Christian Civilization -- The Central Issue

[Alexis Jacobi]

The average man's 'objection to Christian civilization is not an objection to medieval culture, which incorporated every act of social life in a sacred order of sacramental symbols and liturgical observances — such a culture is too remote from our experience to stir our emotions one way or the other: it is the dread of moral rigorism, of alcoholic prohibition or the censorship of books and films or of the fundamentalist banning of the teaching of biological evolution.

But what the advocates of a Christian civilization wish is not this narrowing of the cultural horizons, but just the reverse: the recovery of that spiritual dimension of social life the lack of which has cramped and darkened the culture of the modern world. We have acquired new resources of power and of which the old Christian civilization had hardly dreamed. Yet at the same time, we have lost that spiritual vision man formerly possessed — the sense of an eternal world on which the transitory temporal world of human affairs was dependent. This vision is not only a Christian insight: for it is intrinsic to the great civilizations of the ancient East and to the pagan world as well, so that it is not Christian civilization alone that is at stake.

It made sense when I read it the first time.

[phyllo]

The average man's 'objection to Christian civilization is not an objection to medieval culture, which incorporated every act of social life in a sacred order of sacramental symbols and liturgical observances — such a culture is too remote from our experience to stir our emotions one way or the other: it is the dread of moral rigorism, of alcoholic prohibition or the censorship of books and films or of the fundamentalist banning of the teaching of biological evolution.

But what the advocates of a Christian civilization wish is not this narrowing of the cultural horizons, but just the reverse: the recovery of that spiritual dimension of social life the lack of which has cramped and darkened the culture of the modern world. We have acquired new resources of power and of which the old Christian civilization had hardly dreamed. Yet at the same time, we have lost that spiritual vision man formerly possessed — the sense of an eternal world on which the transitory temporal world of human affairs was dependent. This vision is not only a Christian insight: for it is intrinsic to the great civilizations of the ancient East and to the pagan world as well, so that it is not Christian civilization alone that is at stake.

It made sense when I read it the first time.

But if you read 'Pascendi', censorship and banning books is recommended as a remedy for modernism.

As well as control over the education system and only the appointment of teachers who agree with "fundamentals".

So it is seems that what the "average man" fears might happen is a real possibility.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Let us suppose — and I think we all know it will not happen — a return to strict and defined social restraints of that Christian/Catholic sort.

All sorts of things would be restricted and yes banned. It is a fact.

But isn’t the issue here that when we contemplate restraint and restriction that, given our present ultra-liberal dispensation, that no ‘return’ is even possible?

Once the ultra-liberalist ethic is in place it just demands more and more liberty (a perverse liberty really, an abuse of liberty) and just imagine the squealing and the protest when restrsints are re-imposed.

“Religious intolerance!” “Fascism!” and so it goes.

As well as control over the education system and only the appointment of teachers who agree with "fundamentals".

Personally, I would choose and support a strict and demanding Platonist or Catholic as a teacher for my children. Because they would know of those “fundamentals”.

[phyllo]

Let us suppose — and I think we all know it will not happen — a return to strict and defined social restraints of that Christian/Catholic sort.

All sorts of things would be restricted and yes banned. It is a fact.

But isn’t the issue here that when we contemplate restraint and restriction that, given our present ultra-liberal dispensation, that no ‘return’ is even possible?

Once the ultra-liberalist ethic is in place it just demands more and more liberty (a perverse liberty really, an abuse of liberty) and just imagine the squealing and the protest when restrsints are re-imposed.

“Religious intolerance!” “Fascism!” and so it goes.

I assume that this "ultra-liberal dispensation" applies both to liberals and conservatives and the religious and non-religious.

Because otherwise, that's oddly one-sided.
Only liberals or ultra-liberals would have problem with restraints? I don't think so.
You only have to look at the reactions to covid restrictions which came from the right and various religious groups.

So if it applies to everyone, I tend to agree that there is currently an emphasis on freedoms rather than responsibilities. I would call it an imbalance rather than an "abuse of liberty".

Correcting the imbalance means moving towards a different view of life, society and existence. That would include greater importance for spirituality.

But I'm not sure how that could be achieved.

Personally, I would choose and support a strict and demanding Platonist or Catholic as a teacher for my children. Because they would know of those “fundamentals”.

The key word is "personally".

Choosing it for yourself is one thing, imposing it on others is another.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I assume that this "ultra-liberal dispensation" applies both to liberals and conservatives and the religious and non-religious.

Because otherwise, that's oddly one-sided.
Only liberals or ultra-liberals would have problem with restraints? I don't think so.
You only have to look at the reactions to covid restrictions which came from the right and various religious groups.

The •ultra-liberal dispensation• seems to me to be an outcome of about a 100 year liberalization project. Generally, people react against the imposition or reimposition of restraints that were formerly held. Take homosexual marriage as an example. A few years back it was opposed by general opinion. Then attitudes were •engineered•.

Dawson wrote: “But what the advocates of a Christian civilization wish is not this narrowing of the cultural horizons, but just the reverse: the recovery of that spiritual dimension of social life the lack of which has cramped and darkened the culture of the modern world.” But I think it is clear that if traditional Christian values were reinvigorated that a reining-in process would also occur. And because we live in nations in which Liberalism rules, any reversals would be met with acute resistance.

It is a curious problem as I see it: Liberalism and Hyper-Liberalism always claim more rights. They never relinquish ground. Every negotiation with Ultra-Liberalism always results in a concession by the Conservative faction. Therefore incrementally Ultra-Liberalism only gains ground.

But then there does come a point — I suppose our reference would be the Weimar Republic and Berlin — when there is a political movement that attains power and comes down hard on those it believes have gone too far.

The Covid events seem uniquely complex. On one hand in a genuine pandemic it would be understood that restrictions on interactions would be necessary and people would obey. But some people believed the imposition of those restrictions were carried out cynically for other reasons.

Correcting the imbalance means moving towards a different view of life, society and existence. That would include greater importance for spirituality.

But I'm not sure how that could be achieved.

For about a decade now I have been informally studying the Dissident Right: Right-leaning faction that in the present dispensation are classified as •fascist•. In each case liberal excesses are critiqued and, concurrently, a more rigid worldview or philosophy is sought out.

There has to be a reference point. The former reference point for we Occidentals was a classical liberal arts education into which Christian belief and ethics were interwoven. And that was the •anchor• that kept general society within those bounds that we are familiar with. Classical Liberalism required that base. So that when that base was no longer taught — then things went sideways.

The issue is one of education. See Charlotte Isebyt’s Dumbing Down of America.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Continuing with Iwannaplato. This excerpt is from an adjacent thread and it seems highly relevant as a true picture of IWP’s position in respect to the Church and also possibly Catholicism and Christianity:

[Directed to Wizard]

The story broke [sexual abuse in the Church] completely in the US in 2001. That's when it became impossible for the church to continue its systematic denial and failure to address the problem.

Great, they did some good stuff AFTER YEARS OF DENIAL, after years of re-victimizing those victims who had the courage to step forward and scaring off others, AFTER YEARS of continuing to put priest WHOM THEY KNEW HAD A SERIOUS PROBLEM in the company of children.

Spotlight is a decent film on how it broke in the US.

This was a sick, diseased organization, the CC. They did a horrible, lying, systematic disservice to Catholics, hell even the priests themelves who were abusers.

And none of this is a coincidence, given the toxic sexual metaphysics and practices in the CC.

I don't think you know much history. I don't think you know much about the Catholic Church. I doubt you know much about human nature and psychology.

But still you are so fucking sure of yourself with you tiny pieces of 'knowledge' that you're happy to rage away, over the internet.

You have the stupidity to ask me if I would give my life to God's work in that condescending way, when you don't even believe in God.

This organization you are defending throughout much of its history could have considered putting you to death for your lack of beliefs. And priests were sure as shit, compressed in their celibacy, abusing parishoners going way back. Hell, you should see what the Bad Popes got into.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_Popes

And that's just the stuff that people managed to bring into the light.

We know this organization will happily use its incredible wealth and power to suppress information. It's only because of democracy, technological changes and growing awareness of PTSD for example, in abuse victims and other advances in psychology, that victims were taken seriously.

We've been as a species slowly undermining the ability of people in power to silence people. There are countertrends, but some of these long term abuses finally got into the light because people realized that even organizations that present themselves as moral and better and close to God can actually be something else. Just as soldiers have been catching on more and more that wars are not necessarily about protecting their countries or helping people.

I know you won't stop, just assuming that your rage and scattered snippets of reading justify whatever hopelessly silly posting you want to do.

But people who actually spend time forming opinions and look at a wide range of sources...they're going to think you're silly at best.

But yeah, you just nurture that self-righteous rage and your simple binary view of reality. The people in power love that shit. You might as well be on their payroll, but you do it for free.

[Harbal]

[Directed to Wizard]

I, too, often feel compelled to direct things to Wizard.

[Iwannaplato]

Continuing with Iwannaplato. This excerpt is from an adjacent thread and it seems highly relevant as a true picture of IWP’s position in respect to the Church and also possibly Catholicism and Christianity:

I have been presenting my true positions in relation to different facets of the church/Catholicism/Christianity throughout, including those positive things I said. Care to be direct, AJ, or will you continue to imply? I do understand that for Wizard it's hard to imagine a set of phenomena as complicated as Christianity could have negative AND positive facets, but is this true for you also?

[Directed to Wizard]

...who denies that any of it happened. It was quite funny the way he tried to use evidence to support his position without knowing the slightest bit about the timeline involved.

How did you think it was relevant, AJ?

How are you 'continuing with IWP' here?

[Alexis Jacobi]

How did you think it was relevant, AJ?

First thing, in my book, is to relax. You seem on the verge of becoming irate. An apprehension of being misunderstood or incorrectly represented perhaps?

What I quoted is very relevant: those seem directive (determining) opinions about the healthfulness of Christian and Catholic doctrines. Also, these are opinions and views shared by many.

…who denies that any of it happened.

And they are real (genuine) concerns. Indeed they are one basis for traditional Catholics disgust with the present situation in the Church which they believe is tied-up with insidious infiltration.

[Iwannaplato]

How did you think it was relevant, AJ?

First thing, in my book, is to relax.[/quote]Hm, that doesn't seem to relate to the question.

You seem on the verge of becoming irate. An apprehension of being misunderstood or incorrectly represented perhaps?

Nor this part either.

What I quoted is very relevant: those seem directive (determining) opinions about the healthfulness of Christian and Catholic doctrines. Also, these are opinions and views shared by many.

And what did you think of what I said.

…who denies that any of it happened.

And they are real (genuine) concerns. Indeed they are one basis for traditional Catholics disgust with the present situation in the Church which they believe is tied-up with insidious infiltration.

This seems to not be a response to what you quoted. Not that I expected or particularly want that part to be responded to.

So, when you say traditional Catholics feel disgust with the present situation in the Church, do you mean they are disgusted by what the priests were doing before the turn of the century? Something else? What is the insidious infiltration? Do you believe in this insidious infiltration? Are you disgusted?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Nor this part either.

Whatever I write has relevance. Though it may not be relevant to you. You seem to take personal offense at certain things said. I advise •taking it easy• but you don’t have to accept that advice.

So, when you say traditional Catholics feel disgust with the present situation in the Church, do you mean (1) they are disgusted by what the priests were doing before the turn of the century? (2) Something else? (3) What is the insidious infiltration? (4) Do you believe in this insidious infiltration? (5) Are you disgusted?

1) I am certain that the infiltration of homosexuals and homosexuality into the Church is disgusting to all, and specifically to those of traditional bent (old style mass & liturgy — pre-Vatican ll) who see it as part of a whole process of corruption.

2) Many things, and described as being liberalizing changes in the mass & liturgy. But this is a complex subject.

3) That is harder to define. Because it depends on perspective. The main *insidiousness* would be doctrinal — that is why I submitted Pascendi because it is explained there. The liberalizations of the 1960 have had a negative effect on all levels (according to those I read).

4) I do indeed. And I — an outsider — have had interviews with modernist priests who did not seem Catholic in a recognizable way. Note that the most radical (in the negative sense) were the Latin American priests. (As well as the Dutch and German I gather).

[Did I mention that I stayed with Liberation Theology priests in Chiapas, Mexico a few years back?]

5) What a strange question. Can you mention a person who is not disgusted with sexual abuse and manipulation of children?

How did you think it was relevant, AJ?

You have made yourself •antagonist• here so your views of the CC and Christianity are indeed relevant. I say (still) you are a moden by upbringing though I do not deny your affiliation with animism (but I have zero idea what this means or why you took that route). And your scathing view of Catholic scandals is a) common and b) justified. But that does not necessarily mean that Catholic doctrine or metaphysical belief is the culprit. You seem to assume it follows.

Please clarify.

[phyllo]

1) I am certain that the infiltration of homosexuals and homosexuality into the Church is disgusting to all, and specifically to those of traditional bent (old style mass & liturgy — pre-Vatican ll) who see it as part of a whole process of corruption.

Do they realize that there were homosexuals within the church prior to Vatican 2?

And that there was corruption within the church throughout its history?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... tive_popes

[Alexis Jacobi]

Do they realize that there were homosexuals within the church prior to Vatican 2?

And that there was corruption within the church throughout its history?

There is corruption in all human organizations that operate with rules & regulations. There is no human organization operating with rules & regulations that does not suffer corruption (people who violate the rules.

And you can be certain that when it involves sexual restraint that there will be many violations of the codes.

What I am not certain about -- I have not encountered a book on the topic -- is the history of homosexuality in the Catholic Church over the centuries. I have read that men who had *odd tendencies* and were not apt for marriage were sometimes pushed into the Church though. And some assume that this meant that the Church had accustomed itself to homosexuals as priests throughout its history. But I am not certain about any of this.

[phyllo]

You might find this article interesting:

Pope Francis has spoken openly about homosexuality. In a recent interview, the pope said that homosexual tendencies “are not a sin.” And a few years ago, in comments made during an in-flight interview, he said,

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”

However, the pope has also discouraged homosexual men from entering the priesthood. He categorically stated in another interview that for one with homosexual tendencies, the “ministry or the consecrated life is not his place.”

Many gay priests, when interviewed by The New York Times, characterized themselves as being in a “cage” as a result of the church’s policies on homosexuality.

As a scholar specializing in the history of the Catholic Church and gender studies, I can attest that 1,000 years ago, gay priests were not so restricted. In earlier centuries, the Catholic Church paid little attention to homosexual activity among priests or laypeople.

https://theconversation.com/a-thousand- ... ity-112830

[Alexis Jacobi]

I do not find it that interesting really. And the reason is because I suspect an academic steeped in the general *woke* mood. Sorry, that is too vague a word. This does not mean that I would not read her article (and others like it) but rather that I have found it beneficial to step a few paces back and make an effort to understand her particular bias position, her objectives, and her general commitments.

It is hard to understand Pope Francis and indeed many traditionalist Catholics are extremely confused by his words and by some of his encyclicals.

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”

The problem of the traditional position of the CC on homosexuality, and really other all forms of sexual expression, is a real one and I admit it is difficult indeed. Formerly, I tended to a very liberal position. Now I am less certain of what is the proper attitude to take.

Lisa McClain writes: As a scholar specializing in the history of the Catholic Church and gender studies, I can attest that 1,000 years ago, gay priests were not so restricted. In earlier centuries, the Catholic Church paid little attention to homosexual activity among priests or laypeople.

I am interested in her research and how she arrived at this assertion. But I will repeat that there are many reasons to be suspicious of academics and academia generally. And sensing her *agenda* I admit to a certain concern.

Yet I do want you to know that I recognize that she and people like her carry the present forward with their ideological activism. It is really what is going on and, from the look of it, there is no stopping it (and by that I mean a great many things). It is not precisely that I oppose their intentions (I have lots of reservations though) and more that I seek to understand the causal chain that moves from one orientation to another one, and radically different.

In short she is an activist within academia and as such (I assume) she is supported and carried by the university and those who are educated by her.

Dr. Lisa McClain is a Professor of History and Gender Studies and has been on faculty at Boise State University since 2001. Her fields of specialty include the history of religion and the intersections of gender, religion, and popular culture. She is the author of the books Divided Loyalties? Pushing the Boundaries of Gender and Lay Roles in the Catholic Church 1534-1829 (Palgrave MacMillan, 2018); Lest We Be Damned: Practical Innovation and Lived Experience among Catholics in Protestant England 1559-1642 (Routledge 2004); a chapter A Companion to Catholicism and Recusancy in Britain and Ireland: From Reformation to Emancipation (Brill, 2022); a chapter in the book Women during the English Reformations: Renegotiating Gender and Religious Identity (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014); and articles in journals such as Church History, Sixteenth Century Journal, the Catholic Historical Review, the Journal of Religious History, and Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature.

McClain serves as an expert on gender with the Inclusion Crowd, an international Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Think Tank made up of academics, social media influencers, authors, and industry leaders across five continents, brought together to address issues of inclusion across a variety of identity categories and intersections, especially in the workplace. The Inclusion Crowd is “focused on ensuring fairness, opportunity and representation for everyone within society; irrespective of background or characteristic.”

Her public history articles on the intersections of religion, gender, and sexualities for The Conversation, an editorially curated, nonprofit news organization with a monthly readership of 18 million and reach of 42 million through Creative Commons, have garnered over 327,000 reads.