Back to my home page | Back to TNL Index

February, 1994 - Volume 1, Number 2

York Township, IL. Feb 5, 1994 I've picked up some rather interesting books lately, in respect to the "ills of society". They approach the subject from divergent points of view, and even blame the other in some cases, but they converge on some central themes. The moral fabric of society has been shaken by the notion that truths can be rationalized. In other words, what may be true for one person, may not be true for another.

On the surface, this may sound benign, even charitable, but if we can't base our thoughts on an absolute truth, then we end up denying truth, and Christ is the Truth. This live and let live attitude flies in the face of Christ's admonition to go and teach all nations. To say "I'd never have an abortion because I believe it's wrong, but I wouldn't deny that it's someone else's right." is to say that you don't believe that it is truly wrong, just personally uncomfortable.

People talk about freedom of choice while ignoring the moral responsibility to make the right choice. Morality has been set aside as myth, superstition, the shackles of the past. Choice is seen as an end in itself. What they are accepting in reality is the myth that there is no God, the superstition that the child within is a parasite, only a fetus, a blob of tissue - anything so that they can justify killing it, and the shackles of the present: enslavement to the traps of the world - if it feels good, do it, if you can take a pass on moral responsibility, do it and brag, if you can get away with murder by calling it something else. . .

But we've always had choice! We've always been able to choose between right and wrong. We can choose what our heart knows is right, rather than demanding what our pride says is "our right". We can choose love of God and love of others over self-love. We can choose what we were taught in our youth, or choose what we want in our self conceit! What society is now trying to offer is the ability to make any choice we want without social consequences. I say "trying" because it is doomed to failure.

Society is crumbling about us, and we look at some of the successes, such as integration, equal housing and opportunity, and think that things are getting better. But the family unit is shattered, even frowned upon as passé. When we kill babies for the sake of our own convenience, when we hand out condoms and birth control pills to eighth graders, when we look to science to help us choose which pregnancies to terminate based on their genetic acceptability, I say we have gone much farther towards disrespect of ourselves, our society, and our sexuality than towards freeing our society to love.

There was an interesting example in a book on natural family planning. Seven brothers, all raised as Catholics, all with good jobs, (yuppies you might say) got together with their wives for a dinner, and talked afterwards. Six of the seven had one child each, and these couples were using the pill. The seventh couple had four "planned" children, and were practicing natural family planning.

The conversation got around to marital problems, and the wives taking the pill all felt that they were being taken for granted, and being used. Their husbands complained that they always felt as if they had to beg for sex. The other couple watched and listened in amazement. Even though they had less money and time to do fun things, due to the responsibilities of their larger family, their love was not only intact and growing, but their love-making was still wonderful and mutually rewarding. The allegations of the importance of spontaneity don't seem to hold up.

Is the pill a miracle of modern science? Just look at the benefits: It frees you to have sex any time you want, but at the same time depresses the libido so that you want it less. It causes weight gain and iratability, so you can look and feel your 'best' while you complain about "having" to do it again. Oh, did I mention the side effects? Risk of stroke or cancer. So why do we take a pill when we aren't sick? (or do we consider firtility a disease?)

That just covers the physical effects. The psychological effects, on both the woman taking it, and the man taking advantage of it are just as bad, if not worse. Because the woman's natural state of firtility is looked upon as undesireable, there is a resentment that builds on her part, and a lack of confidence about her mate's attitude towards her. Because the man does not have to regard the natural rhythms of the woman's body, the act is more for recreation (self love) than procreation (shared love), and he begins to regard sex with a lack of dignity, and his mate's body as a thing of pleasure. Because the couple has refused to be open to God's creative love in the process, their actions and feelings become separational rather than congugal. These effects aren't immediate. They build up slowly, eroding a relationship. Even if their love can carry them for years, and even if they stick it out to the end, they will be missing out on the fullness of joy that God intended.

I'm not so niave as to suggest that the pill and abortion are the root of society's ills. They aren't, they're just symptoms of the infection that is crippling us. I touched on it earlier, when I talked about truth seeming to be intangible. The basic infection is much deeper rooted than we may suspect. Rationalism in philosophy, from Keirkagaard on, has left us floundering, with no rock to stand on, yet the precepts are not only still taught, but must be professed if you want to be a professor at just about any school. So it has become deep rooted in the educational system, but not just at the college level, the graduates go on to teach this anti- truth gospel at all levels.

When I was a kid, my parents taught me that some of the things I did were wrong and some were right. I got my share of spankings before I got the message. Now days, more often than not, kids are seen as just expressing their individuality, when what they're doing is wrong. Being sassy, disrespectful, even yelling at their parents is not only tolerated, but often admired as a trait necessary to get along in the world. Why? Because truth no longer has a foundation.

Now that we are required by society to respect peoples right to pornography (as in freedom of speech) and devil worship (as in freedom of religion) we have established the foundation for a God-less society. Atheism is rapidly becoming the officially sponsored "State Religion". It's not what the founding fathers had in mind, when they adopted "In God we trust" as the nation's motto, but the Supreme Court is laying the ground work, when they find for atheists who want no prayers, and no religious signs on "public" property.

For instance, a Christian group was recently holding a seminar, and the guest speaker drew such a large pre-registration, that they tried to get use of the local public high school's auditorium. The school board denied the request because it violated the concept of separation of church and state. A local Catholic hospital was asking for a zoning ordinance ruling so that they could put a Cross on their facility's smoke stack. The request was denied, with one member of the board stating that the cross was "an oppressive symbol" as her reason for voting no. But that wasn't even an issue of public property!

This concept of "separation of church and state" is actually relatively new. What the constitution says, is that congress shall not pass any law with respect to religion. The framers of the constitution, however, did choose to adopt the motto mentioned above, and to adopt a general intercession "God save the United States of America" for the Supreme Court's opening call to order. It was understood that with no official state religion, citizens would be free to worship God in their own way without prejudice or interdiction by the state.

Now, we do have prejudice and interdiction by the state, against the expression of religion, in favor of those that wish to say that there is no God. Families have always been free to teach their children as they wish, but now atheists want the state to do it for their children, and everybody else's. All this because it is erroneously considered "common courtesy" to accept that one truth is as good as another (even if it contradicts the first).

I have a lot of sisters, brothers, and friends who are likely to take great exception to what I've written here, and I may have to endure their wrath, but there is love in all of them, enough to overcome the differences, and to talk to me (I hope) in the months to come. I am not judging anybody here. I mean, I'm guilty of all of it myself

My original intent was to practice writing, to see if there was a style I liked and wanted to use, to see if the words would flow. You may not agree with what I've said, but I invite your constructive critique on style, wording, lack of footnotes, whatever! (Honest, my book will not delve into these topics.)

As always, Toes' Newsletter is published monthly (maybe) and the publisher wishes to state that opinions expressed herein are not only his own, but flawless and logical. Next month's topic: Science in the age of Rationalism. My love to all of you, and may God bless your families and those you hold dear.

©1994, James A. Croteau - e-mail:
Back to my home page . . . Back to TNL Index