Comments for Strengthen the Things that Remain at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 22 out of 20 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:59:24 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/strengthen-the-things-that-remain.html#comment-12769 In Christ, fecundity is a duty. Therefor marriage is first and foremost a duty, not a right. It is a way of fulfilling the duty of fecundity. The supreme right connected with marriage, the right that trumps all others, is the right of a child to be protected and educated by the man and woman who acted to conceive the child. But our society's failure to uphold that right is part of abortion rights. - Chris in Maryland Mon, 06 Aug 2012 08:50:11 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/strengthen-the-things-that-remain.html#comment-12742 So...is everyone here registered to vote? - Mack Hall Sat, 04 Aug 2012 05:11:29 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/strengthen-the-things-that-remain.html#comment-12734 Sue A student once asked the great French jurist, Le doyen Carbonnier, why the Civil Code contained no definition of marriage. "It does," replied Carbonnier, "in Article 312" Article 312 reads, “The child conceived or born during the marriage has the husband for father” That was why he could write, "The heart of marriage is not the couple, but the presumption of paternity." - Michael Paterson-Seymour Sat, 04 Aug 2012 02:36:01 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/strengthen-the-things-that-remain.html#comment-12732 "If the state can redefine marriage and family to create "a right" (namely, the right to adopt another man's children), then the "right" to marraige and children is not something that proceeds from the natural process of human generation and sexuality, but one that proceeds from the state. " We should wear this on our forehead it is so fundamentally important and true. The covert aim of the globalists is to use homosexual adoption (and IVF as well) to give the State rights to control the generation and raising of children, a la Brave New World. Marx wanted state control of the means of production. Kissinger wants (the more valuable) state control of the means of re-production. The Protestants, lacking a Catholic understanding of marriage and procreation, think it's all about man-woman relationships, but (thinking) Catholics know it's about the man-woman-child relationship. Unfortunately the Church is knee-deep in scandal and public relations fiascos, but it's all there in the encyclicals, which should be taken out and read. When State gains control over re-production, we Catholics may not be able to brag about out-procreating the liberals...we may find ourselves having to apply to the State for a license to procreate, as those in China do now. This is why it's so important for us to assert the positive right of every child to have a father *and* a mother. - Sue Fri, 03 Aug 2012 17:36:41 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/strengthen-the-things-that-remain.html#comment-12730 David, I hope you don't mind, but your comment was so well-written, and it gets to the heart of the entire argument, that I shared it on my Facebook page. If you want me to remove it, I will, as I should've asked you first. And of course, I gave you full credit and directed the readers back to this site. - Carmen Fri, 03 Aug 2012 14:37:15 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/strengthen-the-things-that-remain.html#comment-12729 DS: Bloomberg may have avoided this fatwa but he's invoked others: bans on trans fat and baby formula are two examples that, though they do not deal with religious thought, still stifle opinion and choice in the name of the state's preference. - Jane Fri, 03 Aug 2012 12:28:50 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/strengthen-the-things-that-remain.html#comment-12728 Brian, I don't disagree with you. I am a fan of Kalb's book and believe that he is spot on. My point in this essay is to note the decline of liberalism's initial claims. But it seems that the initial claims retained some level of plausibility precisely because of the shared non-liberal cultural institutions in which society's background beliefs were sustained and nurtured. But, as Kalb points out, liberalism is a jealous god, and that inevitably it must confiscate all cultural real estate that it does not control. - Francis J. Beckwith Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:57:56 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/strengthen-the-things-that-remain.html#comment-12727 Advocates of gay marriage argue that we should "level the playing field" between homosexual and heterosexual couples in the field of family law. This 'leveling of the playing field' is presented as a matter of civil rights, comparable to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, or even to the emancipation of the slaves. Here's why I think the cases are radically different. At stake are two conceptions of rights: 1)Rights as arising spontaneously from the nature of the human person, discoverable by reason, and which should be recognized by the state 2)Rights as esentially privileges ceded by an omnicompetent legislative authority. The civil rights movement in America (like the Declaration of Independence) was grounded thoroughly in the first conception of natural rights. MLKs "Letter from the Birmingham Jail" argues explicitly from the concept of natural law. Appealing to classical philosophy, King argues "An unjust law is no law at all." The second conception of rights is what we find in modernist philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, who conceived of government not so much as protecting natural rights (like the right to liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), but as an omnipotent authority to which we cede the right to adjudicate disputes and to legislate in order to protect ourselves against the unbridled and rapacious aggression of our neighbor. Ironically, the second conception of rights is one also held (unconsciously) by many evangelical and fundamentalist Christians. The fundamentalist shares the premise that law is simply something dictated by an omnicompetent legislative authority. (In this case - God, through the Holy Scriptures.) Classical Pagan and Christian philosophy have never shared this positivist conception of law. As long ago as Plato's Euthyphro, philosophers have recognized the threat to freedom, dignity, and reason inherent in the idea that "a thing is good because God (or the government) says so." My concern in the "Gay marraige" debate is that we are unwittingly abandoning this classical conception of rights in favor of the modernist conception of rights. The long-term results of such a move, I believe, are potentially disastrous. The Civil Rights Movement: What was at stake in the Civil Rights movement and in Emancipation? In both cases, proponents advanced arguments for freedom on the basis of the integretity of the human person. In the classical conception, freedom, as a natural right, is something that proceeds immediately from man's rational nature. Indeed, freedom just is the ability to form rational judgments and to act on them. In classical philosophy, justice is commensurate with the nature of a thing. This why Catholic philosphers like Thomas Aquinas could argue centuries before modern slavery that slavery was not a natural condition, and why the Popes began to condemn the modern slave trade from its inception. Slavery is not commensurate with the nature of the human person as rational (i.e., free). This is also why MLK could argue for civil rights on the basis of the integrity of human nature. The "Gay Marriage" Debate: Freedom, as such, is not at stake in the Gay marriage debate. No one is arguing about the rights of people to form judgments or to pursue "life, liberty and happiness" as they see fit. Rather we are asking about whether the state should privilege and especially protect those domestic relations that arise spontaneously from the nature of human sexuality (between parents and children particularly), or whether the state should seek to create those relations through legislation, without regard to the natural process of human generation? What is not at stake? No rational opponent of gay marriage is arguing for Homo-pogroms, or even for enforcement of strict anti-sodomy laws. Nor is this particularly a debate about inheritance or hospital visitation rights. The substantive issue is the legal definition of family and of parent/child relationships. It involves the nature of the right that parents have to beget and raise offspring. Gay marriage proponents suggest a radical and dangerous conception of freedom and right. In their view, freedom requires that the state define human relations in whatever way suits a constituency. It is not a matter of discovering, through reason, those relations that arise from human nature and of protecting their inherent integrity and dignity. Thus, I have a right to someone else's children (which is what is at stake in a debate about adoption) because I want them and the state cedes them to me. If the state can redefine marriage and family to create "a right" (namely, the right to adopt another man's children), then the "right" to marraige and children is not something that proceeds from the natural process of human generation and sexuality, but one that proceeds from the state. There is also a whole different discussion that we can have about the sociological data on homosexual relations and child rearing, which is not irrelevant to the discussion. But I think the philosphical implications are primary. Opponents of gay marriage initiatives believe that the gay marriage movement will ultimately threaten the protection of all natural rights by radically reconfiguring our legal philosophy in an even more positivist direction. (A movement that has been underway for some time, but which we should nevertheless oppose.) - David Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:12:40 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/strengthen-the-things-that-remain.html#comment-12726 Though Professor Beckwith sees liberalism as having been usurped by intolerant secularism, the tendency toward tyranny has always been an inherent consequence of classical liberal thought. The movement from benign neutrality to hostile absolutism has been an organic development within liberalism because liberal politics are by their nature progressive. As James Kalb noted, liberalism's tolerance of competing systems like monarchy and traditionalism has historically been a necessary and temporary accommodation lasting only until society could be stabilized in their absence. That is why today's conservatives look like yesterday's liberals. The breakdown in popular agreement regarding the importance of public values and institutions is itself a direct result of liberalism. - Brian Fri, 03 Aug 2012 09:33:31 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/strengthen-the-things-that-remain.html#comment-12725 Nellie---you can still eat at Chick-fil-A on Friday---just order a biscuit, fries, or dessert! - Gary Fri, 03 Aug 2012 09:02:34 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/strengthen-the-things-that-remain.html#comment-12724 What needs to happen to reverse such events as the Mayors' illegal proclamations against traditional Christian-Muslim-Jewish viewpoints is simple: recall them. A politician is responsible to the electorate, so to bring them to a sense of respect for the large numbers of voters in their cities that hold these traditional views, a recall is the most appropriate and effective tool. So why have there been no moves to recall Messrs Emmanuel, Menino, etc., for impugning the rights not just of a private company, but of all the citizens who agree with the traditional view of marriage? - G.K. Thursday Fri, 03 Aug 2012 09:00:44 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/strengthen-the-things-that-remain.html#comment-12723 What percentage of the customers at Chick-fil-A do you think were Catholic vis-a-vis, say, Baptist or Evangelical? Catholics write and other Catholics read what was written, whether by an author or the USCCB. Baptists and Evangelicals take action. Can you imagine Pat Robertson or Billy Graham inviting Pres. Obama to an Al Smith-type dinner? They would be bankrupt as their congregations would abandon them. Americans love heroes. Catholics prefer martyrs, even if they die of natural causes. - Manfred Fri, 03 Aug 2012 07:49:23 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/strengthen-the-things-that-remain.html#comment-12722 Great article. Secular fatwa. I love it! (You might get the fatwas of any number of cities confused these days, whether it's Boston, San Francisco, Damascus, New York City, Mecca or Tehran: Last month a fatwa outlawing an important Jewish sacred rite, this month all Christian businesses.) - Jacob R Fri, 03 Aug 2012 05:51:26 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/strengthen-the-things-that-remain.html#comment-12721 If you are a traditional Catholic, just don't eat at Chick Fil A today. It's Friday! - Nellie Fri, 03 Aug 2012 05:20:55 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/strengthen-the-things-that-remain.html#comment-12720 Mark, There are very few liberals left. Tom Wolfe explained some years ago that liberalism has been succeeded by "Rococo Marxism" in which women, people of color, and non-heterosexuals join the proletariat as victims of white, heterosexual males holding the Perennial Philosophy. The solution, as you say, is a collectivist state. How many bishops and priests over the last 50 years have been "Rococo Marxists"? - Jon S. Fri, 03 Aug 2012 04:57:36 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/strengthen-the-things-that-remain.html#comment-12719 Professor Beckwith, it deserves mention that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg firmly rejected such "fatwas", though other New York officials embraced them. Referring to his fellow mayors on the issue: "I disagree with them really strongly on this one." Stating his own view: "It’s just not government’s job, and no matter how much you dislike somebody else’s views, think about what would happen in the cities where the views are on the other side." This is the philosophical framework that TCT columnists have been looking for. - DS Fri, 03 Aug 2012 04:18:04 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/strengthen-the-things-that-remain.html#comment-12718 Nicely written, Francis. It's comforting to know there's a fast-food restaurant one can go to without running into the likes of Obama or Rahm Emanuel, whose "Chicago values" result in more than 500 homicides a year and "flash mobs" stealing merchandise with impunity. Today, Friday, is supposed to be "kiss-in" day at CFA, where, we are told, homosexuals intend to gather in protest and openly display their affections. As a private enterprise, CFA would do well to post a sign in large letters: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." - Grump Fri, 03 Aug 2012 04:01:41 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/strengthen-the-things-that-remain.html#comment-12717 Francis, Thanks for a very well-written piece.The Natural Law argument is a simple one, I use it often but sadly, in public conversation it is not used nearly enough. The truth is America has become a cultural and moral sewer. Shame has left America. Our country is in grave peril and I applaud, Mr. Cathy, like I applaud Archbishop Chaput, Cardinal Dolan and others for confronting the evil among us. When I say Carpe Diem, I really do ask that you not sit on your hands, too much is at risk. - Rob Schultz Fri, 03 Aug 2012 02:33:52 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/strengthen-the-things-that-remain.html#comment-12716 Are there really any more traditional liberals left alive? Other than Nat Hentoff, it seems the answer is probably, "No." Instead, those who are called liberals are really Leftists who advocate a collectivist state. - Mark Fri, 03 Aug 2012 02:31:13 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/strengthen-the-things-that-remain.html#comment-12715 And the logical conclusion of the secular hegemony that tolerates no dissent is the Reign of Terror. How many students in our "Catholic" schools, that have long abetted the secular hegemony, know about the Reign of Terror? - Jon S. Fri, 03 Aug 2012 01:42:22 +0100