A couple of days ago I
briefly discussed the complaint against the Church's sexual morality and the authority of "a few celibate Old Men in Rome." Today, I'd like to return to that topic. To be fair, it is not merely the morality of a few "Old Men in Rome," as indeed there have been times--and they are fairly rare--when it is fair to say that the Old Men in Rome were the only ones not making an earnest effort to live by this morality. There have been times in the past when the popes have had mistresses while the peasantry have had wives to whom they were faithful until death. There have been popes who have given the greatest reason for scandal against the teaching they passed down, and yet never once did they dare to change that teaching. The pope may live in sin, but he would not teach that the sin was an act of sanctity.
The people who argue that the morality is formulated solely by the pope have only to wait until another pope is elected--and popes are elected if they are not appointed by God Himself--for this morality to change. If this is really only the morality of a few Old Men, then it should be asked why the youngest pope elected in over 150 years (since Pius IX was elected in 1846) was so supportive of this morality. Indeed, this morality belongs not necessarily to the older members of the Church--the so-called Baby Boomers are still largely opposed to this and most other forms of traditional Catholicism--but to the younger members who are influenced by the young pope. Today it is the morality of a few Old Men and a myriad of younger ones who revere them. Before today, indeed so recently as a matter of decades ago, it was the morality of a majority of people at any age.
As to our own tendency to revere and respect the Old Men, and especially a single Old Man--the pope--it is well worth remembering G.K. Chesterton's reflection concerning the leadership of Old Men or an Old Man:
|
G. K. Chesterton wrote:
Leadership of some sort they doubtless had, as have the gregarious animals; but leadership implies no such irrational servility as that attributed to the superstitious subjects of the Old Man. There was doubtless somebody corresponding, to use Tennyson's expression, to the many-wintered crow that leads the clanging rookery home. But I fancy that if that venerable fowl began to act after the fashion of some Sultans in ancient and decayed Asia, it would become a very clanging rookery and the many-wintered crow would not see many more winters. It may be remarked, in this connection, but even among animals it would seem that something else is respected more than bestial violence, if it be only the familiarity which in men is called tradition or the experience which in men is called wisdom. I do not know if crows really follow the oldest crow, but if they do they are certainly not following the strongest crow. And I do know in the human case that if some ritual of seniority keeps savages reverencing somebody called the Old Man, then at least they have not our own servile sentimental weakness for worshipping the Strong Man. (The Everlasting Man)
|
This latter weakness is precisely what is at play here. Some complain that a single Old Man is blocking the use of contraception, meant in part to reduce the prevalence of disease: condoms won't do that, as STI rates are fairly high even in countries where condoms are readily available, including in relatively secular countries. Indeed, the
HIV-prevalency rates in some areas in the United States exceed the prevalency of HIV in Africa. Another complaint is leveled--and this was the chief driving force behind the contraception movement of the past--that the pope is condemning many families to poverty and misery by upholding the immorality of contraception. Here is also where Chesterton's remark hits closest to home: because contraception (
and abortion) used in this manner is meant to reduce the number of people coming from the poorest or weakest families. This was certainly the vision of the eugenicists at the turn of the century and beyond, with Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger, being a member of this group.
The ideal of the rich--which increasing includes the middle class and even some lower class families in America--seems to be luxury (on the one hand) and a career (on the other). As the British novelist Mr Piers Paul Read has noted, this means that women are increasing leaving the home to join their husbands in the workforce full-time, even after bearing children: this, because of a work ethic among men which required that they should provide for their families, and ethic which was later thrust upon women with the arising of modern feminism. Whereas once the husbands worked to acquire wealth so that their wives and children could live (somewhat) luxuriously at home, with the wife taking care of the children, wives now enter the workforce only to hire a nanny or nurse to care for the children, who are left to live with all the luxuries of a home save for the family.
Along with this desire to work--a desire which is not altogether unhealthy--comes a second desire. This is the desire to "experience life," from which the desire that women have for working ironically springs. This is surely ironic, because most people hold jobs which allow them to do just the opposite of "experiencing life." Most jobs--indeed, careers--may be properly called soul-sucking or life-draining, to use two common descriptions which I have heard. The sheer tedium required of most workers leaves them physically, mentally, and/or emotionally exhausted by the day's end, and that's for people who are able to contain their work days in the standard 8-9 hours implied by a 40 hour work week.
As for the "experience of life," this seems to exist almost entirely outside of work, necessitating leisure time. But leisure itself is precisely what the wealthy (and middle classes) are able to enjoy, and have almost always been able to enjoy, which the poor are scarcely afforded. Moreover, this leisure is meant to be enjoyed with money--parties are somewhat expensive, travel is expensive--which is precisely that thing which the poor do not have.
The rich may possess every form of material pleasure, and so to them the value of all things may be somewhat lessened. Time is cheap if one has plenty of leisure to spend, money is cheap if it is had in an overabundance, and the things which one buys for oneself or one's friends are cheap if their cost is insignificant next to the person's fortune.
As for the poor, they have nothing save what their hands and minds can make, or what their meager savings can afford. Thanks to today's economy, they may have plenty of free time--when employed, they have a typical hourly job which ends early in the day. They can often afford the cost of living; they cannot afford the cost of "leisure" which is enjoyed by the wealthy. For them, their greatest earthly treasure is their kin, which includes especially their children.
Despite this, it is the "morality of a few Old Men" which is despised for speaking out against the (increasingly forced) contraception of ever larger segments of society, beginning with the poorest and weakest among us. It is as if our society--and especially the wealthiest, most powerful members of that society--hears "those who have little will lose what they have" and attempts to enact this by taking away even the children of the poor and weak. Because they will not submit to the Wisdom of the "Old Man," they will be ruled by the power of the Strong Man, the Overman, whose concern is to trample the Undermen.
Tags: Culture Abolition-of-Ma N Culture-of-Deat H Philosophy
