Monday, January 09, 2006

See What Happens When You Give Up Absolutes?

On December 21, 2005, our accursed Supreme Court, in R. [Her Majesty The Queen, a.k.a. the Crown] v. Labaye, decided that there is no societal harm intrinsically elemental to the allowance of "swinger" clubs.

David Warren's site first advised me of the grotesqueness of this story, and when I dug into the actual details of the ruling, I was somewhat enlightened.

For really, the court had no choice but to rule as it did. I say this with great sadness.

For decades now, we have loosened the definition of morality by straying from the natural laws that God has placed in our hearts. Many of these laws are common to all the great religions, and no state that has abandoned them has lasted.

Sexual norms do exist. Let's start with an extreme:

  • It's wrong to have sex with kids.

Ok? Everybody agreed? Let's go down the ladder from there:

  • It's wrong to have sex with animals. [Well, it's kinda gross, but to each his own, eh? I'm not gonna stop ya, if you're not hurting anybody. Just stay away from my dog.]
  • It's wrong to have group sex. [Hang on there... the Supreme Court just said it was fine! Not my cup of tea, but it's nice to know the option is available to me should I ever swing that way!]
  • It's wrong to have sexual relations with somebody of the same gender. [Whoa, buddy, now you're being offensive and hateful - some of my best friends are gay, and they're the sweetest, gentlest people you'd ever hope to meet, and I daresay more tolerant of your bigotry than you are of their lifestyle!*]
  • It's wrong to have unmarried sexual relations with anybody. [Geesh! What is this, 1950?]
  • It's wrong to have contracepted sexual relations with your spouse. [Hey dumbass! The world is overpopulated!** Stop your Catholic breeding and get with the times!]
*sigh... please read this
**actually, it's not [long article, but well worth it]

As recently as 1929, all branches of the Christian tree proclaimed that contraceptive behaviour was immoral. Then the Anglican Church held the 1930 Lambeth Conference, in which it put one foot on the slippery slope by giving this ever-so-small bit of leeway:

Resolution 15

Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.

Voting: For 193; Against 67.

Now the Catholic Church is the only one that holds to the original ground that Christianity had been commissioned with (quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2370)

Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil: Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle... involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.
Getting back to R. v. Labaye, I must grant that most people would wonder how else the court should rule. We have abandoned so many of the critical elements that are foundational to the recognition of the evil of group sex that no wonder the Court said "there seems to be no evidence that the level of alleged harm rose to the level of incompatibility with the proper functioning of society."

O for a strong axe to hew the ladder down! For the sheep are climbing out of the pen, and are being set upon by wolves on the other side.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are welcome, but must be on topic. Spam, hateful/obscene remarks, and shameless self-promotion will be unceremoniously deleted. Well, OK, I might put on a little ceremony when I delete them.