In A Culture of Sin, Lent Shows Us How To Be Counter-Cultural
Television is both a reflection of the culture at large but also the means by which future generations are being socialized. It is for the second reason I am never against examining the influence television has on society. And what one finds on television can be rather disturbing indeed.
There is a general agreement that sexuality, inside or outside of marriage, is the norm, and it does no good to call people into accountability and to require them to be chaste. Indeed, many treat any call for abstinence to be immoral. We have been given a new morality, one which says we must allow people to fulfill their desires, as long as it “harms none.”[1] Telling people to follow their passions such as lust is now what it means to be good, and the only evil is to tell people to have any kind of self control. We are constantly being told that the only problem we need to worry about is not fulfilling the passions, but the consequences of such actions. We need to find a way to overcome those consequences we do not like without stopping the actions themselves. Indeed, we are told that it is immoral to have people keep any unwanted consequences for their actions if we can find a way to eliminate them. Thus, the new sexual ethic is not to control oneself and to avoid fornication, but to work for birth control; anyone who doesn’t do it is treated as stupid and worthless, indeed, immoral, while those who practice “safe sex” are treated as the exemplars our new morality.
We find examples of this all over television. We do not have to watch nighttime dramas to get this message. All we need to do is watch shows like The View, Steve Wilkos or Judge Judy, and we will see this false morality being preached. Judge Judy is capable of great rants when she finds a couple, married or not, are having sex and not practicing birth control and ending up with many children. She is not the only one — indeed, this is the norm with daytime reality shows (courtroom drama or talk shows alike). Judge Judy has even suggested that all women should be implanted with a “contraceptive chip” at birth, able to be turned on and off only when babies are wanted (and, in all probability, if the couple can afford them).
It is quite apparent that the birth control crowd engages its greatest criticism not on the rich, who can afford to raise children, but on poor couples whose finances are not so well off. The criticism often given to such couples is how irresponsible they are for having more children if they cannot afford the ones they already have. While it is true that economics can be a serious concern, the solution is not to mandate birth control as if humans were pets to be spayed and neutered. The bond of sex in marriage as a means of expressing love cannot be for the rich alone. As Catholics, indeed, the preferential option for the poor should express even more why the poor need to be affirmed in the gifts they are given. We must move beyond the model of “welfare moms” as women to be insulted if they are married and have many children. Rather, we must find a way to increase our solidarity with the people around us, especially such poor women who are trying to follow the law of love, so that those who are not as economically well off can and will be able to experiences the gifts God desires for them.
But there is more going on than this discrimination against the poor; this contraceptive mentality is actually harmful to women. The lie, of course, is it that contraception and birth control methods give women freedom. But what kind of freedom is it to be enslaved to such unnatural necessities, and to be turned into a mere object to be used by men? The ideology of contraception turns women into objects of desire, and turns sex into the mere gratification of desire. The man can toss the woman aside just as quickly as the used condom, once he has had his way with her. What kind of dignity is there to the woman who is being used this way? True feminists understand the degradation going on with women in such activity and reject turning the feminine merely as the object of lust. The contraceptive culture only adds to the long list of abuses against women that society has come to accept — and nothing shows where this is leading than the desire to force women to be implanted with some unnatural form of birth control at birth. There is no way a true feminist (someone who supports the integrity of women) can support such enslavement of women.
On the other hand, men, though they seem to get more out of the contraceptive culture, nonetheless also suffer degradation as well. There is no doubt about it, just as contraception hurts women, making them something less than themselves, so men are turned into mere sexual machines who have no ability to control their passions and to put a stop to them when they are out of line. The mentality of contraception is to please oneself and to seek after one wants without any consequences; what it does, however, is not beyond consequences. Men have changed and become quite unmanly in the last few decades. There is no doubt a major part of it is they have not learned how to deal with adversity, to deal with challenges, to hold out for what is good. The passions, we are told, are what is good: give in to them. So it goes with contraception, and so it goes with all other activities. Men do not know how to control themselves, and see no need to do so. They do not know how to man up and struggle for the good; they just want to go through the path of least resistance, whether or not it is good.
This is exactly the fundamental anthropological problem we see with the culture at large. Once again, it is the belief that what one wants must be good merely because one wants it. What rarely crosses the social mind is whether or not desire is always good, or if it can be corrupted. The answer, of course, is not only can it be corrupted — it has been corrupted. Even when we are cleansed from original sin, we suffer from concupiscence and must struggle to overcome it. For different people, the struggles will be different, for we all have different weaknesses. Some people are easily addicted to drugs and alcohol and must fight against it. Others are addicted to pornography and must fight against lust. Others are addicted to food, and must fight against their gluttonous desires. The list can go on and on as we describe all the things which tempt us — but the point is, we are all given into various temptations, and we find, like St Paul, that we might want what is good, but our flesh fights against it and desires what is not good. Our social structure has left this struggle behind. Consumerism, it can be said, requires this — how else can a consumerist society exist? And this exactly why Catholics must fight against consumerism, because it is one of the focal points of the culture of death, and as long as the ideals of consumerism are alive, the slavery of the passions will continue to dominate us as a society.
One of the great aspects of the Lenten Fast (the Great Fast) is that it reminds us to simplify ourselves and our lives. To follow its dictates is to be counter-cultural, because it works against the ideals of our consumer culture. We strive to overcome ourselves, our egoistic self and its passions instead of accepting them and buying those goods which would momentarily satisfy them. The prayer of St Ephrem, recited throughout Lent in the East, presents to us what it means to be true men and women of God. Prayed and recited with faith, it serves a good personal antidote for the commercialization of sin found in our culture today:
O Lord and Master of my life, give me not the spirit of sloth, idle curiosity, lust for power and idle talk. But grant unto me, Thy servant, a spirit of chastity, humility, patience and love. Yea, O Lord and King, grant me to see mine own faults and not to judge my brother. For blessed art Thou unto the ages of ages. Amen.
[1] Of course, the question of how one knows they are harming none is not brought up; only immediate, easily discernable harm is meant here. The Satanic lie that there is no harm for sin continues — originally it was “thou shalt not surely die,” now it is “thou shalt not surely harm anyone.” Of course, all the ruined lives around us should tell us this is not the case.
Comments are closed.
“Catholics must fight against consumerism, because it is one of the focal points of the culture of death, and as long as the ideals of consumerism are alive, the slavery of the passions will continue to dominate us as a society.”
Very true – of course you realize that this fight is been going on from the beginning of times – on a positive note at any given time in history you can find a nice peaceful group of people living the kind of ideals you and others rightly point towards.
People do get it – but it was never all or nothing.
While I very much like your unique kind voice here it is clear that quite a bit of it is driven by your own very distinct path in life up to this point – than again that is true for all of us.
A good post for the Lenten season for sure – but still I am not sure if your at times broad stroke
does the realty of most people justice.I had to smile when I read this
“Men have changed and become quite unmanly in the last few decades. There is no doubt a major part of it is they have not learned how to deal with adversity, to deal with challenges, to hold out for what is good.”
Really? I disagree.
While no doubt here in the West the pendulum of gender equality has swing past the midpoint at times – overall the unique experiences this provides us men are often worth it.
I am male and unlike you do not feel that I am in great position to muse about the details of the female condition – I certainly do not think that contraception hurts women per se. I find related sentences in you post actually quite patronizing.
As you know man “have tossed the woman aside ..just as quickly once he has had his way with her” with or without condom. This world has been imperfect for more than a generation or two. We work on these imperfection just to have new ones arising – unfortunately all the old ones stay – a never ending game really. Despite it all plenty of beauty and greatness. Praise the Lord
“We have been given a new morality, one which says we must allow people to fulfill their desires, as long as it “harms none.” Telling people to follow their passions such as lust is now what it means to be good, and the only evil is to tell people to have any kind of self control.”
How true!
There was a time when harm was understood objectively. In the postmodern culture harm is defined as “a violation of a person’s interests”. If someone wants to engage in promiscuous sexual activity, get an abortion, or use drugs to get high, the objective harm is dismissed as long as everyone affected gets what they want. The end result is a culture of pragmatic pleasure seekers. And yes, contraceptives do play a big role in this.
What is worse; however, is that anything said or done to limit such behavior is by definition a violation of a person’s interest. So the subjectivist feels perfectly justified in attacking those who defend objective moral standards as the fundamental building blocks of a civilized society.
I’m not quite sure how you can understand as anything but degrading your apparent view that the women are to be evaluated only as the objects of men, be those men on the make for cheap promiscuous sex or chaste marital bliss:
“But what kind of freedom is it to be enslaved to such unnatural necessities, and to be turned into a mere object to be used by men?”
What makes you so sure that the men are not, in at least as many cases, being used by women? Women in our society are no longer, for the most part, reliant on men for their keep, and have no material incentive for allowing themselves to be so objectified.
You may be reaching the correct conclusions in this piece, but I fear that you are a bit off that mark in that particular aspect of your reasoning.
It is not so far in our past that women were treated, either actually or virtually, as chattel. Their current economic, as well as their reproductive, freedom has gone along way towards emancipating them from being objectied by men. They can, and do, reverse those traditional roles at will.
That said, women may well be victimized, right along with men, by all of the lusts and excesses of our consumer society that you list above. But they are at least victimized as free agents now, making their own mistakes where they err, and worthy of full credit where they allow the Good to guide them. They can now choose whether to be chaste, or not. It has not been so long that this choice was routinely theirs to make.
Rodak
Certainly women are indeed using men, and so I do not disagree. Indeed, I wanted people to explore the ways people are using each other in this fashion, and to move beyond my text in this fashion. I wanted to give examples from both genders without being exclusive to those examples, if that makes sense
Yes, that makes perfect sense. Thank you.
Very nice essay, Henry.
It is so sad and ironic that this new morality (that I can do what pleases me as long as I “hurt no one”) results in the individual hurting himself more than anyone else.
My friends scoff at how I am “depriving” myself, and yet they allow themselves to be objects for the pleasure of people they couldn’t possibly love.
Anyone who challenges the social norm has a stigma, while people who go along with the status quo are seizing the sexual revolution (which apparently challenges the status quo?).
I have been asked time and again why I stand by my beliefs and choose to uphold chastity. I am always dismayed when my friends are unable to understand why anyone would find pleasure with the absence of unity repellent.
I am especially concerned about the pressure for men to be sexual machines. If a woman faces ridicule for choosing chastity, a man faces complete social rejection.
I thought that we lived in a culture that promoted choice and freedom of religion, but that is not true. One is only free to choose what the status quo proposes. One is only free to practice their religion if they are willing to do so in the context of the status quo (thereby compromising certain aspects of their religion).
It is hard for me to be proud to be an American in light of this.
Helen (www.mediumandlight.blogspot.com
Yes, it is indeed a part of life that we have to face, but as I point out, we can look at it as that we are truly the ones being counter-cultural, and we have a solid reason for being so.
Moreover, we have to accept that in our struggle, in our cross, things can be quite tough. I know as I look on and see what is going on, I struggle looking just for someone to love — and just see a culture which doesn’t know how to love, and understand why it is hard to find someone. It’s not easy, and can be quite disheartening, but again, got to follow what is right, not what is easy.
In saying this, we must not take pride that we have not (yet) fallen for the traps, but rather pray for those who have, because they are also ones who are hurting.
Henry look no further in your admirable quest than the comment prior to your 8:23am one.
Things can be quite tough but also quite easy.
Helen I think you are too hard on yourself – pride to be American is overrated anyway – be proud to be a citizen of this world – that cuts down on a lot of anxiety and you can even embrace the rise and success of cultures like the Chinese at the ultimate expense of ours. By the way, do not fear most men do not feel like sexual machines – no worries.
Grega
Not sure what you mean?
Henry,
You end your catalogue of denunciation with the prayer: “Yea, O Lord and King, grant me to see mine own faults and not to judge my brother.” Irony?
Not at all, Dcn. Brian — because how can we see our own faults if we do not see where they are coming from, and the influence of the culture at large in their development? We are persons socialized in a culture, and not distinct from it. We must recognize there are such things as sins in order to be willing to judge ourselves guilty of them.