexual order based on "procreative marriage", which is a bit of a theological stretch, at least so far as the Greek Fathers are concerned.>>

If my original post is "o tempora, o mores," I missed it. If other posts ever are, why do need to announce that you "refuse"--no one is forcing you, Stuart; feel free to not engage. No one will protest. We are not pressuring you, but you do seem put out.

Yes, knowing the terrain is important. And terrain is not all flat, so there must be ups and downs--if not, no study of the terrain is needed. The ups and downs are the subject of some of our writing, when we write about culture, and not a "past painted in glowing pastel hues as a land where everyone was good and noble and pure, and the present as a cesspit of unalloyed evil." This is what men like Fr. Pat Reardon, James Hitchcock, Anthony Esolen, Robert George and so on, think? I do not see how the comment can be read as anything other than insulting.

The ups and downs, even small, are important. It's not a small thing that many evils are done just as before but that there is less shame. Moving from a prepoderance of shame over a vice to a preponderance of celebration of the same vice--isn't that a difference to stir anyone who cares about the raising of children?

As to Allan Carlson's article, Stuart, indeed, you can write a letter to the editor (400 words, please). Carlson will likely reply, if he wishes to. We have room for both.

[Rob G]

"I knew my grandparents very well and they were stunned at how bad things had gotten by the 70s and 80s."

My grandmother, who lived a rather normal middle-class ethnic Catholic life (Slovak & Italian), died in 1986 at age 80. She had no idea what a lesbian was when she started hearing the word on TV. She asked me what it meant. I told her that it was a woman who liked other women instead of men. She didn't get it.

In the mid 70's my dad found a stash of Hustlers hidden by a friend of mine in a woodpile next to our garage. He asked me if they were mine, describing them as "not just nudie magazines but really filthy stuff." Now he had been in the Marines in WWII and had undoubtedly seen porn before. Why then would he find Hustler particularly 'filthy'?

No, Stuart's just plain wrong here. The stuff has gotten more prevalent, and it's gotten worse, even in my lifetime.

(Disclaimer: this is not to say that porn never existed prior to the 70's, or that there was in the past a porn-free golden age, or that even the vilest sorts of things didn't exist back in the day. One need only know about DeSade to reject that notion. Thing is, though, what you used to have to get from the back room of a dingy store in a seedy section of town, you can now get at your local convenience store. Hurrah for progress!)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart would say you are just invoking anecdotal evidence.<<<

But I can validate his anecdotal evidence with hard historical evidence. I don't have much time for Greatest Generation hagiography, either.

>>>One need only know about DeSade to reject that notion. Thing is, though, what you used to have to get from the back room of a dingy store in a seedy section of town, you can now get at your local convenience store. Hurrah for progress!)<<<

Actually, you can't get them from the local convenience store, at least not in Virginia. You might have to try the local book store, like Borders or Barnes & Noble.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Okay, Stuart, what historical analog would there be for "normal" teenage girls getting their anuses whitened via cosmetic surgery? Or for that matter rainbow parties? The issue is not that there hasn't always been whores (and their masters). Of course there has. The issue is their influence has extended all the way down into the normal experience of life. Yeah, I am old enough (barely) to remember a time when skin mags like Hustler and Oui were considered "filthy" stuff. Today, the typical college male (averaged over all males, not just frequent porn "users"... although I would think those are nearly identical sets) would laugh at the description.

[David Gray]

One begins to conclude that arguing with Stuart on this topic is like arguing sexual deviancy with Andrew Sullivan.

[GL]

Stuart's absolutely right, there is nothing new under the sun.

We have always had high divorce rates.

We have always had 40% of all children being born out of wedlock.

We have always had same-sex marriage.

We have always had openly gay men serving as pastors and bishops.

We have always had sub-replacement rate fertility.

Can't you see that the deviancy of our age is no more pronounced and widespread than the deviancy of every other generation that went before us?

Yes, Stuart is correct. Nothing's different.

Of course our great-grandparents were sinners and more of them than we would like to think committed some of the sins which we abhor today. But they didn't brag about it or demand that their neighbors accept their deviancies. What we have lost is a since of shame. Today, we say "we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. . . . we make [God] a liar, and his word is not in us." We call evil good and good evil.

Knowing history and understanding it are two different things.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Okay, Stuart, what historical analog would there be for "normal" teenage girls getting their anuses whitened via cosmetic surgery? <<<

I would have to look around, but I am sure that there are all sorts of stupid things that women have done over the centuries to make themselves more sexually attractive and/or available to men.

Your main problem, all of you, is you elevate deviant behavior at the margins to the norm, ignoring the fact that most people do not engage in those behaviors at all, but rather live the same kind of staid, dull lives ordinary people have always lived.

>>>We have always had high divorce rates.<<<

Hard to do, when divorce was not legal. Instead, we had very high rates of abandonment, which in turn led to high rates of prostitution and cohabitation, particularly in Catholic countries.

>>>We have always had 40% of all children being born out of wedlock.<<<

There were periods in time when the rate was probably much higher, in part because marriage was a rather informal affair when clergy are thin on the ground.

>>>We have always had same-sex marriage.<<<

We still don't. This is an example of elevating marginal practices to an undeserved level of prominence. Or has it slipped your notice that anti-gay marriage initiatives have won by wide margins in almost every state where they have been on the ballot?

>>>We have always had openly gay men serving as pastors and bishops.<<<

No, we had closeted gay men serving as pastors and bishops. Don't you read your Chaucer and Boccacio?

>>>We have always had sub-replacement rate fertility.<<<

From time to time, we have. As I said, these things tend to be cyclical and self-correcting, assuming that there is not some underlying crisis of confidence in the culture. Among my reasons for believing that this situation will also remedy itself is the tendency of people of faith to have larger families (3-4 children), and for those children to marry other people of faith and also have larger families. We already see this working among the Orthodox Jewish community, which is growing in both absolute terms and relative to the Reform and Conservative communities, where people have small families, tend to marry outside the faith, and then to drop out of the faith altogether. In a couple of generations, most Jews will be Orthodox. IN a few generations, orthodox Christians will have a much stronger position in our society than they do today.

>>>Can't you see that the deviancy of our age is no more pronounced and widespread than the deviancy of every other generation that went before us?<<<

No, sorry, can't. mainly because I really have seen all this before.

>>>But they didn't brag about it or demand that their neighbors accept their deviancies. What we have lost is a since of shame.<<<

Gee, I thought I said that. But I also said that these things tend to be self-correcting. What was acceptable under Charles II was unacceptable under his daughter Queen Anne. What was cool under George IV was uncool under Victoria Regina. The worm turns, over and over again.

>>>Knowing history and understanding it are two different things.<<<

Work on the latter, although it's futile unless you master the former.

[GL]

Where to start with you, Stuart?

Let's deal with the following:

>>>We have always had same-sex marriage.<<<

>>>We still don't. This is an example of elevating marginal practices to an undeserved level of prominence. Or has it slipped your notice that anti-gay marriage initiatives have won by wide margins in almost every state where they have been on the ballot?<<<

I guess in all your reading, you missed the fact that two American states, Massachusetts and Connecticut have same-sex "marriage" and call it that, while several other states give essentially the same rights as marriage to same-sex couples and call it civil unions, which means, in effect, they have same-sex "marriage" under a different name. Then we have other countries, like Belgium, Norway, the Netherlands, South Africa, and Spain which recognize same-sex "marriages" as "marriages" and a host of others that give essentially the same rights as marriage but call it something else.

As to gay bishops and pastors, do you see no difference between being gay and hiding it and being gay and having an entire church body supporting your being a leader in it.

As I said, knowing history and understanding it are two different things. You know a lot of history and some of it is even correct, but your understanding of what you know is woeful at times.

[Susan D.]

Nitpicky and slightly off-topic: Queen Anne was the daughter of James II, not Charles II.

[Stuart Koehl]

You are, off course, correct. Played by Margaret Tyzack in the BBC series "The First Churchills", if I do recall.

[Stuart Koehl]

On gay marriage, it remains a peccadillo of the elites, foisted on the population, which does not go along. On civil unions, the state can do what the state wants to do. Christian marriage was once outside the state; only after the Empire became Christian did the Emperors delegate to the Church the right and power to regulate marriages. Then, in the Enlightenment and Revolutionary eras, the state took it back. Christians can go back to seeing marriage as something special and sacred for them.

Regarding gay bishops and priests, it was never that well hidden. As I said, read your Chaucer and Boccacio. There was a reason for all that anticlericalism in the 14th and 15th century, not just limited to the Lollards.

>>>As I said, knowing history and understanding it are two different things. You know a lot of history and some of it is even correct, but your understanding of what you know is woeful at times.<<<

You mean I don't agree with your baleful prognosis for the future. Well, I really don't believe in moral equivalents of war, which is why I don't believe it necessary to address every social issue as though on a war footing, right down to and including the use of grey and black propaganda to further the cause. Truth and reason ought to suffice.

When you think about it, you are doing nothing except postulating the reciprocal of the modernist error. I'd like to avoid both pitfalls. And, if I do say so, there's not much difference in your tone and tactics from that of the global warming (I'm sorry--I meant "climate change") fanatics. Let's call your movement "moral change", and set quotas to roll back sin and depravity to its 1950 levels by 2015. For those who can't make those goals, we can have "depravity offset credits", which can be swapped on something resembling a stock exchange.

[GL]

>>>You mean I don't agree with your baleful prognosis for the future.<<<

No, I mean that you don't understand the difference between the fact that we have always had adultery, abortion, homosexuality, fornication and the fact that society has responded to that in different ways through the centuries. What is different today from, say, 1950, is not that homosexual sex didn't occur then and does now. Of course, homosexuality occurred then. The difference is that in 1950, homosexual behavior was seen by society as a whole as a serious sin which undermines the family and culture and it is now seen by much of society (and particularly by young adults) as something which is perfectly acceptable. And, in turn, society saw those who defended traditional family life as being benefactors and today much of society (and particularly young adults) see those who defend traditional family life as tyrants, bigots and malefactors.

What has changed is not that people weren't sinners then and are now. What has changed is that society is increasingly denying that there is such a thing as sin.

You can't see the forest for the trees.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

GL: "What has changed is that society is increasingly denying that there is such a thing as sin."

Worse, there are mainline liberal churches and there are neo-liberal Emerg*** churches whose pastors and laity are also increasingly denying that there is such a thing is sin. And all the while proclaiming that they are followers of Christ and genuine Christians.

And if anyone were to say otherwise, they simply and easily reply that you are not to judge them. Meanwhile the wolves continue to proliferate and feast upon the sheep who are not terrified as much at the thought of wolves being among them, but moreso that they might be perceived as being "judgmental".

And all the while, the wolves happily spread the mantra that the worst thing that one can do is to judge another.

Are mainline liberal Christians and Emerg*** Touchstone Christians? These folks will say they are, and please don't judge them and say they aren't.

[labrialumn]

Having more children, when the coercive power of Caesar will simply take them and re-educate them against you, is insufficient. It is through this coercive indoctrination that the culture of death parasitically increases its ranks which otherwise would wither away.

Things really are worse now than they were in the past. That is incontrovertible by reasonable men. I too find the 'oh tempore, oh mores' theme unpleasant, but not because there isn't truth in it, or because by God's grace there has been a cyclical structure to it due to reformations and awakenings, but because it seems to tend towards a counsel of despair. We need to instead complete our articles with suggestions for countering the trend, even if only on our knees in prayer - which in coming months may be all that is left to us.

Augustine had an easier time in Kent because the queen of the Kentings was already a Christian. His main historical role was not the spreading of Christianity but of Roman hegemony, was it not? The victories against the Angles and Jutes by the Romano-Britain under Ambrosius and Arthur provided (unknowingly to them at the time) a shield behind which Ireland converted, and then sent missionaries first to the kin the Scots, and then down among the Angles and Jutes, whom the Romano-Britains didn't reach out to very much. Thus it was that the Yellow Plague decimated the Romano-Britains allowing the Angles to push on into the Severn valley and eventually over the Pennines into Cumbria. (The real situation seems to be more complicated, with genetics showing a far greater British survival under Angle thegns than might have been thought, and the presence of enduring British realms in places like Lincoln, and scattered villages as revealed in the Domesday Book, not to mention that the leader of the Wessex Men had a British name - Cerdic. As to Arthur, a generation and two later, Romano-British magistrates turned kinglets were naming their sons variations on Arthur. Someone seems to have been there to inspire their naming.

[Judy K. Warner]

Stuart, it seems to me that you're saying two contradictory things. On the one hand, you see historical cycles, where societies can decline into decadence and then become much better. On the other hand, you say that things are no worse now than they were a generation or two ago despite the perception of many people that there has been a moral decline. So you seem to be saying that in the past societies changed for the better and for the worse, but nowadays we've been on an even plane for a long time and those who perceive otherwise are wrong. Wouldn't there always be some movement either way, like the climate, or do you believe in the hockey-stick theory of society's morality? If you think this does run in cycles, where in the cycle do you think we are now?

[Judy K. Warner]

Stuart, it seems to me that you're saying two contradictory things. On the one hand, you see historical cycles, where societies can decline into decadence and then become much better. On the other hand, you say that things are no worse now than they were a generation or two ago despite the perception of many people that there has been a moral decline. So you seem to be saying that in the past societies changed for the better and for the worse, but nowadays we've been on an even plane for a long time and those who perceive otherwise are wrong. Wouldn't there always be some movement either way, like the climate, or do you believe in the hockey-stick theory of society's morality? If you think this does run in cycles, where in the cycle do you think we are now?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>On the other hand, you say that things are no worse now than they were a generation or two ago despite the perception of many people that there has been a moral decline. So you seem to be saying that in the past societies changed for the better and for the worse, but nowadays we've been on an even plane for a long time and those who perceive otherwise are wrong. <<<

If you were living within those past societies, you would probably have perceived stasis or near stasis and despaired of any sort of moral renewal. These changes can happen quickly by historical measures, but slowly when measured by a human lifetime. Usually there is some catalyzing force or personality, which then kick-starts changes that can accelerate very rapidly.

With regard to whether things are better, worse, or the same today as half a century ago, my answer would be better in some areas, worse in others, the same in most. My insistence is people should not affect the sin of "presentism", and assume that this is the worst things have every been, every, period (or, well, maybe Sodom and Gommorah would give us a run for our money). This is just the reflexive opposite of the progressive outlook that says this is the best things have ever been, ever (and with Obama in the White House, who would dare deny that the millennium is at hand?).

Unless one takes a step back for some perspective, one can get panicked or buffaloed into all sorts of precipitous action based on the fear of what might occur, rather than what has occurred and is likely to occur based on the record of human history. My analogy to Global Warming stands: its adherents demand all sorts of radical change based on the notion that something unique is happening to the world, but they have only partial evidence at best, based on faulty models and reasoning, and ignore the historical record that shows what is happening today is not at all unusual.

Taking this into the moral realm, if we assume what is happening is somehow unprecedented and demands radical action, we might well get precisely what we seem to want, but not in the way that we want. Moral reformers have a tendency to come wielding not Christian charity but a whip, and their effects can be both unfortunate and short-lived--witness Cromwell's Protectorate, which does not qualify as being "Merry Old England". On the other hand, bottom-up renewal movements such as John Wesley's or William Wilburforce's tend to be internalized, take cognizance of human limitations, do not attempt to inaugurate the Parousia, and have much more lasting effects.

The restoration of the world does not lie within our power, but we can deal with such evils as we see around us. In the moral sphere, I believe it is best to do so on the personal level, rather than seeking the imposition of a grand scheme from the top down. The first step in doing that is the renewal of our own lives, followed by the renewal of our Churches and communities. Our first step is to make ourselves lights unto the Gentiles (I like the phrase in Deuteronomy, "circumcise your hearts"). If we do this work, we will gain the kind of political and societal change we desire organically. But if we try to force things, in part because we have been panicked into precipitate actions, then either we will lose what we have, or worse, gain something we never wanted.

[David Gray]

>My insistence is people should not affect the sin of "presentism", and assume that this is the worst things have every been, every, period (or, well, maybe Sodom and Gommorah would give us a run for our money).

Who's assuming? Actually it is someone so willfully lying to themselves that they ignore the huge daily slap across the face that is reality that has a problem.

[GL]

>>>With regard to whether things are better, worse, or the same today as half a century ago, my answer would be better in some areas, worse in others, the same in most.<<<

To some degree, I agree with you. During the first half of the last century, intolerance and discrimination against what should have been welcomed is the big problem in the U.S. and had been for much of its history. People were denied basic rights because of the color of their skin or the nation of their origin or their religious affiliation. Then came the two great revolutions, one a very much needed one, and its twin, a very disastrous one: the civil rights movement and the sexual revolution. Both had, in fact, been underway for decades, even centuries, but what happened in the middle decades of the 20th century is that they reached a tipping point in which society threw off its old views and adopted the views of the revolutionaries.

With the civil rights movement, we through off old unChristian prejudice against people based on race, ethnic origin and faith. That was an improvement. With the sexual revolution, we through off old Christian teachings on sex and the family. That was a disaster. We have gone from too much discrimination to too little, from too little acceptance to too much. The pendulum has swung from one extreme to another.

Is this something entirely new in kind in the history of man? No. In many respects, we have returned to paganism, though in some respects we have gone beyond where they even were. Does the fact that we have been here before make it a matter to which we are overreacting? No, no more so than when an earlier generation opposed slavery and, later, segregation. Evil must be called what it is and resisted.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Evil must be called what it is and resisted.<<<

Certainly. But resistance to evil must be both principled and judicious, taking care in one's zeal to make things worse, or, more likely, to erect a whole new set of problems in turn. After all, every problem began as a solution--even the sexual license we see today.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

GL: "Evil must be called what it is and resisted."

Requires a judgment. Such judmental resistance will bring division and polarization. Liberal "Christian correctness" abhors this.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Stuart Koehl: "The first step in doing that is the renewal of our own lives, followed by the renewal of our Churches and communities. Our first step is to make ourselves lights unto the Gentiles (I like the phrase in Deuteronomy, "circumcise your hearts"). If we do this work, we will gain the kind of political and societal change we desire organically."

Wow. Hans Kung could arguably make the case that Stuart Koehl is in agreement with him (if Stuart was arbitrarily restricted to only this snippet of comments.)

See what Hans writes:

"If Obama were Pope, by Professor Hans Kung

President Barack Obama has succeeded in a short time in leading the United States out of a mood of despondency and a back-up of reforms, presenting a credible vision of hope and introducing a strategic shift in the domestic and foreign policy of this great country.

In the Catholic Church things are different. The mood is oppressive, the pile-up of reforms paralysing. After his almost four years in office many people see Pope Benedict XVI as another George W. Bush. It is no coincidence that the Pope celebrated his 81st birthday in the White House. Both Bush and Ratzinger are unteachable in matters of birth control and abortion, disinclined to implement any serious reforms, arrogant and without transparency in the way in which they exercise their office, restricting freedoms and human rights.

Like Bush in his time Pope Benedict, too, is suffering from an increasing lack of trust. Many Catholics no longer expect anything of him. Even worse, by withdrawing the excommunication of four traditionalist bishops who were consecrated illegally, including one who notoriously denies the Holocaust, Ratzinger has confirmed all the fears which arose when he was elected pope. The Pope favours people who still reject the freedom of religion affirmed by Vatican II, dialogue with other churches, reconciliation with Judaism, a high esteem for Islam and the other world religions and the reform of the liturgy.

In order to advance ‘reconciliation’ with a tiny group of arch-reactionary traditionalists, the Pope risks losing the trust of millions of Catholics all over the world who continue to be loyal to Vatican II. That it is a German Pope who is taking such false steps heightens the conflicts. Apologies after the event cannot put together the pieces.

The Pope would have an easier job than the President of the United States in adopting a change of course. He has no Congress alongside him as a legislative body nor a Supreme Court as a judiciary. He is absolute head of government , legislator and supreme judge in the church. If he wanted to, he could authorize contraception over night. permit the marriage of priests, make possible the ordination of women and allow eucharistic fellowship with this Protestant churches. What would a Pope do who acted in the spirit of Obama?

Clearly, like Obama he would

1. state clearly that the Catholic Church is in a deep crisis and would identify the heart of the problem: many congregations without priests, still not enough new recruits to the priesthood, and a hidden collapse of pastoral structures as a result of unpopular mergers of parishes, a collapse which has often developed over centuries;

2. proclaim the vision of hope of a renewed church, a revitalized ecumenism, understanding with the Jews, the Muslims and other world religions and a positive assessment of modern science;

3. gather around him the most competent colleagues, not yes-men and women but independent minds, supported by competent and fearless experts;

4. immediately initiate the most important reform measures by decree (‘executive order’) and

5. convene an ecumenical council to promote the change of course.

But what a depressing contrast:

Whereas President Obama, with the support of the whole world, is looking forwards and is open to people and to the future, this Pope is orientating himself above all backwards, inspired by the ideal of the mediaeval church, sceptical about the Reformation, ambiguous about modern rights of freedom.

Whereas President Obama is concerned for new cooperation with partners and allies Pope Benedict XVI, like George.W Bush, is trapped in thinking in terms of friend and foe. He snubs fellow Christians in the Protestant churches by refusing to recognize these communities as churches. The dialogue with Muslims has not got beyond a lip confession of ‘dialogue’. Relations with Judaism must be said to have been deeply damaged.

Whereas President Obama radiates hope, promotes civic activities and calls for a new ‘era of responsibility’, Pope Benedict is imprisoned in his fears and wants to limit human freedom as far as possible, in order to establish an ‘age of restoration’.

Whereas President Obama is going on the offensive by using the constitution and the great tradition of his country as the basis for bold steps in reform, Pope Benedict is interpreting the decrees of the 1962 Reform Council in a backward direction, looking towards the conservative Council of 1870.

But because in all probability Pope Benedict XVI himself will be no Obama, for the immediate future we need:

First an episcopate which does not conceal the manifest problems of the church but mentions them openly and tackles them energetically at a diocesan level;

Secondly theologians who collaborate actively in a future vision of our church and are not afraid to speak and write the truth;

Thirdly pastors who oppose the excessive burdens constantly imposed by the merging of many parishes and who boldly take responsibility as pastors;

Fourthly in particular women, without whom in many places parishes would collapse, who confidently make use of the possibilities of their influence.

But can we really do this? Yes we can."

From: If Obama were Pope.

With respect to my earlier comment about liberal Protestantism, I am sorry and sad to see that theological liberalism has thoroughly infected the Catholic Church as well. I hope that they didn't catch this disease from the LibProts.

[Rob G]

"Actually, you can't get [men's magazines] from the local convenience store, at least not in Virginia. You might have to try the local book store, like Borders or Barnes & Noble."

And that proves what, exactly? Yippy-cai-oh-cai-freakin'-yay for states' rights?

It's only been in my lifetime that porn has begun to appear even there (the regular bookstores).

"Moving from a preponderance of shame over a vice to a preponderance of celebration of the same vice--isn't that a difference to stir anyone who cares about the raising of children?"

Not, apparently, to Stuart. Forest, trees.

**The ups and downs are the subject of some of our writing, when we write about culture, and not a "past painted in glowing pastel hues as a land where everyone was good and noble and pure, and the present as a cesspit of unalloyed evil." This is what men like Fr. Pat Reardon, James Hitchcock, Anthony Esolen, Robert George and so on, think? I do not see how the comment can be read as anything other than insulting.**

Of course it is. Stuart has yet to learn how to disagree with someone without belittling them. Furthermore, he has a tactic whereby he creates a false dichotomy, attributing to his opponent the extreme opposite view, then attacks that view i/o what his opponent actually believes. This tactic then requires the opponent to spend more time correcting the misapplication than addressing the real issue.

In short, just as Stuart doesn't believe that you have to 'fight fair' in war, neither does he do it in debate.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Rob G.: "Furthermore, he has a tactic whereby he creates a false dichotomy, attributing to his opponent the extreme opposite view, then attacks that view i/o what his opponent actually believes. This tactic then requires the opponent to spend more time correcting the misapplication than addressing the real issue."

Wow. So timely. I think this excerpt pertains quite well to Hans Kung's diatribe against Pope Benedict XVI!

[Francesca]

>>Yeah, I am old enough (barely) to remember a time when skin mags like Hustler and Oui were considered "filthy" stuff. Today, the typical college male (averaged over all males, not just frequent porn "users"... although I would think those are nearly identical sets) would laugh at the description.<<

I'm finding out in graduate school how hard "typical college males" (and females!) have to work these days! A recent survey showed that young people indulge less in porn than their parents did, partly because they just don't have the time. As the middle-aged man who announced the survey results officiously thundered, "When I was young, we MADE the time! WE MADE the time!"

[GL]

>>>Certainly. But resistance to evil must be both principled and judicious, taking care in one's zeal to make things worse, or, more likely, to erect a whole new set of problems in turn. After all, every problem began as a solution--even the sexual license we see today.<<<

Of course. Who here as advocated an injudicious solution and what precisely is the injudicious solution which has been advocated? One can be so afraid of creating greater problems by solving the problem at hand that they become paralyzed. Surely, you are not suggesting that Christian do nothing.

[Matthew N. Petersen]

A couple of points,

One of my history professors said that in WWI when they tested men for venerial disease they learned that the overwhelming majority of men had syphilis. Perhaps that's exaggerated a bit, but promiscuity was always a problem. Even Dickens had a mistress. Even Jerusalem in Jesus' time had whores. Yes, Heller probably exagerates things, but read Catch-22, World War II wasn't a golden age. Neither were the middle ages. The sodomites run backwards around the top of Purgatory. People have always and everywhere been promiscuous.

There are new things today: first, there is the emmergence of homosexuality. Before Oscar Wilde, people committed sodomy, but no one was gay. That whole bizare homosexual sub-culture is a new thing. The internet has also changed things a lot. The quick and private avalibility of smut is new. So is the easy ability to be semi-privately publically licentous. Also new is the belief that sexual sins are the really bad ones. Paulo and Frencesca are at the top of Hell, and the lustful at the top of Purgatory. Of the deadly sins, lust is slightest.

[GL]

TUAD,

It is one thing to judge a circumstance as evil or even a person who is doing evil things, it is another to judge a fellow Christian as not being a good Christian because he doesn't vote the way you want him to.

Let's drop the subject TUAD. I will never convince you of the difference and you will never convince me that you were not out of line in what you said. I voted for McCain. I know good Christians whom I respect who voted for Obama. I think they were wrong, badly wrong, but I would never say that they were not good Christians because I know enough about their character and the good works which our Lord has done and is doing through them not to pass that type of judgment. As Christians, we are called to make some types of judgments and we are called to refrain from making other types of judgments, leaving them to the Judge of us all.

Now, in the future expect me to go back to ignoring your posts.

[GL]

>>>Even Jerusalem in Jesus' time had whores.<<<

Actually, the first century was in many ways more vile than our own time. Jesus often observed how perverse a generation it was. He didn't give them a pass because every other generations before them was vile as well. He won't give our generation a pass either. He called them and calls us to repent.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

GL: "I think they were wrong, badly wrong, but I would never say that they were not good Christians because I know enough about their character and the good works which our Lord has done and is doing through them not to pass that type of judgment."

Numbskull.

You have totally misconstrued what I wrote and then proceeded to attack your own strawman caricature of what I wrote.

We are in complete agreement when you wrote "I think they were wrong, badly wrong" and that is why I wrote that they are bad Christians in this particular instance of their abortion-enabling and their gay-is-okay-normalization behavior.

Do you get it now?

Sheesh.

[GL]

I'll accept that explanation and drop it. Now would you please drop your periodic posts implying that I am unwilling to judgments.

I suppose you picked up the approach of calling people names like "Numbskull" from Stuart. Have you ever noticed that no one else here finds Stuart' diatribes and pontifications nearly as persuasive as you do? Maybe that should tell you something.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>One of my history professors said that in WWI when they tested men for venerial disease they learned that the overwhelming majority of men had syphilis. Perhaps that's exaggerated a bit, but promiscuity was always a problem.<<<

It is. I forget what the actual number was, but it was not an "overwhelming" or even simple majority, but it was not an insignificant number. What I do remember is the VD rate for GIs in Italy in 1943-44 was on the order of 12.5%, which, when you consider the limited number of opportunities for exposure, reveals once again the ingenuity of the American GI. The number was much lower in the South Pacific, but mainly because there were either no women to be had, or the women were incredibly ugly, or because their brothers were headhunters, which puts a damper on lust. Instead, GIs learned how to ferment hooch out of the most unlikely and vile of ingredients.

>>>Even Dickens had a mistress.<<<

For whom he left his wife and children, by the way. In Dickensian London, there were something on the order of 50,000 prostitutes from a total population of three million, which amounts to a rate of 7% of all adult women. That would be equivalent to having 230,000 prostitutes in a city the size of New York today

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Actually, the first century was in many ways more vile than our own time.<<<

Many? How about "most"? Every city in the Roman world had an ampitheater in which gladiatorial games and constests of man against wild beasts were conducted almost every day. Criminals were executed there as well, by a variety of means well known to readers of early martyrologies, when they weren't just crucified outside the city walls. Slavery was endemic--it was a poor Roman indeed who did not have even one slave--and slaves, particularly female slaves, could be treated as sexual property (though varieties of slavery were numerous, and many slaves, particularly well trained and educated ones, were treated as valued members of the household, often manumitted in later life). Law was still arbitrary if one was not a Roman citizen--and most were not. Even free women had very limited rights, being subject to the paterfamilias or her husband throughout her life. War was endemic on the borders of the empire, and fought with a brutality that would cause reporters covering the Iraq war to blanch. Crime was rampant, even with the creation of Vigiles and other police forces, so that no man went out after dark without an escort of armed guards. And this is describing life in the Roman Empire, where, for the most part, life was "good".

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Wow. Hans Kung could arguably make the case that Stuart Koehl is in agreement with him (if Stuart was arbitrarily restricted to only this snippet of comments.)<<<

I think Kung and I have very different ideas about what moral renewal of the Church would entail. And, if I remember properly, John Paul II embraced the idea of "ecclesia semper reformanda", given a proper understanding of "reformanda". A Church that is not constantly reforming itself--constantly in the process of "metanoia"--is a Church dead to the voice of the Holy Spirit, and thus not a true Church at all.

[smh]

Once again I, like many Mere Comments readers, find myself head-scratching over the productions of Stuart Koehl. Rob Grano tells him, “Sometimes I wonder why you blog here or read Touchstone at all. Your views on things related to the "culture wars" tend to be in opposition to those of the editors and writers for the mag.” And so it would seem, but Mr. Koehl replies he is in general agreement with the objectives of the magazine and enjoys the company. I wonder, however, what kind of enjoyment Mr. Koehl is enjoying.

He doesn’t like our “O tempora, O mores” lamentations, and goes on to accuse the editors--who liked and accepted Allan Carlson’s article--of painting the past in glowing pastel hues in a land where everyone was good and noble and pure, comparing this to a present that is “a cesspit of unalloyed evil.” In opposition he presents himself as an historian who understands, unlike us, the terrain and the enemy, who knows the history behind Carlson’s article better than all of us put together, so much better in fact, that Carlson's errors in writing it and ours in allowing it to be printed provoked a violent eruption of derisive laughter. He tells us that he, unlike us, is aware that “human depravity is pretty constant across all ages,” goes to war with the impression that our part of the world has become morally worse in the last several generations, and threatens us with statistics, forsooth, if we have the cheek to oppose him.

The first note I would make on this is, of course, that what he says about our view of a golden past was quickly and accurately identified by our readers as the tawdry burlesque that it was. It helps, of course, if you wish to present yourself as an intellectual of world-historical proportions, as Mr. Koehl consistently does, that you first make others with some claim to knowledge into simpletons. What other reason could there be for the caricature?

Then there is the claim of the profound historian that “human depravity is pretty constant across all ages.” If he is using “depravity” in its theological sense as referring to the darkness of the human heart and its proclivity to sin, there is no one among our editors or regular correspondents who would disagree. That does not, however, seem to be what he is about. Rather, he puts this forward as part of an argument that one cannot claim strictures upon, and positive spiritual movements against, the constant of human depravity have made some ages and places morally better than others, so those of us who perceive a precipitous moral decline in this part of the world during the last several generations cannot possibly stand against the world-historical refutations of someone who is prepared to show (with statistics, forsoothissimo!) that people have always behaved badly. I would prepare to cower if it weren't that this claim is so blatantly contrary to the worldview inculcated by the Jewish and Christian scriptures, allegiance to which I presume he professes, I simply cannot believe he is serious.

I conclude that in places like this, Mr. Koehl’s principal enjoyment of the venue is the game of baiting intelligent people, of making shocking statements for the pleasure of seeing the toffs deal with what he has laid down. Whatever his level of knowledge may be, he has considerable skill in rhetoric. He knows that once one rises over a certain threshold of knowledge, he can make an informed and cogent argument for anything, however absurd, and can carry this argument ad infinitum, provided he finds someone to argue with. I have known four or five other people like him, and he is the second best of the lot. The arguer who will lay claim to a position and never give an inch of ground can say anything he wishes, and make any claims he pleases about the depth of his knowledge (whether already in hand or the study-as-you-go variety) or the magnitude of his intelligence. No one can refute him simply because he refuses to be refuted.

Now, with regard to the numerous complaints about Mr. Koehl that have come before the senior editors: We have not considered him together yet in camera, but I will give my own opinion. I resent omniscience, and wish he would either go away or do us the favor of assuming human flesh. But it appears that as long as we run a blogsite like this, people who merely irritate are free to do it as long as they don’t use dirty words.

We have been operating Mere Comments as an editorially-observed but virtually unmoderated public forum. If our contributors don’t want to know what Stuart Koehl has to say about their contributions, they can close comments, as I normally do now, and I would suggest that others not rise to the bait he is so good at laying before this audience as he continues to appear as the Master of us All. It goes against my grain to single him out for exclusion just because he is the most contrary of our contrarians, especially since he often has good things to say. Until we have a change of policy--and the means to enforce it--that would force moderation upon him, or Mere Comments is closed, I think things should remain pretty much as they are, although I would suggest that a good number of us would do well to ignore the more Toadlike of his bloviations.

Finally: The problem with using a "critical eye on everything," as Mr. Koehl recommends, is that the critical eye cannot in itself discern meaning, and has no interpretive authority. Although it is efficient at creating the illusion of objectivity, it is no less subjective than minds over which it attempts to exercise its putatively superior powers, no less susceptible to prejudicial selection and interpretation.  Criticism is a universal solvent that when applied to "everything" leaches away the constructive manifestations of truth in the world that can only be discerned by Wisdom--which, while using criticism, keeps it subject to its transcendental and categorically higher self, withdrawing wherever powers that are by right its servants (like logic, system, and criticism) have come to rule.      

It is a dangerous mistake to believe that the more one knows and the greater the critical powers one can bring to bear upon what is known, the more one understands. Understanding is the creature of Wisdom, which can do with very little of either, and is silent more than it speaks.  It is grave, contemplative, does not scoff, and may be very ignorant of what can be known of the world.  Think of knowledge and critical power, magnified exponentially by intelligence and immortality: the living death of the higher caste of devils.   

It’s all in Kierkegaard, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. What DO they teach in the schools these days?

[Christopher Hathaway]

I agree with Stuart that we have seen slides into degeneracy before. Honoverian England was a relative cesspool, and this was followed by the evangelical reform of manners and the Victorian reign, which in turn descended into a false hypocritical morality giving rise to later Edwardian licentiousness. And so on and so on.

What I think he is missing here is the shift from hypocrisy and semi-furtive decadence into a more earnest embrace of immorality. It is said that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice gives to virtue. We have precious little of that in the sphere of sexual mores or in religious truth in our society. One may say that this is a fad indulged in by the elites while the masses go on much as before, but it is the elites who have power to govern how things go on with the masses.

What is very new today, if my reading of history is any judge, and I am happy for Stuart to correct me, is the level to which immorality has moved from liscence to mandate. No longer happy to indulge in decadence and wink to the masses, putting on a thin show of morality, no longer even willing to simply say that they are above all that nonsense about being virtuous, now the elites are seeking to MAKE all men embrace the same immorality and they are using their power and influence to corrupt the next generation. We must not overlook how the schools have been hijacked to sevre the new morality. Past decadent societies simply ignored the calls for virtue. They did not seek to stamp them out or turn them into orcs as Morgoth did to the elves.

In short, we are now not a society run by immoral hypocrites but rather by heretics, irreligious fanatics who are zealously seeking to create a new world, a world not beholden at all to Christian ideas of morality and virtue.

We may have been here before, but not, I think, in over a thousand, make that two thousand years. This certainly does not mean that we are doomed, but it does mean that the battle is going to be more fiecre than it has ever been, We can't expect it to simply correct itself.

[Stuart Koehl]

I am loathe to reenter the fray here, seeing as nobody wants to hear what I have to say, but I will give this one last shot:

it is fallacious to think that the general population of the United States has bought into the moral and behavioral decadence popularized by the elites in the entertainment, therapeutic and academic industries. For the most part, ordinary Americans continue to behave in much the same way they always did, and we must be careful, as I said, not to elevate outliers to the mean.

The principal difference between today and the past is, as I have said and others have agreed, a lack of guilt or shame relating to deviancy. Part of this can be attributed to the "cult of authenticity" and the raising of "hypocrisy" to a cardinal sin. But these are areas, too, that are mainly a fetish of the elites. In short, our problem is nothing less than a full blow trahaison des clercs.

If we wish to retake the culture, then we cannot withdraw from the culture; neither can we condemn the whole culture because of a few pockets of rot. Instead, conservatives, and especially Christian conservatives, must become more fully engaged in the culture, in all of its manifold aspects. If movies and television are amoral trash, that is mainly the fault of Christians and conservatives who did not think these media were worth their time of day. Like not voting in an election because you don't like any choice, not competing in the culture leaves you on the outside, with no right to complain one way or the other.

Christians still look askance at the idea of "going Hollywood", of competing head-to-head in the movie, music and television business, as though mere association with such things is polluting. But face facts--people are not going to stop going to movies, or watching television, or listening to pop music. So what are we doing to improve the quality of the fare? By all accounts, not much. Occasionally, a sleeper will slip by, like the Passion, or Lord of the Rings, or Narnia, or Juno--though I note a lot of Christian conservatives didn't like Juno, probably for the same reason they did not like Harry Potter; i.e., they seem to prefer simplistic allegories with cardboard characters in glorious black-and-white to morally complex dramas or comedies in which people face all sorts of ambiguous situations.

For which reason, let's be clear, most overtly Christian entertainment, well, stinks, and thus is ignored, both by audiences and by the suits who run the business, and rightfully so. A number of conservatives and Christians have recently noted this and are calling for more talented and media savvy representatives of our point of view to go into the industry, taking it over from the ground up.

Because, in an elite-driven movement, the only way to take over and change things is to become the elite. And the only way to do that is the same way that liberals went from being the rebels to being The Man: the long march through the institutions. That means steering talented young conservative Christians into areas they would not normally consider for their careers--media, entertainment, Academe, even mental health. Typically, we don't go to these areas because, well, we've got "more important" fish to fry--and I admit not being attracted to any of these, nor my children for that matter. But it has to be done, and I think there must be enough right-minded, talented and tenacious young people out there to do it.

If you win over the elite--or displace it--then you set the agenda, you make the product, you shape the attitudes. But it won't be easy, since you cannot simply dictate what will and won't be acceptable. You have to steer people to your point of view indirectly, through your products. You have to win in the marketplace, because the suits really only care about money. If transgressive makes money, transgressive gets made. If virtue makes money, virtue gets made. It may take a while for Hollywood to get the message, since the community works on two levels--one interested in commercial profit, the other in moral posturing among peers. Which is why all sorts of transgressive dogs of movies get made, even when they are only seen by dozens of people and go direct to video in Uzbekistan. But eventually, even Hollywood bows to the numbers. Nothing could stop The Passion of the Christ because no one in Hollywood is going to turn up his nose at $300 millon in profits. That Hollywood was unable to follow through with other movies that resonated with a Christian audience says a lot about the problem: Aside from Mel Gibson, who else in Hollywood had both the belief and the talent to pull it off? Nobody. The number of Christian conservatives in the top ranks of Hollywood directors and producers is pretty slim. We need to change that, or the term "Christian" in front of film, television, music or books will continue to be synonymous with "lame".

But if you can do that, you'll see how quickly the culture will turn around. Then we'll be back to a more normal situation, where deviance is endemic, but at least we condemn it for what it is.

[Christopher Hathaway]

Why aren't the new comments showing up here?

[Stuart Koehl]

Someone tell Christopher about the Next button

[Christopher Hathaway]

Thanks Stuart.

[Rob G]

"it is fallacious to think that the general population of the United States has bought into the moral and behavioral decadence popularized by the elites in the entertainment, therapeutic and academic industries. For the most part, ordinary Americans continue to behave in much the same way they always did, and we must be careful, as I said, not to elevate outliers to the mean."

Stuart, I think this is where many of us believe you're wrong. But it's not that the masses have bought into the decadence wholesale and have fully embraced it -- it's more like they have let their defenses down and in the process have become tolerant of ever-increasing levels and instances of vice, even if they themselves don't participate. As Christopher wrote above, this is partly due to a change in the elites' attitude from one of license to one of mandate. This mandate, however, is being foisted on the masses more by a sort of insidious subterfuge and indirection than by fiat or command.

I know that the frog in the boiling water analogy is both overused and scientifically inaccurate, but that's pretty much what's going on here.

[GL]

I agree with Rob here. That the masses have not all gone out and had abortions, engaged in sodomy or married someone of the same sex does not mean that large numbers of them have not accepted such practices. In particular, younger adults, including many self-described Evangelical Christians, are growing ever more tolerant of same-sex relationships and even marriage or marriage-lite recognition for same-sex couples. And in reference to Tony's post on the Super Bowl ads, large numbers undoubtedly enjoyed the ads with scantly clad women being treated as objects of lust and being demeaned for their amusement and to sell junk or junk food.

And this is part of a long pattern of a society wide dissent into the abyss. One hundred years ago many conservative Christians would have been appalled by the suggestion that using contraception was to be tolerated. In fact, as many or more Protestants as Catholics railed against the suggestion that it was morally licit and should be so at law during the debate over the issue in the first half of the twentieth century. But over the course of years more and more came to accept it and most conservative Christians today not only tolerate the use of contraception by others, they accept it as licit and use it themselves.

And this has been the pattern on a host of issues which were one hundred years ago considered morally scandalous but which, over time, were first the subject of intense debate, leading to general toleration, leading to acceptance, leading to practice by those who claim to be the spiritual heirs of the ones who would be scandalized by the practices their would be heirs tolerate, accept and engage in themselves.

This is precisely what is happening with same-sex relationships today. The children and grandchildren of Evangelical Christians who were (and still are if alive) scandalized by homosexual behavior came first to tolerate and then accept same-sex relationships. And now, they have come to actually endorse civil unions in many cases, especially the young adults, and are coming to even support calling such relationships "marriages." And frankly, while contraception, abortion and even infanticide have been widely accepted in past societies, and same-sex relationships have been tolerated or even accepted in the pagan world. I know of no previous time in human history when society accepted same-sex marriage. Yet, absent some great reversal, that appears to be where we are rapidly heading over the next couple of decades. And even if we can find an earlier society as perverted as our own, that makes it no less a matter worthy of our concern and resistance.

My chief difference with many here is my strong feeling that law has not been in the vanguard of this change. Rather, I see the law changing to accommodate changes already well underway, with policy makers changing the law to accommodate the changing attitudes of society just as the changes long underway are reaching the tipping point when such changes are about to be widely accepted by society as a whole. And because of that belief on my part, I do not see changing law as a very useful tool in reversing what has happened. Rather, I believe that we must return to the Great Commission, making disciples of Christ and making sure that we do a proper job of catechizing the disciples. When we sheep begin to know God's will and to do it and as are numbers grow, by His grace. Then we (or rather our descendants in all likelihood) will see the changes for which we all long.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Stuart Koehl: "If we wish to retake the culture, then we cannot withdraw from the culture; neither can we condemn the whole culture because of a few pockets of rot. Instead, conservatives, and especially Christian conservatives, must become more fully engaged in the culture, in all of its manifold aspects."

GL: "Rather, I see the law changing to accommodate changes already well underway, with policy makers changing the law to accommodate the changing attitudes of society just as the changes long underway are reaching the tipping point when such changes are about to be widely accepted by society as a whole. And because of that belief on my part, I do not see changing law as a very useful tool in reversing what has happened. Rather, I believe that we must return to the Great Commission, making disciples of Christ and making sure that we do a proper job of catechizing the disciples."

I think these 2 excerpts from Stuart and GL are rather useful in highlighting what I see as a false dichotomy. Because neither one is mutually exclusive! Engaging the culture does not preclude the work of the Great Commission and visa versa. It's Both/And, not Either/Or.

And I do see Stuart Koehl's remarks as being Both/And. But with GL, I'm not sure, given his comment above.

And his comment about "returning to the Great Commission" seems more appropos of LibProts. Conservatives (of all Faith-Traditions) appear to me to be faithfully working on the Great Commission.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>And his comment about "returning to the Great Commission" seems more appropos of LibProts. Conservatives (of all Faith-Traditions) appear to me to be faithfully working on the Great Commission.<<<

I have doubts about that. It seems to me that the "traditionalists" in most Christian confessions have a tendency to withdraw from the world, adopting either implicitly or explicitly a "saving remnant" philosophy: the world is damned, so turn your back on it and cultivate your own holiness. I see this in Catholic traditionalists (except in the area of abortion), among the more conservative Orthodox and Greek Catholics, among traditional Anglicans, and among many Protestant denominations. Certainly there are conservative Christians who are energetic evangelists, but not nearly as many as their ought to be, considering that Christ warned us about hiding our light under a bushel basket.

[Judy K. Warner]

I think Rob's comment is right. And the worst part of it is that the notion of "tolerance" has become what is mandated, as long as what is to be tolerated is not something yucky like abstinence or Christianity. There is no mechanism in people's minds whereby they can say "enough" or "no further." Most of those old people who are still able to feel scandalized, and to believe things that go on today are immoral, at the same time feel guilty about their own reactions.

[Benighted Savage]

Stuart Koehl writes:

>>> I would have to look around, but I am sure that there are all sorts of stupid things that women have done over the centuries to make themselves more sexually attractive and/or available to men. <<<

I'd say footbinding during late imperial China would be an excellent example of this. For a while, it was universal at all levels of Chinese society (excepting minority groups like the Hakka).

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I'd say footbinding during late imperial China would be an excellent example of this. For a while, it was universal at all levels of Chinese society (excepting minority groups like the Hakka).<<<

If we look in that direction, then coreseting falls into the same category. To get her 19-inch waist, Scarlet O'Hara bound her stomach so tightly she displaced internal organs and probably also dislocated her spine. Women also used to put drops of belladonna in their eyes to dilate their pupils, took doses of arsenic to make their hair more sleek, Actual surgical procedures were rare before the modern era simply because they were often fatal. Female genital mutilation in Muslim societies is an exception to that rule, but then they never really cared about female lives.

[Rob G]

Gotta love the logic here. A hundred years ago women wore corsets, and in old Japan they practiced foot-binding. Therefore, that mitigates the weird-o-rama of contemporary anus-bleaching, vagina-tightening surgery, and pubic hair styling.

"Most of those old people who are still able to feel scandalized, and to believe things that go on today are immoral, at the same time feel guilty about their own reactions."

Right, Judy. And if you're a younger person who still feels scandalized by these things? You're a prude or a presentist or a pessimist, or some combination of the three.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Gotta love the logic here. A hundred years ago women wore corsets, and in old Japan they practiced foot-binding. Therefore, that mitigates the weird-o-rama of contemporary anus-bleaching, vagina-tightening surgery, and pubic hair styling.<<<

Differences of degree, not of kind. Humans have and will continue to engage in a wide range of body-altering practices, whether cosmetic, surgical or fashionable, for the express purpose of attracting members of the opposite (or not) sex. It is a fact of life, and the practices you describe are titillating for the very reason that they are extraordinarily rare. This is an example of raising outliers to the norm.

>>>Right, Judy. And if you're a younger person who still feels scandalized by these things? You're a prude or a presentist or a pessimist, or some combination of the three.<<<

Actually, if I were to break it down, people age 60-75 seem the least "judgmental" about these things, while people under thirty appear to be the most offended by them. As for me, I never said I did not find these things distasteful, repugnant, perverted or just outright sick. I do. I just don't see them as being at the core of our culture, or things that preoccupy the minds of most people. They are, in fact, deviant, and most people treat them as deviant. However, you have to realize that the United States has had a broad tolerance for deviance as long as it was discreet. People are quite willing to live and let live, and tend to draw the line only when someone gets in their faces. Thus, most people are perfectly willing to leave homosexuals alone as long as homosexuals leave them alone. But when homosexuals demand recognition of their behavior as equivalent to that of conventional, married heterosexuals, people draw the line. Conversely, most people are quietly conventional in their morality, but really don't like people moralizing at them. If you were to attempt to impose your moral standards on the population in general, either through legislation or regulation, you would likely find yourself rejected in the same way that the transgressives are rejected. And this would most likely have been true a hundred or two hundred years ago. The founding principal of America is "Leave me alone". Whether that is good or not is a matter of debate, but it happens to be true.

[Rob G]

"This is an example of raising outliers to the norm."

Sure it is, but who's doing the raising? The elites are constantly pushing the envelope with this kind of stuff, and the media then trumpet it, accompanied by an 'isn't this cool?' wink. The intent is to dumb down the culture morally.

"you have to realize that the United States has had a broad tolerance for deviance as long as it was discreet."

What exactly is 'discreet' about it when it's shouted at you 24/7 from billboards, TV, radio, and checkout lines at the supermarket?

[David Gray]

>Differences of degree, not of kind.

Sufficient degree of difference produces difference of kind.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Rob G: "What exactly is 'discreet' about it when it's shouted at you 24/7 from billboards, TV, radio, and checkout lines at the supermarket?"

Wow Rob, you sound like an angry "Religious Right" nutter. Perhaps you might want to channel your displeasure into activism. I think Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association would appreciate your support.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

I've been listening to a radio station two mornings a week as I lift weights with my two oldest sons. I don't get to pick the station since I am lifting at a neighbor's home gym. The station is based out of Roanoke, VA and it advertises itself as "Morning Sleaze". It is not edifying. I don't know how popular it is but it is hard to say whether the songs (of a hiphop sort) or the banter by the DJs is worse. They don't cuss (usually) but they report and comment on the tawdrier aspects of Hollywood celebrities. Yesterday they spent almost an hour with call-in listeners who moralized about parents smoking with children in their cars. There is a strange mixture of titillation, condemnation and tolerance expressed in the course of a broadcast. But the topics they choose to dwell on reveal more, I think, than their commentary (which could be equaled by most moderately intelligent 13 year olds).

[Rob G]

Well, TUAD, the question was asked of Stuart, but since you jumped in, perhaps you'll answer it instead?

What's 'discreet' about any of it? Can you show me an example of reticence that wouldn't immediately bite the dust if the pertinent decency laws were relaxed?

[GL]

>>>What's 'discreet' about any of it? Can you show me an example of reticence that wouldn't immediately bite the dust if the pertinent decency laws were relaxed?<<<

And they will be.

In a democracy, the law follows culture, either into the sewer or out of it. If you want to change the law in a democracy, you have to change the way the people think about things.

In this respect, Stuart is correct. For decades, if not longer, those who oppose Christian virtue have controlled the means used to shape how people think. That is, they have been using most effectively the tools of evangelization (if you will) and are catechizing (if you will) the masses into having the same beliefs and tastes which they have.

The more people adopt Christian virtues, the less the law is needed to enforce them. In fact, the law is really only an effective tool if most people are inclined to obey its rules without its existence. The law is most effective when the conduct it is proscribing is generally considered unacceptable by the masses in the first place.

Either we do a better job of making disciples or expect the culture (if you want to call it that) to continue to sink deeper into the sewer and expect the law to follow. The law will change when the way the people think changes, not until then. If you don't care for that approach, move to Cuba. (And even Fidel had a propaganda machine.)

[Rob G]

"If you want to change the law in a democracy, you have to change the way the people think about things."

You mistake me if you believe I think that changing the laws is the answer here. Changing the way people think is indeed the key. However, it is disheartening to be opposed in one's sounding of the alarm required to motivate the troops to this action in the first place.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>In a democracy, the law follows culture, either into the sewer or out of it. If you want to change the law in a democracy, you have to change the way the people think about things.<<<

Except, of course, that is not what has been happening here. Rather, law has been usurped into the hands of unelected bureaucrats and life tenure jurists who are imposing their ideas of decency upon a very reluctant population. How was abortion legalized in this country? Was there a referendum? Was a law passed by Congress?

How has gay marriage gotten on the books in the two states where it is accepted? Again, was it through democrat processes or judicial fiat?

Why has religion been driven from the public square? Is it due to the clamor of the masses, or the select action of a few disgruntled secularists supported by the judges of their choice?

As for the culture itself, it has been following not leading these developments. Abortion was legal for years before it was discussed openly on television. And, if we look at television programs today (I know, nobody here watches the evil box), you would of course think that abortion would be the acceptable, even preferred resolution of a problem pregnancy on any given program. But in fact it is extremely rare for a character in a television program to get an abortion. Sometimes they talk about abortions they had in the past--usually with regret. Almost always, the character has the baby, whether to raise as her own or put up for adoption, but the baby is not aborted. In the very, very rare instances when a character has an abortion, it is not celebrated as anything great, wonderful or liberating.

If we accept the paradigm that culture drives law, then we would expect to see abortion portrayed more positively on television (and in movies). But we actually see the opposite, the reason being positive portrayals of abortion are not popular with the hoi polloi, and as long as entertainment is as much a business as an art form, popular will drive out unpopular. In this case, after thirty odd years of pro-abortion propaganda, the message has not taken with its intended audience, which is consistently opposed to abortion on demand (more so today than a decade or two ago), and would like to see more restrictions on it.

The same thing applies promiscuity and other forms of sexual deviance. If you think today is bad, you didn't live through the seventies. Nothing that happens in a college dorm today was not seen by yours truly and his peers thirty-odd years ago. The degree of bed-hopping was staggering, as was the lack of decorum. On more than one occasion, I woke up in the middle of the night to find my roommate and his lady of the evening going at it like rabbits (with two different roommates, no less). PDAs were rather explicit, too, whether on the quad or in the student lounge. And this, on an ostensibly Catholic (well, Jesuit!) university. On top of that, there were the drugs (I suspect I am one of the few people who does not thing "2001" was a great movie because I was one of few people who saw it without the benefit of psychotropic substances). What was happening on campus was happening in the broader society as well. Divorce rates skyrocketed during that period.

Today, though it may not get the same degree of attention that the more sexually outre gets, the tide is definitely turning. Even liberals are beginning to recognize the emotional, psychological and societal damage resulting from "free love". The notions of chastity, of monogamy, of fidelity in marriage are all suddenly "cool". A lot of this is still sub rosa, but I see in people in their twenties and teens a real yearning for meaning, for stability, for responsibility. I find them a lot more conservative and realistic than their parents--even if, in their naivete a lot of them got swept up in the Obama frenzy. Their objectives seem to be much more. . . bourgeois than that of their parents and grandparents: they want to study hard, get a good job, get married, have children. Maybe not as many as some of you might like, but they aren't eschewing parenthood altogether, which is what I see in Europe. So, maybe a good part of that is just rebelling against the licentiousness of their parents. Mommy and daddy were doctrinaire liberals, so Little Iodine will be safely conservative. I'll take that trend any day.

Younger people are, to the extent they are religious, considerably more conservative and traditional than their parents, too. That may also be reflexive, or it may simply indicate that progressive religion offers little of substance for people who want more than "self validation". I'll take that, too.

>>.In this respect, Stuart is correct. For decades, if not longer, those who oppose Christian virtue have controlled the means used to shape how people think. That is, they have been using most effectively the tools of evangelization (if you will) and are catechizing (if you will) the masses into having the same beliefs and tastes which they have.<<<

Well, yeah. So, what is everyone going to do about that? You can't control the culture if you turn your back on the culture. You can't control the culture unless you can produce compelling material that people want to watch, hear and read. Every now and again, stuff comes along that dovetails perfectly with what people are seeking. Ever notice that it is seldom explicitly Christian? Christians have to learn how to sell their wares without shouting like the guy in the Oxyclean commercials. Subtlety, irony, a light touch--it may not come naturally but it is the only way to do it.

While we are on the subject, I notice that nobody wanted to grapple with my suggestion that we first have to get our own houses in order before we start telling other people what to do with their lives. Does anyone suggest that all of our Churches and communities are constantly in need of reform? If not, which ones don't, and if you convince me, I'll sign up right now.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>However, it is disheartening to be opposed in one's sounding of the alarm required to motivate the troops to this action in the first place.<<<

Remember the boy who cried wolf, or perhaps Chicken Little. If you constantly tell people the sky is falling, or the wolf is at the door, but the sky stays up, and the wolf is nowhere to be seen, then eventually people will stop listening to you. If you tell people everything about the culture in which they live is decadent and corrupt, they will look around, see mostly normal people doing mostly normal things, shrug and pass you off as a crackpot.

Proportionality and reasonableness may be boring, but ultimately it bears more and better fruit.

[Rob G]

"Remember the boy who cried wolf, or perhaps Chicken Little. If you constantly tell people the sky is falling, or the wolf is at the door, but the sky stays up, and the wolf is nowhere to be seen, then eventually people will stop listening to you."

True. But it is also true that many people will choose not to listen when you tell them that the ice is thin, or that the branch they're about to climb out on won't support them.

"If you tell people everything about the culture in which they live is decadent and corrupt, they will look around, see mostly normal people doing mostly normal things, shrug and pass you off as a crackpot."

Who says 'everything' is decadent and corrupt? And who decides what's 'normal'? There's no doubt that many things considered normal nowadays would have been seen as abnormal and even perverse a generation or two ago.

[David Gray]

>And who decides what's 'normal'?

Preferably not someone who so easily speaks with the voice of the spirit of the age...

[W.E.D. Godbold]

I think Fr. Reardon is right and that "metanoia" is far more often addressed to Christians than nonbelievers. So Stuart is certainly correct that we ought to get our own houses in order. We should continue to plunder the Egyptians, but also recognize that there are more gifts and wonders in Christ than in the World. (Carnal teenagers don't always see this. And I was one.)

[GL]

>>>You mistake me if you believe I think that changing the laws is the answer here. Changing the way people think is indeed the key. However, it is disheartening to be opposed in one's sounding of the alarm required to motivate the troops to this action in the first place.<<<

That comment was not directed at you, Rob. I think you and I are in essential agreement here.

[Rob G]

"That comment was not directed at you, Rob. I think you and I are in essential agreement here."

Thanks, Greg. Just didn't want to be mistaken for a legalist!

[GL]

>>>Except, of course, that is not what has been happening here. Rather, law has been usurped into the hands of unelected bureaucrats and life tenure jurists who are imposing their ideas of decency upon a very reluctant population. How was abortion legalized in this country? Was there a referendum? Was a law passed by Congress?<<<

You are looking too narrowly at the issue. Let's start with contraception. It was illegal in many states during the late 19th century and early 20th. It was also condemned (if still practiced) by conservative Christians, who then had a significant voice in making the laws. (Though many of these then "conservative" Christians were housed in mainline denominations which have become anything but conservative.) Over a period of a few decades, the advocates for legalizing birth control and for getting Christians to accept it slowly gained more and more support from the populace. Then, the 1930 Lambeth Conference gave a license (albeit in limited circumstances) to use contraception. From there, more and more Protestants came to believe its use should be legalized and many states repealed their restrictions. By the time Griswold was decided in 1965, the use of contraception was widely practiced and the Court was following, not leading, in overturning the remaining restriction.

Let's move on to abortion. The same pattern is evident. By the time Roe was handed down, several states already had repealed most of the restrictions on abortions in their state. I believe I recall the 70% of all Americans lived either in a state or within a three or four hour drive of a state which permitted abortion on the day that Roe was decided. Again, the Court was following, not leading. Indeed, that wild-eyed liberal Ronald Reagan signed into law perhaps the most liberal abortion law in the country while governor of California in the years just before Roe. And at first even many conservative Evangelical Christians had not problem with Roe. I was alive then; I remember. The pro-life movement took several years to get a head of steam and was a distinct minority position among the populace for years. Indeed, I find hope that in time, the growing public rejection for abortion laws as liberal as those mandated by Roe and Casey will lead the Court to overturn them (that is, leading them to overturn them because those who appoint judges and justices will be more inclined to appoint those in line with the popular opinion). But since the law follows the popular opinion and because of built in restrictions to change, it may take decades before the law catches up with the people. (Just as it did with contraception and with the liberalization of abortion laws.)

On sodomy, we see the same thing. Sodomy (both heterosexual and homosexual) was a crime in many states during most of our history. Then in the middle years of the 20th century, most states repealed their laws against heterosexual sodomy and many repealed all laws against consensual sodomy. By the time the Lawrence case was decided, only seven states still had on their books laws criminalizing consensual sodomy and almost all (if not all) of them were limited to homosexual acts. Again, the Court was following culture.

I will admit that the Massachusetts Supreme Court appears to have been ahead of culture, at least in America as a whole. On the other hand, while there are methods available to amend that state's constitution, the popular support of such an amendment has been inadequate to get such an amendment enacted. I'm uninformed about any efforts to overturn Connecticut's court decision. But it is true that the Goodridge decision was ahead of the populace in other states and ignited efforts to stop its spread. That was a good thing. Having said that, acceptance of civil unions or domestic partnerships laws continue to spread through legislation. It appears then that the Massachusetts Supreme Court was not too far ahead of the populace in its own state, if at all, and that it was also correct about the general direction of the country, if somewhat ahead of it because it was in a liberal state.

I cannot think of a single instance in which the Court or courts were in the forefront of any of these changes. They were not the last to get on board, of course, but they seem to hand down these ruling just as society as a whole is reaching a tipping point.

Now it is true that courts often get impatient with the legislation taking too long and then decide to legislate from the bench, usurping a function which does not belong to the courts. On the other hand, we seldom see amendments enacted to overturn the court decisions in these areas. Why? Because large portions of the population (sometimes majorities and sometimes large minorities) favor the ruling. That is, there is already a large body of citizens who agree with the rulings when they come down, at least large enough to prevent the decisions from being overturned by available legislative means.

I've spent a lot of time looking at this and the pattern is pretty clear. Fortunately, many Christians are beginning to reach the same conclusion and are concluding that our primary focus (but not our sole focus) needs to be in converting the populace, leading them to think differently about these issues.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Hey GL,
I know you've said the law can be a leader as well as a follower. If the Supreme Court says that abortion is okay, then a lot of unreflective people are going to think that maybe these smart guys, with all the authority of the United States of America, are onto something and so think it is okay. There seem to be more than a small fraction of ideologs populating courtrooms who don't give a damn what the greater populace thinks. What's that Berger quip about the United States being a nation of Indians led by Swedes?

[GL]

>>>I know you've said the law can be a leader as well as a follower.<<<

Gene,

It is true that when the law speaks, some people mistake its permission as a stamp of moral approval (e.g., "Since the Supreme Court says I have a right to have an abortion, it is right for me to have an abortion.") And it is true that court ruling can, in fact, be important in pushing our society over the tipping point. I don't dispute that. The courts are, in fact, a voice in forming public opinion. I am not trying to deny that.

What I am saying is that judges and justices are not the one's who brought us to this point. Judges are not revolutionaries. They are not truly original thinkers. Progressive judges are those who are most attune to movements which are already well underway. They are responding to movements long underway and being led by others rather than starting movements and leading them. The same is true for legislators and executives. It is not wrong to try to step into the stream at the point of law-making to try to prevent further downstream damage, but it is better to deal with problems such as these at their headwaters. Law is as much, indeed more, the product of what was happened before it than the cause of what follows it.

I am a lawyer. I practiced law for almost eight year and I have taught it for more than a dozen years. I write articles advocating legal positions. I am not opposed to seeking legal remedies. But I am also very aware of the limitations of what law can do and am keenly aware of how laws come to be. The focus on law as the solution to our cultural problems is dealing with the problem much further down stream than is ideal. And, if we are going to use law as part of the solution, we need to understand the greater cultural movements which causes changes in the rules of law. Winning elections and appointing judges are the products of what go before them. You can't start there and hope to be successful. You have to start by reforming the larger culture out of which laws our formed.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>By the time Griswold was decided in 1965, the use of contraception was widely practiced and the Court was following, not leading, in overturning the remaining restriction.<<<

You are deluding yourself if you think contraception was NOT widely practiced decades before the 1960s. Going back to World War I, the United States Army distributed condoms to its troops (yeah, yeah, for the "prevention of disease only"); in between the Wars the services in Hawaii not only sanctioned military-inspected brothels, but insisted that any soldier or sailor going off post has a "french letter" in his pocket. Condoms were readily available in most places, just were not publicly displayed. There were also "folk methods" of contraception in wide use.

If you want to be honest, most people were unconcerned with Griswold, never even knew it occurred. There was no ground swell for legalized contraceptives in the United States because, well, anyone who wanted them could get them. Griswold, as is usually the case, wasn't really concerned with getting access to contraceptives as he was in making a point about government intervention in sexual matters. Thus, again, the elites led, using the law as their weapon. Do you think that states would have overturned whatever laws were on the books (mostly unenforced, by the way) without the spur of a Supreme Court decision?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>True. But it is also true that many people will choose not to listen when you tell them that the ice is thin, or that the branch they're about to climb out on won't support them.<<<

Well, then they learn from the object lesson. Which might also be considered evolution in action. That appears to be what is happening today, if you look to leading instead of lagging indicators.

[GL]

>>>You are deluding yourself if you think contraception was NOT widely practiced decades before the 1960s.<<<

There you go again, Stuart, erecting straw men. I never said contraception wasn't widely practiced decades before the 1960s. I have said quite the opposite in this very thread and many other times on this site, a fact of which you should be well aware since we have debated the issue several times.

It is your constant practice of erecting straw men (and simplistic ones at that) which make nuanced discussions with you on various subjects impossible. You like to paint things as black or white, either/or. The world's a lot more complicated than that.

And I prefer discussions to debates, by the way. One upping one another is for high school boys, members of the debate team and politicians.

[Rob G]

"Well, then they learn from the object lesson."

The fact that some people will ignore the warning doesn't mean that you cease issuing it.

[Stuart Koehl]

You mean like Willy Wonka? (Sotto voce: "Stop, don't, come back").

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

GL,

With regards to your passion (obsessive-compulsion?) for discussing contraception, do you treat Christians who do use contraception in the same way as you stated earlier?

I.e., "I think they were wrong, badly wrong, but I would never say that they were not good Christians because I know enough about their character and the good works which our Lord has done and is doing through them not to pass that type of judgment."

[GL]

TUAD,

You really don't get it do you? I listed contraception along with abortion, sodomy and same-sex marriage to show a pattern of how each issue developed in culture before the courts changed the law in those area. My post was not about contraception, but about the pattern of how changes in our culture in each case were well underway and well advanced before the courts changed the laws as they relate to those areas. The post had nothing to do with contraception per se. I used those four examples because they are related, both culturally and legally, and were useful in showing the pattern which I was discussing.

I will say, however, that I am no more judgmental about contraception than you are about abortion and homosexuality. So, TUAD, if the shoe fits, wear it. And that, TUAD, was my point on that issue earlier with you. You decide which actions you consider sins and then hammer people for those things, but you don't like it too much when the tables are turned. None of us do, of course, but maybe you should keep in that in mind whenever you are condemning others. See again Matthew 7:1-5.

(By the way, I attend a church in which the pastor does not agree entirely with me on the issue of contraception and, I am sure, many members of the church use contraception. That is, I don't judge those people as being bad Christians because they disagree with me on the matter. Who knows, some of them may have even voted for Obama, but I can still worship with them and can see how God is using them. You, not I, are the one who feels adequate to make judgments that folks who don't agree with you are not good Christians.)

Now drop it already. I suggested that earlier but you keep bring it up. I've told you what I think about what you said during the election and you've told me what you think about what I said. I get it. We aren't going to agree about this, so stop bring it up and move on with your life.

If you bring up any more, expect me to resume ignoring your comments.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"You, not I, are the one who feels adequate to make judgments that folks who don't agree with you are not good Christians."

Utterly untrue.

You're making the same mistake again that I pointed out earlier.

Anyways, I'm glad you agree that Christians who use contraception are not bad Christians.