Back to Mary Eberstadt's book, "How the West Really Lost God;" a fascinating exposition of the links between the social, the economic, the family and religion, but much too complicated for a blog. It is not that it is difficult to understand, but so complex. But I can take one example to portray the overall logic in the book.
The Lambeth Council of 1930 - I had never heard of it, but it was a meeting of the "mainstream" religious organizations to determine the future face of Protestantism. The initial impulse was this: in the wake of modernity and the changing family, and after the downfall of the monarchies in WWI and a strong revival of democratization, the churches decided it was time to smooth over the harsher aspects of faith and emphasize the good stuff - compassion and acceptance over hard dogma. As part of this, they decided to soften on the teachings against contraception. Before, they, like the Catholic Church, had not accepted ANY form of intrusive birth control (as opposed to natural methods of rhythm and abstinence). Now they were willing to accept it in cases of genetic deformities, possible complications for the mother and so on - all very reasonable. But to do this, they had to change the concept of sex itself for theological reasons. Before, it had been viewed solely from its procreative function. But here, to allow some to have sex with no intention whatsoever of having children, they decided to allow that sex was a "gift of pleasure" valuable unto itself, without the possibility of procreation.
At the time, the book tells us, many ministers were in open protest about this. Yet by the early 1950's, many were coming out in favor of universal birth control with some - Billy Graham among them - saying shortly thereafter that contraception was a blessing to reduce population pressure. In the mainstream, that led to universal acceptance by the late 1950's - just in time for the Pill.
The Pill is another matter; sticking closely to contraception in general, we are shown that a rule to grant a few the moral right to contraception necessitated a change in philosophy, which led to universal approval only a generation later. This is because sex was both detached from procreation while being (necessarily) attached to "God-given pleasure." This was to have only been for a few, but the slippery slope had been overstepped. If "pleasure" was a principle of God apart from the biological function, why not gay sex? Unmarried sex? And if the latter, why not gay marriage? And so it has become, from the slight wavering of clerics in 1930. Coincident to this, exception given to women who might be at risk also led to another right - abortion. If women could be excused from procreation to protect their life, why not their emotional well -being? There is a leap here, but with the ideological push of radical feminists, it became so.
Reading this illuminates the intransigence of the Catholic Church on these matters. While such things are too complex to explain to the general public in a Papal address, the leaders are well aware of the slippery slope of Lambeth. And so, this is something of an answer to Cal Roeker's musings about contraception and abortion as considered by the Catholic Church. There is little question that abortion is seen as a far greater transgression than contraception, but I am not sure if the Church views them differently officially. They understand all too well that to give up on one will lead to another - and abortion to the Church is, in most cases, murder. I believe that they keep the small things intact to protect the large. Theological pin points came become very large, as they well know in the Church.
These connections run throughout the book, and for the most part I must agree - we were taught in anthropology that even the smallest things in a culture might be of great importance to its overall function, once exposed. That being said, I am often shocked by the advocacy of many intellectuals towards certain favored causes and changes in our society, including from anthropologists. We do not really know how a change to age-old customs - gay marriage, for instance - might affect the entire society a generation or two later, but we must assume that such fundamental changes WILL affect us, and, as they most often come willy-nilly, probably in a negative way.
At bottom I suspect an odd form of ethnocentrism - a belief that we, the people of the modern West, are somehow beyond culture, and as such we can change things as we like. This was Nietzsche's message. But we are not - and we are not supermen.
A finishing touch on this book tomorrow, FK
The Lambeth Council of 1930 - I had never heard of it, but it was a meeting of the "mainstream" religious organizations to determine the future face of Protestantism. The initial impulse was this: in the wake of modernity and the changing family, and after the downfall of the monarchies in WWI and a strong revival of democratization, the churches decided it was time to smooth over the harsher aspects of faith and emphasize the good stuff - compassion and acceptance over hard dogma. As part of this, they decided to soften on the teachings against contraception. Before, they, like the Catholic Church, had not accepted ANY form of intrusive birth control (as opposed to natural methods of rhythm and abstinence). Now they were willing to accept it in cases of genetic deformities, possible complications for the mother and so on - all very reasonable. But to do this, they had to change the concept of sex itself for theological reasons. Before, it had been viewed solely from its procreative function. But here, to allow some to have sex with no intention whatsoever of having children, they decided to allow that sex was a "gift of pleasure" valuable unto itself, without the possibility of procreation.
At the time, the book tells us, many ministers were in open protest about this. Yet by the early 1950's, many were coming out in favor of universal birth control with some - Billy Graham among them - saying shortly thereafter that contraception was a blessing to reduce population pressure. In the mainstream, that led to universal acceptance by the late 1950's - just in time for the Pill.
The Pill is another matter; sticking closely to contraception in general, we are shown that a rule to grant a few the moral right to contraception necessitated a change in philosophy, which led to universal approval only a generation later. This is because sex was both detached from procreation while being (necessarily) attached to "God-given pleasure." This was to have only been for a few, but the slippery slope had been overstepped. If "pleasure" was a principle of God apart from the biological function, why not gay sex? Unmarried sex? And if the latter, why not gay marriage? And so it has become, from the slight wavering of clerics in 1930. Coincident to this, exception given to women who might be at risk also led to another right - abortion. If women could be excused from procreation to protect their life, why not their emotional well -being? There is a leap here, but with the ideological push of radical feminists, it became so.
Reading this illuminates the intransigence of the Catholic Church on these matters. While such things are too complex to explain to the general public in a Papal address, the leaders are well aware of the slippery slope of Lambeth. And so, this is something of an answer to Cal Roeker's musings about contraception and abortion as considered by the Catholic Church. There is little question that abortion is seen as a far greater transgression than contraception, but I am not sure if the Church views them differently officially. They understand all too well that to give up on one will lead to another - and abortion to the Church is, in most cases, murder. I believe that they keep the small things intact to protect the large. Theological pin points came become very large, as they well know in the Church.
These connections run throughout the book, and for the most part I must agree - we were taught in anthropology that even the smallest things in a culture might be of great importance to its overall function, once exposed. That being said, I am often shocked by the advocacy of many intellectuals towards certain favored causes and changes in our society, including from anthropologists. We do not really know how a change to age-old customs - gay marriage, for instance - might affect the entire society a generation or two later, but we must assume that such fundamental changes WILL affect us, and, as they most often come willy-nilly, probably in a negative way.
At bottom I suspect an odd form of ethnocentrism - a belief that we, the people of the modern West, are somehow beyond culture, and as such we can change things as we like. This was Nietzsche's message. But we are not - and we are not supermen.
A finishing touch on this book tomorrow, FK
RSS Feed