“Everything’s gone to pot”

[Stella]

I have to challenge this position of modern day Eeyores. Yes crime is bad, morals are bad, evil abides. But are the ‘olden days’ better?

Pedophilia was always a thing. It just wasn’t recognized as a crime by law.

Domestic violence was always a thing. It just wasn’t recognized as a crime by law.

Abuse, theft, greed, suicide, abortion, discrimination, racism, mental health conditions, wars, misogyny, poverty, disease, child labor abuse, and the list goes on. All realities of the past centuries, millennia and beyond.

On the other hand there is so much good that’s come out of recognizing the human dignity of all people today. That can’t be denied.

The old argument that it was so much better in the past is revisionism and backwardist.

[gherkin]

On the other hand there is so much good that’s come out of recognizing the human dignity of all people today. That can’t be denied.

That is a specifically Christian idea that is found nowhere in paganism and nor does it really survive in today's neopagan cultures, except as a swiftly dying remnant. One can see its complete loss, for example, in the avowedly anti-Christian communist regimes, where people were annihilated en masse without concern for any of them as instances of the Divine image. The west still retains some sentimental grip on the notion, but it can't long survive in the absence of its metaphysical/religious base.

Whether earlier times were better or worse than now is largely an unprofitable question to ask, because we have no real means of attempting to answer. Better how? Worse with respect to what? Do we just attempt to tote up the visible evils in some parody of an empirical examination of this wholly nonempirical question? But we can certainly compare certain things. For example, was the family stronger in a largely Christian and agrarian culture than it is in ours? Answer: yes. Does that mean nothing bad ever happened in families in earlier days? Uh. No. But it does mean that children, who have the right to their own two parents raising them, were by and large raised by their own two parents, except of course when circumstances such as death or depravity intervened. We have less death nowadays due to medical advances. That, at least, is something we can empirically measure. But we also have created a norm wherein children are now as a matter of routine deprived of their proper families. This is not better. This is worse. It is empircally worse. (It is clearly established, via empirical means, that children flourish in married two-parent households and suffer in comparison when they have single- or shacked-up parents.) But it is also grotesquely morally worse, for it calls evil good and good evil.

[BobCatholic]

I think the 1980's were better in society in general than today.

I think the best time to live was 1946-1970 in the USA. I was born after that time period.

[mia.s]

Based on my reading of collected statistics and from books, people were better at hiding their depravity or masking it to appear socially acceptable. That doesn't make them worse than we are today. They did it differently.

[gherkin]

Based on my reading of collected statistics and from books, people were better at hiding their depravity or masking it to appear socially acceptable. That doesn't make them worse than we are today. They did it differently.

I'd say that a culture that maintains expectations that depravity not be displayed is a much healthier culture than one that allows and indeed encourages it to be flaunted.

[Stella]

On the other hand there is so much good that’s come out of recognizing the human dignity of all people today. That can’t be denied.

That is a specifically Christian idea that is found nowhere in paganism and nor does it really survive in today's neopagan cultures, except as a swiftly dying remnant. One can see its complete loss, for example, in the avowedly anti-Christian communist regimes, where people were annihilated en masse without concern for any of them as instances of the Divine image. The west still retains some sentimental grip on the notion, but it can't long survive in the absence of its metaphysical/religious base.

I’d argue against that based on the movement even among secular capitalists who are moved to philanthropy and concern for impoverished communities that haven’t got anything to offer us materially/financially. What inspires philanthropy today in a way that hadn't happened in the past? Communism is a proven failed ideology that'll be dead by the next generation or two.

Whether earlier times were better or worse than now is largely an unprofitable question to ask, because we have no real means of attempting to answer. Better how? Worse with respect to what? Do we just attempt to tote up the visible evils in some parody of an empirical examination of this wholly nonempirical question? But we can certainly compare certain things. For example, was the family stronger in a largely Christian and agrarian culture than it is in ours? Answer: yes. Does that mean nothing bad ever happened in families in earlier days? Uh. No. But it does mean that children, who have the right to their own two parents raising them, were by and large raised by their own two parents, except of course when circumstances such as death or depravity intervened. We have less death nowadays due to medical advances. That, at least, is something we can empirically measure. But we also have created a norm wherein children are now as a matter of routine deprived of their proper families. This is not better. This is worse. It is empircally worse. (It is clearly established, via empirical means, that children flourish in married two-parent households and suffer in comparison when they have single- or shacked-up parents.) But it is also grotesquely morally worse, for it calls evil good and good evil.

I’m agreeing with you there. My main objection is to anachronistic idealism of past era’s for the purpose of selling cults or practices as ‘havens’ from today’s world. Trying to recreate an environment that existed in the context of those times but by using all the goods we have today seems... I want to say 'a con' but I think for people that buy into it, it's an illusion. The TLM for example, is to some people preference of taste, but to too many other people, it is an ideology. A movement that transports them back into a more 'perfect' world.

[gherkin]

I’d argue against that based on the movement even among secular capitalists who are moved to philanthropy and concern for impoverished communities that haven’t got anything to offer us materially/financially. What inspires philanthropy today in a way that hadn't happened in the past?

What do you mean when you say that "philanthropy" hadn't happened in the past? More importantly, what do you mean by "philanthropy"? It's pretty clear that much "philanthropy" today is really focused on preventing the procreation of black and brown people, and in many cases the goal seems to be somthing like allowing the rich westerners to maintain their wasteful lifestyles so they can jetset around the world telling other people that the climate requires people not to jet or have kids. But to the main question, I already answered it. There remains the lingering remnants of Christian ideas (Chesterton talked about virtues as well as vices being let loose to do their dangerous business [and the Christian virtues can be terribly destructive when separated from their full context--see "social justice'] when Christendom fell) that serve as a kind of groundless sentimental basis for "philanthropy" that isn't guided by real charity.

Communism is a proven failed ideology that'll be dead by the next generation or two.

That's what I thought for awhile, and if you mean full blown Soviet style communism you're probably right. But there's no doubt that marxism is the boss today in intellectual circles and it is ever growing in power.

My main objection is to anachronistic idealism of past era’s for the purpose of selling cults or practices as ‘havens’ from today’s world. Trying to recreate an environment that existed in the context of those times but by using all the goods we have today seems... I want to say 'a con' but I think for people that buy into it, it's an illusion. The TLM for example, is to some people preference of taste, but to too many other people, it is an ideology. A movement that transports them back into a more 'perfect' world.

The example is noxious. First, it is not a mere matter of taste that raises the TLM over the modern protestant-based liturgy, it is a sense of reverence and a respect for the organic development of the liturgy as opposed to the recent preference for creation via committee. And I don't know any Latin massers--and I know a lot--who think of themselves as looking for a more perfect world. Rather, they see that the Church has turned its back on itself, and they prefer a reverent, traditional liturgy because they have the mind of the Church, unlike most prelates.

I think you shouldn't get your information about Catholic traditionalism from the internet. I don't know anything about Taylor Marshall and others in his camp, but he doesn't speak for the Latin massers I know.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

"Just enough of us and way too many of you."

Not that I agree with gherkin, of course.

[Essential Sacrifice]

" And I don't know any Latin massers--and I know a lot--who think of themselves as looking for a more perfect world. Rather, they see that the Church has turned its back on itself, and they prefer a reverent, traditional liturgy because they have the mind of the Church, unlike most prelates."

Amen Pickle, amen ... and while the definition of "true Magisterium" may be harder to define than ever before, it is getting even harder to find.

[Stella]

I’d argue against that based on the movement even among secular capitalists who are moved to philanthropy and concern for impoverished communities that haven’t got anything to offer us materially/financially. What inspires philanthropy today in a way that hadn't happened in the past?

What do you mean when you say that "philanthropy" hadn't happened in the past? More importantly, what do you mean by "philanthropy"? It's pretty clear that much "philanthropy" today is really focused on preventing the procreation of black and brown people, and in many cases the goal seems to be somthing like allowing the rich westerners to maintain their wasteful lifestyles so they can jetset around the world telling other people that the climate requires people not to jet or have kids. But to the main question, I already answered it. There remains the lingering remnants of Christian ideas (Chesterton talked about virtues as well as vices being let loose to do their dangerous business [and the Christian virtues can be terribly destructive when separated from their full context--see "social justice'] when Christendom fell) that serve as a kind of groundless sentimental basis for "philanthropy" that isn't guided by real charity.

Today, philanthropy has evolved into a movement with global vision and organization rather than random wealthy individuals choosing random causes. Most of the wealthy big players involved are not religious people but whether it comes from an enculturated Christianity or has a natural law source, it’s really promising that the convergence of the two sources is creating practical goods. Wanting a fair go for all people from all parts of the world, what else could it be but charity even if some of it's proposed methods aren't perfect?

My main objection is to anachronistic idealism of past era’s for the purpose of selling cults or practices as ‘havens’ from today’s world. Trying to recreate an environment that existed in the context of those times but by using all the goods we have today seems... I want to say 'a con' but I think for people that buy into it, it's an illusion. The TLM for example, is to some people preference of taste, but to too many other people, it is an ideology. A movement that transports them back into a more 'perfect' world.

The example is noxious. First, it is not a mere matter of taste that raises the TLM over the modern protestant-based liturgy, it is a sense of reverence and a respect for the organic development of the liturgy as opposed to the recent preference for creation via committee. And I don't know any Latin massers--and I know a lot--who think of themselves as looking for a more perfect world. Rather, they see that the Church has turned its back on itself, and they prefer a reverent, traditional liturgy because they have the mind of the Church, unlike most prelates.

I think you shouldn't get your information about Catholic traditionalism from the internet. I don't know anything about Taylor Marshall and others in his camp, but he doesn't speak for the Latin massers I know.

You can't say that love of the TLM is limited to those who 'have the mind of the Church' when the Church herself introduced Mass in the vernacular. The new Ordinary Form. That's basically admitting to sedevacantism and hence shows the problem.

[Stella]

"Just enough of us and way too many of you."

Not that I agree with gherkin, of course.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg1IhKi26jY

[Vern Humphrey]

" And I don't know any Latin massers--and I know a lot--who think of themselves as looking for a more perfect world. Rather, they see that the Church has turned its back on itself, and they prefer a reverent, traditional liturgy because they have the mind of the Church, unlike most prelates."

Amen Pickle, amen ... and while the definition of "true Magisterium" may be harder to define than ever before, it is getting even harder to find.

My own story illustrates that. At 10 I was an altar boy and had memorized the Latin Mass -- had it pounded into my head, a syllable at a time.

We went to Peru -- my dad was a doodle bugger (oil exploration). We lived in Piura, the oldest European town in South America -- and it hadn't changed since Pizzaro rode out the front gate. The day we arrived we went to church -- a reconnaissance so we'd know where it was on Sunday.

I had never seen anything like that in my life! A huge empty stone building -- no pews, kneelers, or anything! My mother explained we were supposed to kneel on the stone floor. The Altar was garishly painted -- Indian artwork, I learned later.

Sunday morning the bells rang. They don't tune bells in Peru -- I don't think they know bells CAN be tuned. Clank, clank, clank!

The church was jam packed -- mostly short people with barrel chests and small feet. These were Cholo Indians, who spoke Quechua. Very few spoke Castilian, the dialect of Spanish spoken in Peru. Here and there was a taller person -- Castilians, who didn't speak Quechua. Then the mass started and everyone was responding in Latin. I realized I was at home, in my Father's house. Later on, in Egypt we attended a French church and it was the same -- I knew the Latin and the readings were in English in my missal.

Nowadays, when I attend a mass in another country, i have difficulty in following. Before the Vernacular Mass, we were Catholics -- universal. Now we're all fragmented and separated.

[mia.s]

Based on my reading of collected statistics and from books, people were better at hiding their depravity or masking it to appear socially acceptable. That doesn't make them worse than we are today. They did it differently.

I'd say that a culture that maintains expectations that depravity not be displayed is a much healthier culture than one that allows and indeed encourages it to be flaunted.

I'd say a culture that encouraged hiding it isn't any better. It should be discouraged, not hidden, because those things always have a way of catching up.

[gherkin]

Today, philanthropy has evolved into a movement with global vision and organization rather than random wealthy individuals choosing random causes. Most of the wealthy big players involved are not religious people but whether it comes from an enculturated Christianity or has a natural law source, it’s really promising that the convergence of the two sources is creating practical goods. Wanting a fair go for all people from all parts of the world, what else could it be but charity even if some of it's proposed methods aren't perfect?

It is not charity because it does not have its source in the infused virtue of charity. That is as simple a point as could possibly be.

You can't say that love of the TLM is limited to those who 'have the mind of the Church' when the Church herself introduced Mass in the vernacular. The new Ordinary Form. That's basically admitting to sedevacantism and hence shows the problem.

"The Church" did no such thing. The Church isn't bound to times and places. The Church grew a liturgy throughout the ages. What happened was that a committee was appointed to revise the liturgy, did so without much attention to Sancrosantum Concilium and without any attention to previous teaching on liturgy, and then a pope juridically enforced that liturgy on the people. A pope+a committee =/= The Church.

[Stella]

Today, philanthropy has evolved into a movement with global vision and organization rather than random wealthy individuals choosing random causes. Most of the wealthy big players involved are not religious people but whether it comes from an enculturated Christianity or has a natural law source, it’s really promising that the convergence of the two sources is creating practical goods. Wanting a fair go for all people from all parts of the world, what else could it be but charity even if some of it's proposed methods aren't perfect?

It is not charity because it does not have its source in the infused virtue of charity. That is as simple a point as could possibly be.

Before I respond further I'm going to have to take this to Catholicism 101.

[BobCatholic]

On the other hand there is so much good that’s come out of recognizing the human dignity of all people today.

We are not having that today.

Dehumanizing philosophies are abundant and increasing rapidly.

50 years of Feminism tells men that they're evil for simply having a Y chromosome.

20 years of race baiters tells white people they're evil simply because of their skin color.

AI is being pushed to replace people and put them out of their jobs - because it is based on a dehumanizing philosophy.

Self-driving cars - tell that drivers are worthless - and that the driving job is worthless.

Kiosks tell cashiers they are worthless since they can be replaced by machines.

And let's talk about how people were treated during the COVID totalitarianism. Healthy people are sent to concentration camps. People declared evil for not wanting an experimental concoction injected into their bodies.

Oh, and the rise of antisemitism today? Jew hating is now very popular. For years people asked "how did Hitler rise to power?" I say "LOOK OUTSIDE!"

Overpopulationists - who are genocidal maniacs - are in positions of power trying to do everything they could to reduce the population. They hate people.

Gaia worshippers (environmentalists) who worship the planet as a god - put it above the people and seek to hurt people to "save the planet" - reducing population and eliminating all forms of technology.

Both of these groups hate people and see people as a virus or a disease to be purged.

No.

Things are NOT getting better here.

The very inherent dignity of mankind is not only being challenged - but flat out DENIED in today's society.

[peregrinator]

On the other hand there is so much good that’s come out of recognizing the human dignity of all people today. That can’t be denied.

We're actually suffering from a lack of recognition of human dignity. Human beings have dignity because they are made in the image and likeness of God, and if we fail to recognize God's image in our fellow human beings (e.g., by denying the justice of the death penalty), we fail to recognize their dignity.

[Kage_ar]

On the other hand there is so much good that’s come out of recognizing the human dignity of all people today.

We are not having that today.

Dehumanizing philosophies are abundant and increasing rapidly.

50 years of Feminism tells men that they're evil for simply having a Y chromosome.

20 years of race baiters tells white people they're evil simply because of their skin color.

AI is being pushed to replace people and put them out of their jobs - because it is based on a dehumanizing philosophy.

Self-driving cars - tell that drivers are worthless - and that the driving job is worthless.

Kiosks tell cashiers they are worthless since they can be replaced by machines.

And let's talk about how people were treated during the COVID totalitarianism. Healthy people are sent to concentration camps. People declared evil for not wanting an experimental concoction injected into their bodies.

Oh, and the rise of antisemitism today? Jew hating is now very popular. For years people asked "how did Hitler rise to power?" I say "LOOK OUTSIDE!"

Overpopulationists - who are genocidal maniacs - are in positions of power trying to do everything they could to reduce the population. They hate people.

Gaia worshippers (environmentalists) who worship the planet as a god - put it above the people and seek to hurt people to "save the planet" - reducing population and eliminating all forms of technology.

Both of these groups hate people and see people as a virus or a disease to be purged.

No.

Things are NOT getting better here.

The very inherent dignity of mankind is not only being challenged - but flat out DENIED in today's society.

Would you please cite the source where people were sent to concentration camps during the COVID pandemic?

Yeah, and in all but a handful of States, the value of gas pumpers is denied with self-service stations.

Jobs are not disappearing because of modernization and automation. Businesses cannot find people to fill out a job application. When they do, the hiree works for half a shift and walks out. Modernization does not "hate people".

When it comes to population, the experts agree, that overpopulation is the opposite of the future issues:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... e-century/

https://ourworldindata.org/population-growth

https://www.un.org/en/academic-impact/9 ... ion-report

[Stella]

On the other hand there is so much good that’s come out of recognizing the human dignity of all people today. That can’t be denied.

We're actually suffering from a lack of recognition of human dignity. Human beings have dignity because they are made in the image and likeness of God, and if we fail to recognize God's image in our fellow human beings (e.g., by denying the justice of the death penalty), we fail to recognize their dignity.

Justifying the 'right to kill' by execution is a uniquely American quirk. Outside the US, the issue is impacted by human rights concerns in a bigger picture.

The generations that were around a century ago who appreciate the modern day humanism, have gone. They recalled the treatment of women by society and the lack of protections for women and children in domestic violence. The crime of child abuse wasn't even on the books until mid 20th century. Treatment of indigenous people and immigrants was really appalling in western countries. I actually remember being racist myself but I didn't think I was being racist at the time. I cringe to think about that lack of recognising the image of God in certain races of people. My mother told stories of how severely disabled babies were left in hospital sinks to die after birth so their suffering wasn't prolonged.

There was so much that was dehumanising in the past. Not that we should look back in judgment but by the same token to look back with rose colored glasses to bolster judgment of todays society is equally revisionist.

[peregrinator]

On the other hand there is so much good that’s come out of recognizing the human dignity of all people today. That can’t be denied.

We're actually suffering from a lack of recognition of human dignity. Human beings have dignity because they are made in the image and likeness of God, and if we fail to recognize God's image in our fellow human beings (e.g., by denying the justice of the death penalty), we fail to recognize their dignity.

Justifying the 'right to kill' by execution is a uniquely American quirk. Outside the US, the issue is impacted by human rights concerns in a bigger picture.

Yes, outside the USA many are willing to ascribe "dignity" to murderers but not to victims and their families.