| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Steve C.
505 Posts |
 Posted - 03/10/2009 : 01:25:13 AM
|
Hey all! I hope everyone is doing well.
I was listening to a program of Drew Mariani on Relevant Radio this afternoon, after having heard earlier in the morning a program on Public Radio extolling a new book called "The Triple Bind" (author's name I cannot now remember). The book argues that young girls and women in the U.S. have a high (and higher than in any other country) rate of "cutting" behavior, anorexia, bullimia, and suicide attempts due to the combination of three things: 1) a culture that naturally raises them to be nurturing and caring moreso than boys or young men (something I might argue has more to do with the hardwiring God has given them); 2) a cultural pressure to compete to be "the best" - a pressure that has risen dramatically due to the best colleges for example now requiring not merely a 4.0 to get in, but even higher than that which is reflective of taking harder "honors courses" that can push the GPA higher than 4.0; and 3) the most pernicious of them all, a culture that pressures these same girls and young women to conform to a self image as "super models" glorified in the media - a body image that most girls and young women could never hope to aspire to because of factors beyond their control.
Now, after having listened to Drew's promoting the "culture of life" as he often does (and rightly so) what might be (or might not be) a profound thought occurred to me. I don't see how the "culture of life" (what might also be termed social conservatism) is compatible with the forces of the free market that promote sex and the objectification of women all in the name of the almighty dollar. So much in advertising is sold with sex and it pervades just about every industry out there, I think. So what puzzles me is how for decades the coalition of social conservatives and free market conservatives has been able to hold together in the Republican Party. To me they work at cross purposes on much of what impacts the life issues.
Does anybody else see the conflict here? Does this mean anything in regard to what sometimes seems like a nearly blind supporting of Republican candidates by some (not that Democrats are better) on life issues because of public statements and some favorable votes on pro-life bills or judges? And does anyone feel a gut wrenching when at one and the same time most Republican candidates will talk the culture of life talk, but then it seems be inconsistent when it comes to standing up for "the least of these" and the innocent in other areas of public policy?
I struggle so much with this, and it pains me to enter into the voting booth every election, because I feel dirty after I come out, no matter who I vote for, no matter who the voter guide says I should vote for, no matter all the sound arguments about the ultimacy of the abortion question and related issues - because, I for one have grown to where I cannot support either party or their candidates with any great enthusiasm - there is always something that dissappoints me greatly. The notion that I must vote for the lesser of two evils is no comfort to me, because I feel that I'm still forced to vote for some evil, some real evil no matter who gets my vote.
And, as I wrap this up, it dawns on me why Drew Mariani's program got me to thinking about this again. Today he asked people to pray for President Obama (which normally would be a good thing). But when he did so, the way Obama's name rolled off of Mariani's toungue made it sound like even Drew, though he was asking us all to pray for the President, even Drew felt Obama was beneath contempt. Regardless of Obama's wrongness on the life issues, nonetheless, are we not to see Christ in everyone? Even the enemy? Are we not to try to love everyone even if we for the moment cannot like them or what they stand for? Some (not most, not all) of the people who have a public voice over the airwaves on the life issues sound like Drew Mariani sounded to me today. And that is painful for me to listen to. It makes me want to change the channel. I love all the programs on EWTN and on Relevant Radio, but sometimes Drew Mariani makes it hard for me to stay tuned in.
What do others think? Am I that way off base?
Blessings to all!
Steve C.
p.s. I have XM radio because my wife gifted that to me, and recently they added a "Catholic Channel". Has anyone else listened to much of their programming? Does it seem all that Catholic to you? It sure doesn't have the same flavor to me as EWTN and Relevant Radio. |
|
|
Steve C.
505 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 08:55:57 AM
|
Hey all,
Is anybody even thinking about this question? I see some have viewed my thoughts. Are we all struggling with this. Where are others at?
Steve C. |
 |
|
|
Patti
USA
7401 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 09:36:18 AM
|
Hi, Steve,
I'm afraid I have a mental block regarding this in that I seem to regard a free market economy as not the culprit for the damage done to the self-image of many young women. There are also other cultural forces at work that cause young people a great deal of stress that have nothing to do with sex. One friend of ours we knew who engaged in cutting behavior did it because her self-image had been damaged by cruel parents. Another woman we know who successfully overcame her anorexia did not eat because she felt she didn't deserve to from years of abuse suffered by her first husband, not because she had a distorted self-image that she was too fat or unsexy from the media.
Another problem with the author's thinking is his mixing of an economic model with the industry of advertising. The former is a morally neutral thing but the latter is not. The bombardment of media images on young people has wildly proliferated since the invention of the internet and wireless devices capable of connecting to it, but the problem of teenage self-damage may have much deeper psychological roots than even the media can have. Our friend who used to cut herself had a mother who often told her that her biggest mistake was not taking the doctor's advice when he told her to have an abortion, which was not yet legalized by the Supreme Court yet but was legal for "medical reasons" in her state.
The legalization of abortion-on-demand, along with the "no-fault" divorce explosions around the same time frame, both have effectively destroyed the safety net and security that the family unit used to provide. Children raised without fathers have terrible self-esteem and self-image problems; the idea that they could have just as easily been disposed of as the millions who die also takes its toll. They are being raised in what the late Pope John Paul II called "A culture of death". Death permeates our society whether or not we realize it, creating stresses and pressures on the young who are struggling enough with just being teens and young adults.
At one time, the Catholic Church and other Christian groups were supportive of the Democrats, who once stood up for the poor, the underprivileged and the weak members of our nation. Unfortunately, a sound moral compass was lost by that party, resulting in their support of any and all assaults on life and family, which results in even more poor, underprivileged and weak people. The social programs have proven especially disastrous in this regard, creating a permanent underclass that was punished for success and encouraged to stay in the system. Welfare reforms are helping to eradicate this mess but it will take a long time.
Meanwhile, the big bad Republicans found the moral compass the Democrats evidently lost and began to champion the right to life and to foster the intact family. Unfortunately, relativism has crept in and now some of them (so-called "moderate Republicans") are sounding more like the Democrats on moral issues. And since the Republicans tended to favor the wealthy with their policies and laws, it was easy for the Democrats to set up an us-against-them mentality on economics. Without the stronger moral message coming from the Republican side, both are indistinguishable from one another, leading to voter confusion and apathy.
As for the culture of life being required to align itself against the free market economy, that economic model is not necessarily evil; its by-products such as sleazy advertising and obsession with wealth are, but they do not necessarily follow from it. A free model for economics is not against the Church's teachings on human rights to freely associate provided that there remains in such a system morality that respects human beings. (Without this morality, the nation must pass laws, such as truth-in-advertising, to protect the consumers.) However, any economic model without Christian morality in it has the potential to use people instead of serve them, as the so-called collectivism of the USSR demonstrated.
And as far as seeing Christ in others, we are indeed called to do so, but as one of our priests once said in a homily, "Loving your neighbor doesn't mean you have to like him." President Obama does very much need our prayers and Christian love, but we must not be blind to the reality of the policies he embraces so eagerly that he is willing to call evil good. In that sense, Mr. Mariani's tone may well have been less directed at the person of Barack Obama and more at what he follows in his ideology. We can hate the sin while loving the sinner, for the two are not interchangeable.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
Steve C.
505 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 12:10:33 PM
|
Patti,
I see your points. The idea of a Free Market economy is one without restraints, without regulations, which hampers business. (Realize I am not saying capitalism is inherently evil here). So for example when you speak of "truth in advertising", my sense is the Free Market wing of the Republican party fights that tooth and nail and allows the sexualization of the culture to be supported and advanced. Its the regulations against the corrupting influences that keep the market healthy and serving of the interests of the neighbor over and against my selfishness or my seeking to objectify the neighbor for exploitive purposes that God never intended and is adamantly against. The anecdotes you provide are reasonable to show there are other reasons for the behaviors I was speaking of in reference to the book I mentioned, but I don't think that invalidates the argument that the sexualization of the culture contributes to the problem. So my suggestion here is that neither party can claim a "moral compass" that is true, even most of the time. Might one say that the Republican compass is better? Given the life issues that we speak about so much and their priority on the scale of importance, surely this can be argued. But my problem is that in making that argument, quite often when the Republican compass, if you will, is held up for inspection, we are led to believe it has no flaws or more accurately we are not called to look at them because of the compass' pointing in the right direction on abortion, contraception, stem-cell research, etc.
Is that fair or not?
As for Drew's tone on Obama, let me put it this way. Of course you can love someone without liking them (but ought we not more dislike the wrong policies than the person and make this personal?), but you cannot hide your dislike from them if it is as strong as what I heard from Drew the other day. And so any love I show will be hampered by my obvious dislike, and any hope I have for either Obama or anyone who does like him, to therefore want to bother with dialogue with me, or to be open to the movement of the Spirit when I pray for them, it seems to me is soon dashed because whatever hope I have for their conversion is trampeled upon by a personal contempt that pushes them in the opposite direction.
One of my favorite stories is of a man known by the name Muretus. He had risked his life in the middle ages taking care of his family members and friends who were sick with the plague, and sure enough he got sick too. So he landed in the infirmary with no relative left to care for him. Three doctors came by his bed one day and were talking to one another in Latin about his case, assuming Muretus would not understand what they were saying, since this was the language of the scholars and not the vernacular of the people. Barely able to sit up in bed, Muretus let them know he understood what they were saying was not about helping him but rather that they could do nothing and were giving up on him because he was now worthless, in fact hoping he would die soon so that they could probe his lifeless body for clues to the disease because that was the only worth he had left. So in Latin Muretus said the following (English translation because I don't know the Latin), "Call no man worthless for whom Christ died!" When I first heard that story that struck me deeply and it is sort of a motto with me, even coming to mind when I deal with people in the church who treat me poorly. I cannot do the kind thing if at the same time I do it with scorn written all over my face. That is not love, that is grudging duty conceded because I have to not because I want to or because I really think the other person has worth worthy of reedeming.
Steve C. |
|
|
|
rr1213
4467 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 12:22:32 PM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Steve C.[/i]
[br] I don't see how the "culture of life" (what might also be termed social conservatism) is compatible with the forces of the free market that promote sex and the objectification of women all in the name of the almighty dollar. So much in advertising is sold with sex and it pervades just about every industry out there, I think. So what puzzles me is how for decades the coalition of social conservatives and free market conservatives has been able to hold together in the Republican Party. To me they work at cross purposes on much of what impacts the life issues.
Does anybody else see the conflict here?
Since at least the late 1970s, there have been three major groups within the Republican Party: (1)free market economic conservatives, (2) national defense conservatives, and (3) social conservatives. (I would also say that for some this time there was a fourth element, i.e., the traditional northern Republican liberals which, for the most part, are no longer part of the party--although you might include Olympia Snow in this category).
This "big tent" approach to the Republican Party, which Reagan rode to victory in two elections, has always included within itself seeds of conflict. For example, many social conservatives are also populist when it comes to economics...which puts them in potential conflict with economic conservatives. Likewise, many of the economic conservatives have libertarian inclinations which may put them into conflict with the social conservatives.
Nontheless, for the most part, these three groups have been able to work together (especially during the Cold War) because despite the conflicts, to a great extent they share commonalities with the other groups. In other words, despite populist inclinations, many social conservatives are also economic conservatives---or at least more conservative economically than the Democrats (who are consistently liberal). Similarly, while not as socially conservative as most social conservatives, the economic conservatives are not usually brazen liberals on the subject either--they are more socially conservative than the liberal Democrats.
That's how I think things have worked for decades in the Republican Party. Whether the model is still applicable in the our post-Cold War, Depression Era, Big Government Obama times is still open to debate. |
|
|
|
rr1213
4467 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 12:32:46 PM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Steve C.[/i]
[br] So my suggestion here is that neither party can claim a "moral compass" that is true, even most of the time.
Correct. The political parties are, well, political....with all the venality that is inherent therein.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Steve C.[/i]
[br] Might one say that the Republican compass is better?
Yes. Nonetheless, it is a mistake for the Church to associate itself with any particular political party because the political agenda will never perfectly mirror our roles as Christ's Body and the salt of the earth. Moreover, close affiliation will often lead to corruption of members of the Church who end up confusing politics with Christian morality. Frankly, one of the best arguments in favor of the concept of "separation of church and state" (an overblown phrase if there ever was one) is that such separation serves to protect the Church from corruption by the State.
|
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7401 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 12:39:59 PM
|
A couple of brief points, since I can't stay on much just now:
1. "Free Market Republican" sounds more like Libertarian. It's feasible that such people do exist within the Republican Party. (See second point below.) However, they do not per se control all of the party's economic platforms and policies. They are, however, useful when it comes to being the poster child for the Democrats who, ironically, pushed sexualization of our culture far more pervasively under the twisting of the First Amendment. Advertising didn't lead that; advertising responded to it as that market was created by those that the ACLU and Democrats lauded as courageous, i. e., folks like Larry Flynt, Hugh Hefner and the Hollywood moguls, who were pushing sex into movies and such to the point where the Hays Commission had to be set up to enforce standards of decency in movies from well before the sexual revolt of the 1960s.
2. Rob is correct that the Republican Party has a big umbrella that takes in several different ideologies. That some are incompatible with others is not news. The Democrats have it, too, but to a much lesser degree; former Pennsylvania Governor Billy Casey, Sr. is an excellent example. So, it comes down to voting for the Stupid Party or the Evil Party. I guess I'll stick to voting Stupid until someone viable to be elected and better comes along. Note I won't be holding my breath on that one!
Also, while I didn't make it clear earlier, my mention of the GOP picking up the Democrats' moral compass doesn't mean they're always doing a good job of following it. If they're not careful, they will be dropping it, too. (I don't think they've quite done that yet, but it's not unlikely.) As far as life issues are concerned, they are tantamount from a Christian perspective; the only time the Church allows someone to vote for a "pro-choice" candidate is if there are two p-c candidates to choose from and one is more pro-abortion than the other, or the pro-life one can be certifiably proven to be a nutcase or so inept as to be dangerous on other issues.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
Edited by - Patti on 03/11/2009 12:41:37 PM |
|
|
|
artsippo
USA
5275 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 12:51:21 PM
|
I would argue that REAL conservatism is not the "free market" kind which is far too individualistic. What is really needed is a society based upon th twin social principles of Solidarity and Subsidiarity which have always been the foundation of Catholic Social teaching.
Subsisidiarity is the principle that the lowest level of social orgaization which is capable of fulfillng a necessary public good should be allowed to do so without interference from higher levels UNLESS it fails to acomplish that end.
Solidarity states that in human society, there is a nested series of social realtionships of increasing complexity which make valid demands on lower levels to acheive the Public Good.
These are very different from the dialectical principles of individualism and collectivism that have been bandied about by secular political theorists over the last 250 years.
IMHO only the Catholic priniciples properly applied are capable of forming a just Christian society.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
|
|
|
MonFrere
USA
1216 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 2:50:39 PM
|
Anyone familiar with this work defending Catholic social doctrine with free market economy? Author Thomas Woods wrote several books upholding the Church from much unfriendly media. *********
The following is from Amazon ......
The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy (Studies in Ethics and Economics)
Product Description
Filling a lapse in the debate on the role of religious thought in economic theory, The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy, informed by the history of Catholic economic thought, shows that the long-seen contradiction between Catholic faith and support for the market economy does not exist.
From the Back Cover
"A fine contribution to the debate concerning the possible and the proper reconciliation of Catholic social doctrine with free-market economics. Professor Woods finds an interesting niche in such a complex and uneven discussion the author writes with splendid clarity, succeeding in explaining not-so-simple economic questions in very simple terms."—CHRISTIAN SOCIAL THOUGHT
"Finally, someone who truly understands the science of economics has given us the most thorough examination of Catholic Social Teaching yet available. I highly recommend . . . to all desiring to see the Catholic Church's role in the economic realm in a proper light. It should be required reading for priests, bishops, and seminarians, as well as clerics of other denominations, as a remedy for the socialism that has crept into religious circles over the past century."—William R. Luckey, Chairman and Professor, Political Science and Economics Department, Christendom College
"Thomas Woods uses the unique perspective of the Austrian School of Economics to present a clear, compelling, and uncompromising argument that the moral teachings of the Catholic Church are completely compatible with free market capitalism. Arguing that faith should be coupled with the best of secular science in policy advocacy, Woods also shows that some elements of Catholic social doctrine are the unfortunate result of factual error rather than the application of moral principle."—Samuel Bostaph, Chairman and Associate Professor, Economics Department, University of Dallas
If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly. G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
artsippo
USA
5275 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 3:35:15 PM
|
Pie-in-th-sky idealism. Monfrere, we have heard this type of overly-optimistic stuff from Socialists, Communists, Sandinistas, Monarchists, Napoleonic France, and a host of others.
Only a capitalism that follows the principles of Solidarity and Subsidiarity is fully compatible with Catholic social principles. We can TOLERATE other systems, but the idea that there should be little or no government invovlment in the economy is unacceptable. In fact it is this error that is the source of our crumbling world economy today.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
|
|
|
Jjane
Canada
1540 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 8:47:27 PM
|
Steve in your first paragraph of your first blog on this topic, you commented about the pressures on young women to conform to somebody else's idea of what they should be.
It is really is incumbent on women to be themselves, which sounds easy but certainly isn't.
This is especially true of young women, who think someone will love them because they are smart, witty, and great people.
There are lots of pressure on these women, and unfortunately bulimia is only one of the results.
I am glad that it is being taken much more seriously.
But even though that is true, we certainly have a long way to go.
And Steve you are right again but a lot of women who want to be 'perfect' , whether in grades or trying to juggle work and career, or family and career - and yet maintain the perfect house.
Why do we allow ourselves to be pressured so?
|
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7401 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 10:00:28 PM
|
quote:
Pie-in-th-sky idealism. Monfrere, we have heard this type of overly-optimistic stuff from Socialists, Communists, Sandinistas, Monarchists, Napoleonic France, and a host of others.
Only a capitalism that follows the principles of Solidarity and Subsidiarity is fully compatible with Catholic social principles. We can TOLERATE other systems, but the idea that there should be little or no government invovlment in the economy is unacceptable. In fact it is this error that is the source of our crumbling world economy today.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Monfrere is actually on the same page here. Dr. Woods is a Catholic historian who has made an extensive study of economic systems. Much of what we take for granted in the free market economy actually was derived from Catholic intellectuals. Woods isn't out to disprove the viability of other systems but simply to prove that the free market---when run on Christian values---is a fair and just means for man to buy, sell and trade goods from, to and with others. In this sense, he agrees with some of your stated principles.
Governmental interference with and control over the economy is necessitated insofar as man's inclination to sin and thereby prey on others; the patent medicine quackeries and terrible accidental pharmaceutical poisonings of yore helped shape the Food and Drug Administration into what it is today, for example. If the economies of the world were modeled on Christian principles and run by the Catholic Church, there would be equity and an end to poverty. (The Church is gentle and giving but don't think the Church is a big pushover; when the Irish immigrated to America, they transformed parts of New York City into gang-infested tenements with high illegitimacy and crime rates. It was the Catholic clergy that stepped in and offered education programs to help inculturate and change the poverty-stricken immigrants into productive and moral American citizens. All the Church did was tell the Irish they could be better people and help give them the means to become better people without letting them get away with immorality, crime and working the system. It was "tough love" and it worked.)
Compassion balanced with a strict morality is the best way to build and support a strong nation no matter what the nationality. In the USSR, we had the cross without Christ and life was miserable and hard; in the USA, we have Christ without the cross and life is miserable and easy. The resulting imbalance results in things in this country being called "rights" that are found nowhere in the Constitution: rights to housing, higher education, free medical care, and so forth. Just remember one thing about those rights:
A right, such as a right to free speech, imposes no obligation on another, except that of non-interference. The so-called right to health care, food or housing, whether a person can afford it or not, is something entirely different; it does impose an obligation on another. If one person has a right to something he didn't produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce. That's because, since there's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, in order for government to give one American a dollar, it must, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. [Dr. Walter E. Williams] (Borrowed verbatim from Shawn's blog. Free advertising in return! http://rerum-novarum.blogspot.com/ taken from the post on February 28, 2009)
In an ideal economic system, people would tithe ten percent of their gross earnings, with special collections taken up for appeals, with the money passed along and distributed by the Church to those in need. But the Church would not coerce people to give on pain of excommunication or other threats (like seizing their property), nor would she "sell" special favors (ah, the misunderstood idea of indulgences rears up again) to special interest groups in good with this bishop or that priest. Unfortunately, since the state has pretty much cast aside any possibility of the Church having that type of ability, we must hand over 30+% of our income and watch it go to waste or to something we'd never support. It's not pie-in-the-sky to wish that the Church could run things, but that's not her mandate and to seek it for her would be building a castle in the air made up of nothing but dreams.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
MonFrere
USA
1216 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 10:33:41 PM
|
I think the current U.S. "recession" is global in nature, not national. I cannot see how the U.S. mortgage crisis could have the worldwide repercussions with the decline of Asian and European financial markets. I think financially it's the whole world's economy that's at risk. I just read an article that compared to this time last year the WORLD has 30% fewer billionaires. It seems to me that since we've been going down the path of participating in a global economy that the last think we would want to do is to become "protectionist" in our economic vision. Currently there seems to be a divide beginning in critiquing President Obama and his economic policy. Some are critical of his taking on too much saying he needs to focus on economic matters PERIOD. But, President Obama says his vision is that there is a need to integrate the economies (energy, health, financial, housing, etc.) and get them to working as a unified whole. I think his "vision" is correct -- but I think government as regulator is FAR DIFFERENT than government as owner. I think our nation is best served with power centered in several locations with no one becoming dominant. I think that is President Obama's greatest challenge.
My comment to Steve is that I think every culture in our world exploits woman to one degree or another. Certainly the Muslim nations have deplorable exploitation of women and there's no free market capitalism to feed it. IOW -- I think the cause of exploitation is our fallen nature. Our economic system simply gives us the opportunity to follow our fallen nature. Capitalism will exploit women in "our way" and in impovrished Africa it will occur in another way and in backward Muslim culture it will again find opportunity in another way.
However, I think Steve highlights the need for true "Christian feminism" as our society shows there is a great gap that still needs to be traversed before a "righteous equality" is achieved. It takes a woman of great "enlightenment" (read conversion) to be the beacon of change that our materialistic culture needs.
MonFrere
If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly. G.K. Chesterton
|
Edited by - MonFrere on 03/11/2009 10:39:01 PM |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
The Culture of Life and Free Market Conservatism
