On February 15, according to CNS, "Spain’s House of Representatives passed [a] new law on assisted reproduction, which allows a woman to have up to three embryos implanted in her uterus in order to increase the possibilities of a successful pregnancy. It also allows couples to decide whether to keep the left over embryos, donate them for research or to other couples, or to have them destroyed." This is in a country that, on January 1, banned all smoking inside public buildings. So here's the message: we're so concerned about people's health that we will fine people who smoke anywhere but on their own property, regardless of what they want; but we care so little that the embryo is a human life that we will allow people to flush it down the toilet, if that's what they want.
I call that contrast an irony; Bishop Jose Manuel Lorca Planes of Teruel called it "hypocrisy." I disagree with the bishop about that. Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue; there is no homage here. Anti-smoking Nazism is about fear of disease, not virtue. But I do agree with the bishop in calling the new artificial-reproduction measure a "monstrosity." To be sure, such a measure is logical in a country that recently made abortion-on-demand easy to get. But I've often wondered why people so concerned about reducing cancer risk are so little concerned about protecting the most innocent and vulnerable. I think I have the answer.
Spain now has the lowest birthrate of any country in the world. That country also recently introduced same-sex "marriage." (I insist on the scare quotes; God instituted and defined marriage, not the state; same-sex marriage is therefore a perverted ersatz.) Is it any wonder that a people who refuse to reproduce themselves see nothing untoward about umooring marriage from procreation? Moreover, the response of that country to the Madrid bombings by al-Qaeda, which killed scores of people, was to elect a government that promised to, and did, pull Spain's troops out of Iraq. Not what I'd call machismo. Unlike the Netherlands, of course, Spain has not yet licensed doctors to kill people deemed in bad-enough shape; but I'm sure we'll see that before long too. What do all these things have in common with anti-smoking Nazism? Simple: people who care nothing for the future of their civilization are generally very concerned to make their own lives as comfortable as possible, even if that doesn't mean as long as possible.
That will work only until they're doddering in nursing homes. In another twenty or thirty years, the native population of Spain will be in steep decline while its Muslim immigrants multiply like rabbits. It will be the Reconquista—in reverse and by demographics. Spain is one of the clearest, if not the clearest, example of the suicide of the West. Will we cut the noose before we hang limp from the rafter? I wish I knew. All I can do is raise consciousness about what is going on. Prayer is indispensable.
Mike, your clear thinking and plain speaking is so necessary in this confused and troubled world, desperately in need of the gospel and bold proclaimers of same. May your example as you follow the example of Christ and his saints inspire all Catholics to do likewise in word and deed through the grace of the Holy Spirit. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI read your post after arriving at the site by accident, and found it sickening. I'd thought the days when Christianity was used to justify bigotry and xenophobic hatred were over. I'd also like to point out the glaring contradiction in holding dear the sanctity of life with regards to abortion, and then making a mockery of the Spanish governent's decision to pull out of Iraq and end their part in a pointless, destructive war. Isn't being able to step back and say of a conflict "This is beneath me," rather than retaliating what makes the bigger man?
ReplyDeleteI am not a Christian, although I admire the passive morality and tolerance in which many Christians believe. To me at least, the sort of vengeful, self-righteous, condemning opinions expressed in your article completely undermine the entire Christian faith and every good thing that it stands for.
If you have any response to the above, I would be interested to hear it, be it repentance, explanation or more condemnation; my email address is ch4488@googlemail.com
charlie:
ReplyDeleteSince you are not a Christian, you're not going to share the moral premises on which my post is based. A much more productive discussion would be possible if we discussed what you believe the basis of moral truth to be.
Best,
Mike
Mike,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, thank you for taking my post seriously and replying promptly in the public forum. I would like to apologise if you found my post overly abrasive or obnoxious, which in retrospect I feel it was; although I stand by the meaning, some of the language is harsh.
Given that you are prepared to listen, let me first comment further on your original blog before addressing the discrepancies between our own personal moralities; I think the points are relevant regardless of my own morality and are based on what I consider to be logic and universal truth.
Marriage nowadays exists in an entirely secular context; a state marriage can be performed with absolutely no religious connotations, and may be done for the legal benefits it yields. You could justifiably call this a technical inaccuracy, but denying homosexuals the right to the advantages of a state acknowledged “civil union” is bigoted discrimination.
Also a ban on smoking is a measure that improves both the comfort and longevity of non-smokers; it is hardly hedonistic or destructive. Regardless of the statistics, the law is undeniably the utilitarian, democratic solution; although smokers will experience some minor inconvenience as a result of the legislation they are still able to exercise free will, whereas before the reform non-smokers in public buildings were powerless to avoid smoke inhalation.
Shifting the discussion as requested, I think the above paragraph is a reasonable illustration of my own (admittedly idealised and loosely defined) moral philosophy given the fact that I do smoke. I think that consideration of and respect for the opinions of all parties concerned is vital when making a judgement. Discounting those beliefs which are not compatible with your own is unfair; considering those who hold such beliefs as somehow invalid is a despicable thing of which there are plenty of historic examples. My judgement of what is right (I suppose inevitably) is founded on my upbringing, which was not without religion – I attended a Unitarian Church for the first five years of my life, and went to a Church of England Primary School. Although neither of my parents attend Church regularly, both are strong advocates of what you might call “Christian” morals (though I suspect our definitions of that term may differ). Having said that, I hope I am mentally astute enough to allow continuous adjustment of my principles, according to what I can learn from others and also deduce for myself.
Your own moral code is presumably based strongly on the Bible; I deduce from your credentials that you must be very familiar with it, and I am certain you are capable of forming you own opinions of its teachings (something which, sadly, cannot be said of everyone). Doubtless there is much wisdom there, and as I said in my first post I have a great deal of respect for many of the messages it conveys. However, forgive me for saying that I don't believe that a literal or orthodox interpretation can provide a comprehensive framework for living in modern society, nor for optimising that society.
I could write thousands of words around this subject (it's been done many times before) but alas I have pressing commitments. I hope this conversation will continue, as I feel it has the potential to be in some way interesting and enlightening for us both.
Take care,
Charlie
Charlie:
ReplyDeleteAs for the relation of my moral code to the Bible, recall that I am a Catholic. As such I do not always read the Bible literally and I never read it in isolation from Tradition, the teaching authority of the Church, and natural reason.
That said, I think you're largely missing my points. First the subsidiary ones.
I agree that marriage these days is something that the state takes upon itself to define, but I believe that stance to be mistaken. Marriage predates any particular state and was instituted by God. The state therefore has no right to define marriage, only to recognize and protect it.
As for smoking, I do not object in principle to the sort of regulation adopted by Spain and many other jurisdictions. What I'm interested in is the disparity between such concern for health and the apparent casualness about killing incipient human beings because doing so serves other ends.
Since you're not a Christian, it is not surprising that your moral code and mine differ. But I'm still curious how you base yours.
Best,
Mike