Constructive gadfly
Published on April 20, 2005 By stevendedalus In Religion
 It is not religion itself that troubles me as much as its officious absolutism. Obviously religion must retain a core of absolutism to remain true to itself yet to be viable it ought to accept change through compromising relativism. The new Pope Benedict XVI does not accept this premise. In an ideal world absolutes are uncompromising because of their prima facie truths, but we do not exist — even if we believe they are the foundation of existence — within the pure essences of a spiritual realm.

Ideally, abortion should not be reality but in the dirty world of existence it is a fact generated by numerous variables of human frailty that need not be morally acceptable and surely not encouraged, but just as surely should not be openly condemned as an absolute abomination, including partial-birth abortion where it is indisputable that the mother is in serious jeopardy of the child doomed to a life of untold misery. What is an abomination is the stance of the Catholic Church and our administration that those who wish to avoid abortions must do so by abstinence and condemn the willy-nilly use of contraceptives.

So, too, all male and females were designed to be as Adam and Eve, but subverted DNA say otherwise, leaving some individuals in the quarry of homosexuality. That they are disoriented sexually does not make them less human simply because they cannot reap the awards of progeny — as a matter of fact, it is just as well they are incapable of passing on their genes. The argument that their orientation is an abomination because they wilfully choose to be gay warrants limited legitimacy toward some caught up in a lifestyle corrupting their natural leaning and as in the case of any socio-psychological deviance should be afforded therapy, if willing. Of course, the absolutists have every right to resent such activity, but in reality it is none to their business to pry. Just as I vehemently protest the insanity of rappers destroying the beauty of poetry and music, and avant-garde artist that undermine symmetry and context, I do not have the right to — as Plato had wished — to ban the prevalence of the poets’ “divine madness.”

Except for lawyers no one thinks lightly of divorce, but to the Church — except for profitable annulment — it is an unacceptable breach of trust. Yet to many it is a blessing — even though disruptive for children — because the law lends to them the beauty of rectifying their mistakes — particularly when relationships are abusive.

Though no father — ambivalent when it comes to a son — wants his daughter involved in premarital sex, reality dictates that, short of locking her up, it is a doomed wish. True, he has parental rights to rant and rave and even disinherit, but it will not efface the sordid reality. With the exercise of prudence, however, he could lobby for the check and balance of a secular world running amok.

Yea unto absolutism of the pure spirit — just as long as it leaves the rest of us grimy souls alone to self-destruct.

 

Copyright © 2005 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: April 20, 2005.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com


Comments
on Apr 20, 2005

First, excellant article.

But (you knew that was coming), the Church is the part of us that seeks to be perfect, and thus they have to hold up the ideal.  That man cannot be perfect and sins is why they have absolution.

Next, I wish you would not have mentioned the Catholic Church and then Homosexuality as the teachings of the Church are exactly what you ask for (i do understand that you were not relating the 2 per se as they are separate paragraphs, it was just the impression it left).  The problem with homosexuality (it is not a sin in itself) goes back to the Church teaching that sex should ojnly be used for procreation.  Ergo Homosexual sex, like pre-marital, is immoral

Finally, Annulment is not a money maker for the church.  I was not charged any for mine.  And for those who in the past were charged, it was a nominal fee to cover the paperwork and time, and was waived if the individual cried poverty.  Of course Lawyers are not so generous.

One thing is certain.  Regardless of who the next 100 popes are, the church will not back away from absolutism.  It is as you say, the cause for their existance. Man not exist in a pure spiritual realm, but the Church is trying to show man how to work towards attaining that state.

on Apr 20, 2005
Moral relativism is the escape hatch for the weak!

Abortion is either killing a human being, or it isn't. If a fetus is a human being, then there better be a legitimate reason to kill the child. If it isn't a human being, then there is nothing wrong with abortion on demand. We'd better answer the basic question, before we continue blindly following the ignorance of moral relativism.

Moral Relativism defines freedom as "doing anything you want, simply because you want to, anytime you want to". Well, is there a society at all, if that is "freedom"? At what point to we consider a "Tabu" meaningless? In years past homosexuality was a tabu, today the tables are turning to the point where refusing to accept homosexuality as "normal" or "healthy" is the tabu. To consider homosexuality as anything negative is to "hate homosexuals", which of course is not necessarily true.

Where homosexuality was in the 70's, pedophilia is becoming. No, I'm not saying that gay people are pedophiles, I'm just pointing out the incrementalism of removing tabus. We have a Supreme Court Justice who, when she was an ACLU lawyer wrote in favor of lower the age of consent to 12. In other words, Ruth Buzzie GInsberg believes that an adult of any age should be able to have sex with your 12 year of son or daughter and you shouldn't have a right to interfere. Thank you "Moral Relativism!"

Divorce IS a breach of trust! Maybe not by both the husband and a wife, but where there is a divorce, somebody broke the vows enough to destroy the relationship. I kind of joke that the way two people stay married is to "Wake up in the morning Married, Go to bed at night married, and don't do anything in between that will screw it up!" Now, yes I say it as a joke because it is very over simplified, BUT, if neither did anything that would screw it up, divorce would be non existent.

It is Moral Relativism that blurrs the fact that teen sex is self destructive activity. "Oh there going to do it anyway" is among the most blatant farces ever heeped upon our kids. Yes, teens get horny, that part is an absolute fact, no question. But teens get suicidal, curious about drugs or alcohol, wreckless while driving, and otherwise act as if they are in destructible. Do we say to kids, "Don't drive 100 miles per hour in a residential area.. but if you do, make sure you wear a seatbelt!" "Don't meet with strangers you have been chatting with online... But if you do, make sure you meet in a public place!" "Don't Drink and Drive, but if you do, make sure you're driving a bigger car than anyone else, so you aren't the one who gets hurt!"

NO!!

So why do we lie to our kids, telling them, "Don't have sex, but if you do, use protection!" Do we really believe that pregnancy and STDs are caused by failed "protection"? That lie is only perpetuated because of Moral Relativism!!

Instead, we should teach our kids that sex (not failed birth control) causes pregnancy and STDs. We should teach them that YES, it can happen the first time. We should teach them that, while oral sex doesn't cause pregnancy, almost every STD that can be contracted through intercourse, can be caught in the mouth and throat. We should be teaching them that, if someone says "I Love You", then wants to have sex with you when you're not ready to become a parent, THEY ARE LYING and have no idea what "Love" is!! In other words, we should teach our kids THE TRUTH and FACTS!!

We should be teaching them abstinance, but not without teaching them why abstinance is important to their health and well being.
We should teach them that, yes, they will be in situations where they will have to make chioces, and sometimes they will make dangerous choices, those choices may bring rewards or consequences. We should teach them to make choices based on reward and consequences. We should teach them to make the hard decisions before they are caught up in the emotion of the moment, when even the strongest and wisest are unable to think clearly.

What we should never teach anyone is, the ignorant fallacies of "Moral Relativism".

Yes, I'm done now. ;~D
on Apr 20, 2005
Man not exist in a pure spiritual realm, but the Church is trying to show man how to work towards attaining that state.
You get no argument from me.
"Moral Relativism".
As you see it is but another absolutism in reverse--not so.
We should be teaching them abstinance, but not without teaching them why abstinance is important to their health and well being.
We should teach them that, yes, they will be in situations where they will have to make chioces, and sometimes they will make dangerous choices, those choices may bring rewards or consequences. We should teach them to make choices based on reward and consequences. We should teach them to make the hard decisions before they are caught up in the emotion of the moment, when even the strongest and wisest are unable to think clearly.
Amen to this.
on Apr 20, 2005
btw, I am SO sorry about the length of that post. That's even longer than many of my whole articles!! Thanks for not chewing me out for that rant. I did mean everything I said, but I sure didn't have to be so long winded!

[quote}"Moral Relativism".
As you see it is but another absolutism in reverse--not so.[/quote}

Not exactly. I don't see moral relativism as any sort of absolute at all, I see it as the idea that "if it feels good, do it!". Just basing your idea of what's right and wrong with what feels good for the moment, with no thought or care to the idea of consequences (Since consequences are artificially imposed by someone else anyway).
on Apr 20, 2005
I see it as the idea that "if it feels good, do it!". Just basing your idea of what's right and wrong with what feels good for the moment, with no thought or care to the idea of consequences (Since consequences are artificially imposed by someone else anyway).


Insightful ted. It does seem the crux of the matter is accountability. The pleasure of sin for a season desensitizes us to the fact that we are accountable for our actions. If not in the immediate, one day most certain? But just as concerning is the affects of our actions on others.

preacherman
on Apr 22, 2005
"if it feels good, do it!".
You're confusing relativism with hedonism.
on Apr 26, 2005
Hedonism is a tenet of moral relativism.
on Apr 29, 2005
Hedonism is a tenet of current day consumerism, such as justifying the prevalence of SUVs in face of energy crisis. Relativism is predicated on utiliatarianism justifying the cause for the greatest good. Morality in relativism weighs the balance of accepted practices with free will.