Interesting

This is interesting, especially the Habermas quote. But, as far as practical matters go, demographics are destiny. If Europeans don't start having children, there soon won't be anybody left to practice the faith, comeback or no.

Our socity's big lie

N.B. Off the cuff at 3AM, when I'm mad because I can't fall back to sleep and made even madder by some lies that I just read.

One is often told that one cannot impose one's morality on others. One may disapprove of abortion, contraception, feminism, divorce, homosexuality &c. One may believe these things to be immoral, and one may even be correct about it. But one cannot use coercive force, such as the force of law, to impose such a moral code upon others against their will.

People who argue this way are essentially arguing that we live in a libertarian society. The basic principles of such a society are that my life and property belong to me, and I can do anything I wish with them as long as it does not do harm to the life and property of others. Generally, when someone argues this way with you, the best response is to laugh in their face.

I wish I lived in a libertarian society. It would be an improvement.

Why do I say this? Because the idea that these United States are a libertarian society is a big lie.

Suppose I am a property owner seeking to rent apartments in a building I own. Now suppose some homosexuals came seeking to rent one of my apartments. Further suppose that I tell them I will not rent them an apartment because the acts they engage in are an abomination against God and the natural order, so would they please remove themselves from my property posthaste and never darken my door again. Tell me what would happen.

I will tell you what would happen. I would be sued for discrimination and I would almost certainly lose.

Suppose I am a business owner seeking to hire a new employee. Now suppose a married woman with feminist leanings applies for the position. Further suppose that I inquire if her husband works and, if so, why it is necessary for her to work as well. Suppose, after hearing her response - whether it be an answer or a refusal to answer, telling me the reasons are none of my business - I tell her that I will not hire her because, as a wife, her primary job should be in the home unless circumstances demand otherwise, and she has not convinced me that her current circumstances make such a demand on her. Tell me what would happen.

I will tell you what would happen. I would be sued for discrimination and I would certainly lose.

And that is why we do not live in a libertarian society, a society that is neutral on anything that is not an immediate threat to life or property rights. In a libertarian society I would have every right to respond in the manner described above. No one has a right to the use of my property until I enter into contract with them and give them such a right in exchange for some wealth or services. No one has a right to my wealth until I enter into contract with them and give them such a right in exchange for some goods or services.

That is the lie at the heart of our society: the idea that it is neutral on the question of what is good and simply enforces the basic rights of life and property while allowing each one of us to decide for ourselves. If that were true, then homosexuals, feminists, pro-aborts &c. could not use the force of the law to force us to acknowledge their lies. Pharmacies could not be forced to sell contraceptives, adoption agencies could not be forced to place children with homosexuals, doctors could not be forced to perform - or to refer patients to those who will perform - abortions &c.

In a truly libertarian society the worst the cultural and moral destroyers could do is denounce us as bigots and try to convince people not to associate with us or patronize our businesses. That might be bad, but at least they could not use the coercive power of the state to force us to cave to their demands, to ruin us financially, or to fund their degeneracy. That is why I wish I lived in a libertarian society. It might fall short of a truly Catholic society in any number of ways, but in such a society I could at least live freely as a Catholic without being forced to cooperate formally or materially with any number of grave evils.

What to do?

I have spent some of the last week thinking, "What to do?" Not necessarily what I should do personally, though that is part of it, but more along the lines of what we, Catholics of the Church in these United States and throughout the world, should do.

The only answer I can come up with is this: unfurl the black banners.

I am not sure how familiar anyone is with this phrase. Daniel Larison uses it from time to time. From reading what he has said about it, it appears that he picked it up from a novel entitled Black Banners, by the late Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.

The black banner has been used by various groups throughout the years. Pirates have used it - it is the origin of the Jolly Roger - anarchists have used it, reactionaries have used it &c. Its meaning is simple. It is the opposite of the white banner. A white banner means surrender, it is a plea that quarter be given. The black banner declares that there will be neither surrender nor retreat, that quarter will neither be asked for nor given. In short, the unfurling of the black banner states that there are only two acceptable outcomes: victory or death.

There is a reason that the Church on earth has traditionally been called the Church Militant. It is because we are at war. At war with the world, at war with the flesh, at war with the devil. One can either be a partisan of truth or a partisan of error. One cannot choose not to choose. In the end, choosing not to choose is choosing the side of the enemy. It is long passed time to pick sides and draw swords, gentlemen. To quote Fr. Angelo's sidebar, "Attend upon your weapons and commence at will."

Worth Reading

Poor Mexico, Poor America, by Thomas Fleming:

Poor Mexico, Poor America I

Poor Mexico, Poor America II

Poor Mexico, Poor America: Extracts Omitted

Poor Mexico, Poor America: One More Time

Contra a poor argument

This is essentially a comment I posted in response to a comment on this post over at the Touchstone Magazine blog, Mere Comments.

I was responding to an argument which stated that any kind of natural law argument against homosexual "marriage" is bound to fail, since people who make such arguments do not refuse to acknowledge marriages between couples who are infertile due to certain medical conditions or to age.

I responded as such:

[This argument is] False.

The definition of marriage does not include the essence of each particular conjugal act, but rather the essence of the conjugal act in view of the marital union as a whole. The union between a man and a woman is essentially fertile. That some particular privation may render some particular conjugal acts infertile does not change this any more than the roof of my house changes the essence of the helium in a balloon simply because it gets in the way of the helium finding its natural level.

Homosexual acts are essentially infertile rather than being rendered infertile by some privation. It is impossible for two men or two women to produce children. Homosexual acts are different in kind from the conjugal act, and thus homosexual unions are different in kind from the marital union. That the law should recognize this is a matter of justice, since justice involves treating similar things similarly and different things differently.

And now they call it "marriage"

California's top court overturns gay marriage ban, Lisa Leff, Associated Press Writer.

A quote from the majority decision written by Chief Justice Ron George:

Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation...

What this means, in effect, is that the state of California now recognizes error as truth and the law of the land.

To begin with, one's ability "to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person" is indeed dependent upon "sexual orientation," if by "a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person" one means a relationship with a sexual aspect. This is because to love someone is to will their good for their own sake. If you are willing to enter into some type of sexual congress with a member of the same sex, then you also will that they enter into sexual congress with you. But such an act is contrary to the nature of the sexual act, since the sexual act is by nature ordered towards procreation and sexual acts between two persons of the same sex are, in their essence, not ordered towards procreation. Thus these sexual acts are evil. And following from that, if you will another to enter into such an act with you, then you are willing them evil. Thus, insofar as you are willing to enter into some warped form of sexual congress with another member of the same sex, you are not loving them. This is necessarily true.

Second, one's ability "to care for and raise children" is also dependent on "sexual orientation," at least insofar as we are talking about the people caring for and raising children being in a sexual relationship with one another. This is because the caring for and raising of children includes not only their material needs, but also their moral and spiritual needs. The very existence of a same-sex sexual relationship between those in charge of the caring for and raising of children presents a moral and spiritual danger to said children. This is because such a relationship teaches children that acts and inclinations that are objectively disordered are instead rightly ordered. The very existence of a same-sex sexual relationship between those charged with the raising of children is a moral and spiritual poison that will lead the children to believe that a lie is the truth and that an evil is a good. Which, I suppose, is par for the course in the modern world.

On objectively evil acts

"Objectively evil" does not mean "really extra super bad." "Objectively evil" is a category distinction. The object of an action is what gives it its species, since the object defines an act as the form of a thing defines its species. Objectively evil acts are acts that can never be good because their species renders them incapable of it.

Acts that are not objectively evil can be rendered evil by the ends intended by the agent and the circumstances surrounding the action. A prudential judgment is involved in deciding whether or not particular circumstances render a particular action--one that is neither objectively evil nor done with the intention of achieving evil means--good or evil.

The point being that a person who is not in favor of some objectively evil act is not immediately morally better than a person who is in favor of some objectively evil act if they are in favor of some particular evil act or acts. It would depend upon how grave the objectively evil act was in comparison to the particular evil act or acts, as well as how prevalent the particular occurrences of the objectively evil act are.

This is not to say that one can vote for, say, a pro-abortion candidate because they are against an unjust war. But it is to say that arguing against this position is more complicated than saying, "abortion is objectively evil; war isn't." It depends on the gravity of abortion versus the gravity of the unjust war or wars. And this is without factoring in other important issues, like calling sodomy a basis for "marriage", torture &c.

The point is that "prudential judgment" is not a "get out of evil free" card. There is a prudential judgment involved in deciding whether or not executing certain criminals is necessary for the defense of the common good. This does not mean a regime can indiscriminately execute people and hide behind the idea of "prudential judgment" as a shield. The fact that a certain action is not evil in species does not render it acceptable to commit a number of particularly evil actions of this type.

On the car

Some half-formed thoughts from my morning drive to work:

In the ~10 years that have passed since I obtained my license to drive a car, I have gone from being enthralled by the freedom it offered me to being disgusted by how it enslaves me.

I do not miss many things about life in the District of Columbia, but do I miss the MetroRail.

Why have we gotten rid of streetcars?

Surprisingly--or perhaps not so surprisingly--I have come to agree with those (in the words of Marion Montgomery) "men I have chosen for my fathers," such as J.R.R. Tolkien and Russell Kirk: the car is--to quote Kirk--"a mechanical Jacobin."