Virtue in Virtual Gomorrah
July 1, 2010
Joe Carter
“The Internet was completely funded by porn,” said Greg Fitzsimmons at the twenty-third annual adult entertainment industry awards. He was only half-joking. The pornography industry drove or boosted many of the web’s most useful innovations—live chat, streaming video, online payment systems—as well as the popularity of fast connections. The Internet (in the guise of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) is returning the favor by giving the trade its own top-level domain: .XXX.
Ironically, the move is being opposed by an unlikely alliance of pornographers and religious and family organizations. The former thinks it will ghettoize the business while the latter believes it will legitimize the product. No one thinks the change will limit the distribution of content or make it any less accessible.
Although the practical effect will be negligible, the .XXX domain is a potent symbol and cultural marker for our present condition: Technology now allows the unadventurous to explore temptations once reserved for the bold, and to do so with minimal effort and almost no risk of exposure. Where once the curious had to travel to the seedy sections of the city or meet up with shady sleaze peddler, now they can stay safely in their home and just turn on a television or computer.
It’s a banal observation, but it has a radical implication. We become, and our culture becomes with us, more comfortable with pornography as those who normally would be least likely to seek it out find it easier to get.
Consider the pornographic film. To see one in the 1950s required access to projection equipment and an underground distributor of censored material. In the 1960s and 1970s such films could be watched—at least in larger cities— in the relative comfort of a seedy theater with sticky floors and raincoat-suited patrons. By the 1980s the ubiquity of the VCR made it possible to view illicit erotica in the privacy of one’s home.
Each of these improvements in distribution required the user of pornography to make a public effort to obtain it—whether in finding a venue showing a “stag film,” buying a ticket to an X-rated theater, or renting a tape from a local video store. Each included some possibility of being caught.
The advent of cable television, though, brought “adult videos” directly to the family living room. No human contact, and no risk of discovery, was needed. And watch such productions Americans did.
All the nation’s top cable operators, from Time Warner to Comcast to Cablevision, distribute sexually explicit material to their subscribers, as do satellite providers like EchoStar and DirecTV. In 2004, adult programs accounted for $530 million of nearly $2 billion in pay-per-view orders. Of course, none of the companies will say how much they make off the illicit content today.
The material offered on cable and satellite television, however, pales in comparison to what can be found on the Internet—easily, and by anyone. With only a few clicks of the mouse you can indulge the most perverse visual interests, viewing sexually charged or violently graphic photos that would make Caligula blush and the Marquis de Sade nauseous.
And now, with the advent of web-browsing smartphones, you can access such material any time and in any place. The greatest archive of smut in the history of the world fits snugly in your pocket.
Because technology has made it possible to turn every household into a virtual Gomorrah, it is natural to assume that the solution to the problem is also technological. Since each technological innovation in the medium has brought a greater acceptance of the message, it is also reasonable to assume that the primary way to stem the flow of filth is to find a corresponding technological innovation that replaces our inability to act virtuously.
Because we don’t expect people (ourselves as well as others) to have the moral fortitude to stay on the path of righteousness without help, we attempt to build technological guardrails to prevent us from veering off course. But as Quentin Schultze, a professor of communications at Calvin College, notes,
In the cyber-age, we become so enamored with our technical skill at manipulating information that we can lose track of non-instrumental virtues such as moderation, discernment, and humility. We transform the means of technique into the ends of our ever greater efficiency and control. We also naively believe that for most personal and social needs there must be largely technological solutions, such as Web-filtering software designed to protect children from cyber-pornographers.
Pastor-theologian David Wayne agrees with Schultze, and adds that “Before the rise of the technological society, we were protected against immorality by moral and religious instruction, developing character traits, and habits of mind and heart that enabled us to resist the pull of immorality.” But today, “we assume that the solution to immorality is an online filter or giving away the TV, avoiding movies, etc.”
Filters are useful, he writes, but “in assuming that the answer to immorality is a filter we are offering a technological solution to a moral problem.”
Noting that the apostle Paul planted churches in such moral cesspools as Rome, Corinth and Ephesus, it strikes me that the Christians of the first generation had a faith that was assumed to be able to withstand temptation. In my own experience, it seems that Christians today assume we can’t withstand temptation, that none of us has the moral fortitude to do so.
We certainly need technological filters. Children need walls to protect them from material that may inflame their natural curiosity and warp their characters and desires when they are most vulnerable to such malformation. Filters let parents allow their kids more structured freedom until, having developed a robust moral character, they will avoid such things without aid. Adults tempted by pornography may also need such filters to shore up their own fortitude or reestablish trust with a spouse.
But while such technologies can help us avoid the supply of temptation, they have no effect on our demand for it. A heart prone to lust does not require cable TV or a broadband connection to turn temptation into sin; the human imagination is quite adequate to manufacture the temptation.
Technological means may be enough to solve some purely technological problems. For responding effectively to sins and temptations, however, the only adequate technology is a sanctified nature. Nothing can filter out tempting images but our own revulsion to them and our love for something else, or for someone else—and ultimately for Someone else—we would not want to disappoint.
Joe Carter is web editor of First Things.
Comments:
7.1.2010 | 9:55am
Judy says:
Just want to correct one fact in the article. DirecTV was started by Hughes Electronics and was a wholly owned subsidiary of HE. At the time, HE was a subsidiary of General Motors. GM sold HE to News Corp. One of the other Hughes subsidiaries, Hughes Aircraft was sold to Raytheon; another, Hughes Space & Communications, was sold to Boeing. What remained of Hughes Electronics was DirecTV and Hughes Network Systems, which was then bought by News Corp. Hughes Network Systems was spun off and now is a publicly traded company on NASDAQ. News Corp. sold DirecTV and is majority controlled by Liberty Media.
7.1.2010 | 12:32pm
Brian says:
"...Christians today assume we can’t withstand temptation..."
Our culture trains us in its own first commandment, which is some variation on "Obey your desires." "Follow your heart," "If it feels good, do it," various admonitions against "repressing" our desires--all of them create some form of slavery to our own whims. Then, all marketers have to do is steer those desires, and they have our money. It's no surprise that this force is conceivably at the core of the problems described in this article.
What's even more insidious is that "heart" can, in some contexts, refer to our conscience, or the voice of the Holy Spirit, or just our base physical hormones. To some, the "heart" (meaning desires) can not be tamed, but is always present and powerful; it is thus fruitless to frustrate it. But to Christians, the heart (meaning the sum total of our inner lives) is exactly what Must be tamed.
Excellent article.
Our culture trains us in its own first commandment, which is some variation on "Obey your desires." "Follow your heart," "If it feels good, do it," various admonitions against "repressing" our desires--all of them create some form of slavery to our own whims. Then, all marketers have to do is steer those desires, and they have our money. It's no surprise that this force is conceivably at the core of the problems described in this article.
What's even more insidious is that "heart" can, in some contexts, refer to our conscience, or the voice of the Holy Spirit, or just our base physical hormones. To some, the "heart" (meaning desires) can not be tamed, but is always present and powerful; it is thus fruitless to frustrate it. But to Christians, the heart (meaning the sum total of our inner lives) is exactly what Must be tamed.
Excellent article.
7.1.2010 | 2:02pm
Mike says:
Pastor Wayne's comment that first generation Christians "had a faith that was assumed to be able to withstand temptation" is interesting. I doubt the accuracy of that assumption. Like modern people steeped in a sensual, "pagan" culture, our forebearers had to break bad habits and overcome addictions in very practical -- "technological" -- ways. There has always been the concept of avoiding the occasions of sin. We are humans, not animals who cannot will to control our bodily drives; but we are not angels, either, who transcend such drives. The human struggle for "righteousness" just is the daily effort to put to death the "old man," so as to put on Christ. Christ's incarnation, life, death & rising has given humans the means to achieve ever more freedom from the various slaveries to which the flesh is prone. We need faith and prayer to be sure, but we also need to take the practical physical means available to protect ourselves.
7.1.2010 | 2:13pm
Jeff says:
I think we should be careful to avoid a "Golden Age" mentality which assumes that things used to be better. The statement that "Before the rise of the technological society, we were protected against immorality by moral and religious instruction..." is true, but it is not the whole truth.
People were also protected against immorality by the knowledge that certain consequences would follow their sin. Until the 1950s, there were laws in the USA that made many forms of sexual perversion criminal offenses, including adultery. In the days before "no-fault" divorce, adultery was grounds for legal action leading to a punitive divorce settlement.
All of that social and cultural restraint, since 1955, is gone. (For a fascinating and horrifying expose of why that's the case, read Dr. Judith Reisman's work on Alfred Kinsey.)
But what about First Century Rome, Corinth, and Ephesus, the aforementioned "moral cesspools" in which the Church was planted?
There were still social restraints in those churches. In fact, we read about one of them in 1 Cor 5. Christians who participated in unrepentant sexual immorality were expelled from the community - and after having already broken ties with the pagan world around them to join the church, this would be no small matter. In fact, Paul urges public discipline for precisely this reason - that the others would see and fear having the same happen to them. (1 Tim 5:20)
With that said, the parallel to first century pagan society is a good one (and getting better all the time...). So the logical question is, where are the churches who will step up to the challenge of living in a pagan world again and begin to take 1 Cor 5 and 1 Tim 5:20 seriously?
Here's a suggestion for a place to start: http://www.puritycovenant.com/
People were also protected against immorality by the knowledge that certain consequences would follow their sin. Until the 1950s, there were laws in the USA that made many forms of sexual perversion criminal offenses, including adultery. In the days before "no-fault" divorce, adultery was grounds for legal action leading to a punitive divorce settlement.
All of that social and cultural restraint, since 1955, is gone. (For a fascinating and horrifying expose of why that's the case, read Dr. Judith Reisman's work on Alfred Kinsey.)
But what about First Century Rome, Corinth, and Ephesus, the aforementioned "moral cesspools" in which the Church was planted?
There were still social restraints in those churches. In fact, we read about one of them in 1 Cor 5. Christians who participated in unrepentant sexual immorality were expelled from the community - and after having already broken ties with the pagan world around them to join the church, this would be no small matter. In fact, Paul urges public discipline for precisely this reason - that the others would see and fear having the same happen to them. (1 Tim 5:20)
With that said, the parallel to first century pagan society is a good one (and getting better all the time...). So the logical question is, where are the churches who will step up to the challenge of living in a pagan world again and begin to take 1 Cor 5 and 1 Tim 5:20 seriously?
Here's a suggestion for a place to start: http://www.puritycovenant.com/
7.1.2010 | 2:50pm
Gil Costello says:
The most important factor in establishing a great work environment is the leadership - the CEO, the Administrator, the Director: if they fail, low morale and other afflictions ensue. It is the same in Catholic communities: its leaders who have been ordained to teach, govern and sanctify: the priests. Yet, they for the most part have failed the laity. You can't govern a community if you have taken a specific political position - left, right, center or beyond. How can anyone respect governance that from the outset is opposed to his/her held political affiliations? The priest governs in establishing unity in Christ, in unison with the magisterium, the apostolic successors. When a priest speaks on moral issues, it is aligned with what the Church authoritatively knows of faith and morals, not what some political group is advocating. If they coincide, it should have nothing to do with a priest advocating a political group, a cause of division within the community
To sanctify, a priest must encourage parishioners to seek holiness, especially in the sacrament of confession-penance-reconciliation, ongoing daily conversion, a prayer life and always guided by a desire to love everyone, not judge them, which does not mean you cannot judge behavior and ideologies in the service of degeneration, corruption, torture, murder or annihilation.
To preach is to teach. The fundamental mission of preaching is to always bring us closer to Christ in the Holy Spirit, to help us remain open to receive the Holy Spirit, the reason Christ sent him.
Most priests fail in all three areas. In fact, in many parishes lay persons are paid employees who openly defy in education classes the teachings of the Church on gay marriage, premarital sex, sex education that demeans children, and a host of other issues; and where there are no rebellions It seems that many priests have abandoned their three-fold mission; in a lukewarm fashion, they pay lip-service to their ordained responsibilities without actually fulfilling them.
Without leadership from those ordained, the pace will be slow in advancing out of the plague we are enmeshed in, including the pornography mindset that is established in all areas of entertainment and advertizing.
I want to be clear that the vast majority of priests have truly been called to be priests, and I am confident that they will do the right thing if their apostolic leaders, their bishops, continually encourage them to do so, to not concentrate on numbers in the pews, but to ensure that the faithful are taught, governed and sanctified.
To sanctify, a priest must encourage parishioners to seek holiness, especially in the sacrament of confession-penance-reconciliation, ongoing daily conversion, a prayer life and always guided by a desire to love everyone, not judge them, which does not mean you cannot judge behavior and ideologies in the service of degeneration, corruption, torture, murder or annihilation.
To preach is to teach. The fundamental mission of preaching is to always bring us closer to Christ in the Holy Spirit, to help us remain open to receive the Holy Spirit, the reason Christ sent him.
Most priests fail in all three areas. In fact, in many parishes lay persons are paid employees who openly defy in education classes the teachings of the Church on gay marriage, premarital sex, sex education that demeans children, and a host of other issues; and where there are no rebellions It seems that many priests have abandoned their three-fold mission; in a lukewarm fashion, they pay lip-service to their ordained responsibilities without actually fulfilling them.
Without leadership from those ordained, the pace will be slow in advancing out of the plague we are enmeshed in, including the pornography mindset that is established in all areas of entertainment and advertizing.
I want to be clear that the vast majority of priests have truly been called to be priests, and I am confident that they will do the right thing if their apostolic leaders, their bishops, continually encourage them to do so, to not concentrate on numbers in the pews, but to ensure that the faithful are taught, governed and sanctified.
7.1.2010 | 3:22pm
Christopher Benson says:
JOE: This is a clear and cogent op-ed. Your conclusion elicited the "Amen!" response:
Technological means may be enough to solve some purely technological problems. For responding effectively to sins and temptations, however, the only adequate technology is a sanctified nature. Nothing can filter out tempting images but our own revulsion to them and our love for something else, or for someone else—and ultimately for Someone else—we would not want to disappoint.
Technological means may be enough to solve some purely technological problems. For responding effectively to sins and temptations, however, the only adequate technology is a sanctified nature. Nothing can filter out tempting images but our own revulsion to them and our love for something else, or for someone else—and ultimately for Someone else—we would not want to disappoint.
7.1.2010 | 4:22pm
brettongarcia says:
Amazingly however, there are Christian- and Catholic-based arguments, that would ALLOW mild pornography.
See the current discussion on this blog, on the "Weight of Smut."
See the current discussion on this blog, on the "Weight of Smut."
7.1.2010 | 4:43pm
Lancelot Lamar says:
The article made me think of the philospher William Barrett's great book, "The Illusion of Technique." He lays bare the false assumption that all we need to control ourselves, others, society, and the world are newer and better techniques and technologies. With the right technique, the modern world tells us, every human problem can be overcome, even death.
As someone who has struggled with pornography, I tried technological solutions such as server based filtering and peer-informing technology. The problem is, almost anyone can figure out a way around these, and I always did. It was like "the law" in Pauline theology, it was a temptation and challenge to figure out how to beat it and I did, even though I am not a techie or computer nerd. Certainly for them, all techologically based solutions to porn have a technological work around.
Nothing external in the world, only the presence of God the Son and Holy Spirit in the heart, can overcome lust or any addictive sin. The inner, internal formation of a new life, a new being in Christ, is the only power that can really and effectively deal with addiction. That is not to say that some technology can be used to avoid the occasion of sin, especially for children and the simple, but it can't be trusted. Only God can be trusted in the matter of overcoming profound sins.
As someone who has struggled with pornography, I tried technological solutions such as server based filtering and peer-informing technology. The problem is, almost anyone can figure out a way around these, and I always did. It was like "the law" in Pauline theology, it was a temptation and challenge to figure out how to beat it and I did, even though I am not a techie or computer nerd. Certainly for them, all techologically based solutions to porn have a technological work around.
Nothing external in the world, only the presence of God the Son and Holy Spirit in the heart, can overcome lust or any addictive sin. The inner, internal formation of a new life, a new being in Christ, is the only power that can really and effectively deal with addiction. That is not to say that some technology can be used to avoid the occasion of sin, especially for children and the simple, but it can't be trusted. Only God can be trusted in the matter of overcoming profound sins.
7.1.2010 | 5:17pm
andrew says:
there's a character -- a shadow, more precisely -- in c.s. lewis' "the great divorce" who is a slave to his own lust. what happens to him perfectly illustrates mr. carter's point about "sanctified nature." enslaved sexuality is like the miserific vision. redeemed sexuality, in contrast, is beautiful to behold.
thank you for the reminder that only loves can replace loves -- it echoes st. augustine's framework of "ordo amoris" -- the order of loves.
incidentally, pastor timothy keller in manhattan has spoken of this very theme for more than 20 years at redeemer presbyterian in manhattan. my brother tells me he'd pay to hear dr. keller speak; everyone else he'd pay to shut up. the abysmal quality of the weekly homilies i hear at my parish is leading me to the same conclusion.
thank you for the reminder that only loves can replace loves -- it echoes st. augustine's framework of "ordo amoris" -- the order of loves.
incidentally, pastor timothy keller in manhattan has spoken of this very theme for more than 20 years at redeemer presbyterian in manhattan. my brother tells me he'd pay to hear dr. keller speak; everyone else he'd pay to shut up. the abysmal quality of the weekly homilies i hear at my parish is leading me to the same conclusion.
7.1.2010 | 5:22pm
andrew says:
one more thing:
i recently re-read c.s. lewis' "the weight of glory" which opens like this:
"If you asked twenty good men to-day what they thought the highest of
the virtues, nineteen of them would reply, Unselfishness. But if you asked
almost any of the great Christians of old he would have replied, Love."
i suspect if we asked twenty good men in 2010 what the they thought the highest of the virtues, nineteen of them would reply, "what is a virtue?"
i recently re-read c.s. lewis' "the weight of glory" which opens like this:
"If you asked twenty good men to-day what they thought the highest of
the virtues, nineteen of them would reply, Unselfishness. But if you asked
almost any of the great Christians of old he would have replied, Love."
i suspect if we asked twenty good men in 2010 what the they thought the highest of the virtues, nineteen of them would reply, "what is a virtue?"
7.1.2010 | 7:05pm
Matt Beck says:
I would agree wholeheartedly with Jeff when he cautions against engaging in a "Golden Age" mindset. Not only is it wrong and unhelpful to do so, but the fact that the reality of the situation is exactly the opposite is itself the most significant aspect of the new .xxx domain name. Let me explain.
In every age, every culture, every time and place, there has been in any human community of sufficient size a certain house, a certain street, or a certain tent where you-know-what went on. The community recognized these places for what they were and assigned them to their own specialized locations, which those who cared about their morality or propriety could easily avoid. Technology (a better word here might be "technics") certainly cannot remove concupiscence from a human soul; it cannot liberate the world from the possibility of sexual sins. But it can do - and has done for centuries - a passable job of keeping them segregated from civil society and away from the young and the vulnerable. Thus, the fact that the internet now has its own circumscribed red light district simply brings our modern situation back into alignment with the overwhelming bulk of mankind's historical experience.
What is most interesting about this process is that it indicates the great extent to which the internet's mythological status as some sort of special reality outside the norms of human conduct is rapidly falling apart. Back in the heady days before Y2K and the collapse of the tech bubble, the purveyors of culture sitting around in the nation's faculty lounges and editorial desks treated us to endless harangues about the qualitative discontinuity that the internet would soon affect in our society. It would result, they said, in limitless free education and information transfer, and we would become a society of geniuses, a nation of Mozarts and da Vincis gaily swimming through an ever-ramifying technological utopia; it would enable the establishment of a risk-free economy, they said, wherein equities and derivatives could be instantly traded through fully liquidized capital markets; it would do away with traffic (i.e. working from home means no more morning commutes), deforestation (no more need for paper), and the repressive patriarchal structures of suburban life (we're all one big happy network); and perhaps most tellingly, it would lead to the complete democratization of all human needs and desires, which meant the end of all forms of censorship and the demise of the big media corporation.
Well, precisely none of these things actually happened. In fact, in each special case the very opposite happened. The brave new ontology-shifted world, the great vision of the internet libertines, failed to materialize on every level of implementation. The final mask which they refused to drop, the final thread of hope to which they were clinging, was the inchoate feeling that, at any rate, the internet provided for unfettered "freedom of expression," that lofty principle under the auspices of which pornographers, perverts, and subversives have always peddled their wares. Now that hope too is blinking out. The new domain name has corralled the world's oldest profession on the very medium which purported to be its final unshacklement. The mythology of the internet is dying. It has now revealed itself to be what it always was in reality: a public-access switchboard that glows in the dark.
And after all is said and done, isn't this exactly what we ought to have expected? Pornography can never "go mainstream," for it is by definition something private and guarded, a jealously hoarded repository of subjective fantasies and carefully concealed obsessions. Even if porn were to show on the billboards, this is not quite the same thing; for soon people would simply ignore it. The very essence of porn is the dimmed light, the stale sweat, the furtive dash, and the brown paper bag. Without its rank accoutrements, it doesn't really scratch the itch.
Lies, sins, and distortions - these things will never completely go away, but they can only survive in the shadows. It is best to build a shadow realm to house them in. Every once in a while an ostensible "victory of sin" will incarnate in the form of some charasmatic figure or some weighty state of affairs, in whose form it appears that sin has achieved some independent reality, i.e. that it is no longer really sin but power and truth. These are the adumbrations of the Antichrist, his echoing footsteps preceding him. The internet has been one such incarnation for us, but now that homunculus is dusted, returning to a state of nature. The .xxx domain is really just the reversion of history to its predestined track. This is why the industry opposes it, and why we should be glad of it.
In every age, every culture, every time and place, there has been in any human community of sufficient size a certain house, a certain street, or a certain tent where you-know-what went on. The community recognized these places for what they were and assigned them to their own specialized locations, which those who cared about their morality or propriety could easily avoid. Technology (a better word here might be "technics") certainly cannot remove concupiscence from a human soul; it cannot liberate the world from the possibility of sexual sins. But it can do - and has done for centuries - a passable job of keeping them segregated from civil society and away from the young and the vulnerable. Thus, the fact that the internet now has its own circumscribed red light district simply brings our modern situation back into alignment with the overwhelming bulk of mankind's historical experience.
What is most interesting about this process is that it indicates the great extent to which the internet's mythological status as some sort of special reality outside the norms of human conduct is rapidly falling apart. Back in the heady days before Y2K and the collapse of the tech bubble, the purveyors of culture sitting around in the nation's faculty lounges and editorial desks treated us to endless harangues about the qualitative discontinuity that the internet would soon affect in our society. It would result, they said, in limitless free education and information transfer, and we would become a society of geniuses, a nation of Mozarts and da Vincis gaily swimming through an ever-ramifying technological utopia; it would enable the establishment of a risk-free economy, they said, wherein equities and derivatives could be instantly traded through fully liquidized capital markets; it would do away with traffic (i.e. working from home means no more morning commutes), deforestation (no more need for paper), and the repressive patriarchal structures of suburban life (we're all one big happy network); and perhaps most tellingly, it would lead to the complete democratization of all human needs and desires, which meant the end of all forms of censorship and the demise of the big media corporation.
Well, precisely none of these things actually happened. In fact, in each special case the very opposite happened. The brave new ontology-shifted world, the great vision of the internet libertines, failed to materialize on every level of implementation. The final mask which they refused to drop, the final thread of hope to which they were clinging, was the inchoate feeling that, at any rate, the internet provided for unfettered "freedom of expression," that lofty principle under the auspices of which pornographers, perverts, and subversives have always peddled their wares. Now that hope too is blinking out. The new domain name has corralled the world's oldest profession on the very medium which purported to be its final unshacklement. The mythology of the internet is dying. It has now revealed itself to be what it always was in reality: a public-access switchboard that glows in the dark.
And after all is said and done, isn't this exactly what we ought to have expected? Pornography can never "go mainstream," for it is by definition something private and guarded, a jealously hoarded repository of subjective fantasies and carefully concealed obsessions. Even if porn were to show on the billboards, this is not quite the same thing; for soon people would simply ignore it. The very essence of porn is the dimmed light, the stale sweat, the furtive dash, and the brown paper bag. Without its rank accoutrements, it doesn't really scratch the itch.
Lies, sins, and distortions - these things will never completely go away, but they can only survive in the shadows. It is best to build a shadow realm to house them in. Every once in a while an ostensible "victory of sin" will incarnate in the form of some charasmatic figure or some weighty state of affairs, in whose form it appears that sin has achieved some independent reality, i.e. that it is no longer really sin but power and truth. These are the adumbrations of the Antichrist, his echoing footsteps preceding him. The internet has been one such incarnation for us, but now that homunculus is dusted, returning to a state of nature. The .xxx domain is really just the reversion of history to its predestined track. This is why the industry opposes it, and why we should be glad of it.
7.1.2010 | 8:11pm
sbark says:
I think that forcing all the pornography into a separate domain would have one very large benefit. It would make it easy to add browser settings that would not allow the browser to go those pages. That would not keep people from going to these sites. However, it would stop the innocuous looking links that unintentionally take people (including children) to these sites.
In general, the US is looking more and more like the Roman Empire that persecuted the early Church. I wonder how many Christian martyrs it will take to get us out of this age.
In general, the US is looking more and more like the Roman Empire that persecuted the early Church. I wonder how many Christian martyrs it will take to get us out of this age.
7.1.2010 | 8:49pm
Bryan Zacharias says:
Hello Friends,
Isn't it possible that the correct answer here is both/and? Which does not mean that inner character and "technology" are equal. Development in Christlike character, "putting on Christ", all the different features of
Christian formation are far and away the "most" important.
But also, the "means"--"technology"--are part of the picture, the practical way we engage in the pursuit of holiness. The Scripture says "flee youthful lusts." Hello? In certain circumstances--think of Joseph confronted by Potiphar's wife--he used the technology called "legs." The man ran--and the fact that he did so tells me that he was tempted! You don't have to run from a person to whom you are not attracted. But if you are attracted, you better run!
One could also argue that deliberate, intentional use of "means"--some form of what we now refer to as technology--can be a manifestation of holiness. The character of Christ in action. Make sense?
Thanks, and bless all of you who know that the non-use of porn is a deliberate choice. Keep saying Yes to Christ, and no to porn and all the other idols.
Bryan Z.
Isn't it possible that the correct answer here is both/and? Which does not mean that inner character and "technology" are equal. Development in Christlike character, "putting on Christ", all the different features of
Christian formation are far and away the "most" important.
But also, the "means"--"technology"--are part of the picture, the practical way we engage in the pursuit of holiness. The Scripture says "flee youthful lusts." Hello? In certain circumstances--think of Joseph confronted by Potiphar's wife--he used the technology called "legs." The man ran--and the fact that he did so tells me that he was tempted! You don't have to run from a person to whom you are not attracted. But if you are attracted, you better run!
One could also argue that deliberate, intentional use of "means"--some form of what we now refer to as technology--can be a manifestation of holiness. The character of Christ in action. Make sense?
Thanks, and bless all of you who know that the non-use of porn is a deliberate choice. Keep saying Yes to Christ, and no to porn and all the other idols.
Bryan Z.
7.1.2010 | 8:57pm
Judy Zacharias says:
Not rocket science. What helps me in tempting situations is asking myself, what is your first love? and interposing the person of Christ into the situation. Seeing Him clarifies the choice....
7.2.2010 | 3:21am
James P. says:
I think this is an excellent argument, but it misses something fundamental about the advent of technologically accessible pornography. I happen to believe that the porn of the technological age is like another bane of technological development: crack cocaine and other drugs like it. Addicts of crack and other drugs have often said that with one hit, one is addicted, which is unlike marijuana or opium, or alcohol. I fear that with some aspects of pornography, the lure is so great, and the flesh is so weak within some individuals, that with one look, one is hooked. I think Joe Carter underestimates the the potency of internet porn when he writes the following:
"A heart prone to lust does not require cable TV or a broadband connection to turn temptation into sin; the human imagination is quite adequate to manufacture the temptation."
That sounds good, in theory, but it’s not accurate. The human imagination, unaffected by modern pornography, is not quite adequate to manufacture the debauched images that are routinely seen all around the internet. A boy of 100 years ago could have had his imagination spinning with lustful thoughts by seeing the silhouette of an attractive woman, or the anecdotal "view of a woman's ankle" and never in his wildest imaginings concoct modern hard core pornography. But too often today, when the innocent are exposed to a few images of pornography that on first glance is shocking and unimaginable to them, it plants a seed in the imagination which feeds a hunger to see more and more of these taboo images.
I speak from personal experience, as one who has struggled with an addiction to pornography for close to two decades, and finally, through the grace of God, I am seeing freedom from these shackles. I am a member of Courage, the Catholic organization dedicated to those who desire to live out obedience to the Church in living their lives with same sex attraction. If I look back on the downward spiral of my life with pornography, how I wish I could turn back the clock where mere human imagination could feed my lustful thoughts. That point was passed long ago, sadly.
As one who has lived with this millstone, I find the following to be a clever turn of phrase, a bit of good writing, but lacking in complete accuracy. It SOUNDS good, and is a good closer to a piece of writing, but it’s a bit wide of the mark in several aspects:
"Technological means may be enough to solve some purely technological problems. For responding effectively to sins and temptations, however, the only adequate technology is a sanctified nature. Nothing can filter out tempting images but our own revulsion to them and our love for something else, or for someone else—and ultimately for Someone else—we would not want to disappoint."
I agree that the only element that works to conquer pornography is a sanctified nature, but beyond this, this passages reflects in my mind a meaning that I think is in direct conflict with what St. Paul wrote on the subject of sin and temptation. When one is addicted to something such as pornography, one is like Paul: the spirit is willing, and the flesh is weak. The desire to not disappoint the Someone we love is never quite strong enough to overcome temptation! I have been addicted to pornography, and have grieved perpetually that I have disappointed the Someone I love, and yet, as a dog returns to its vomit, so too have I returned again and again to pornography, even when I have found those images revolting in retrospect. Revulsion to these images, or love for God is not the answer. That is never sufficient to conquer sin in our lives. It’s the beginning, but it is not the answer. The only "technology" that works is the Cross. In my battle with pornography and same sex attraction, I have reached the point where I have "gloried in my weakness," for it is through my very inability to conquer this part of my life through my own efforts that I have come to realize my utter need for Christ's redemption. Blessed Columba Marmion wrote, "Jesus is our holiness," and it is through my very inability to master my sexual urges that I have come to learn this most fundamental truth of my humanity: I am nothing without Christ and the Cross.
To quote G. K. Chesterton: "About sex especially are men born unbalanced we might almost say men are born mad. They scarcely reach sanity until they reach sanctity."
I have seen that my path towards sanctity has come through my very insanity with regards to sexuality. It's the aspect of my life which reveals my utter need for God. In the meantime, technology, through the use of an internet filter, is a grace from God that helps me in my obedience to him, as I desire to love Him with all my heart, and within the confines of my human frailties.
"A heart prone to lust does not require cable TV or a broadband connection to turn temptation into sin; the human imagination is quite adequate to manufacture the temptation."
That sounds good, in theory, but it’s not accurate. The human imagination, unaffected by modern pornography, is not quite adequate to manufacture the debauched images that are routinely seen all around the internet. A boy of 100 years ago could have had his imagination spinning with lustful thoughts by seeing the silhouette of an attractive woman, or the anecdotal "view of a woman's ankle" and never in his wildest imaginings concoct modern hard core pornography. But too often today, when the innocent are exposed to a few images of pornography that on first glance is shocking and unimaginable to them, it plants a seed in the imagination which feeds a hunger to see more and more of these taboo images.
I speak from personal experience, as one who has struggled with an addiction to pornography for close to two decades, and finally, through the grace of God, I am seeing freedom from these shackles. I am a member of Courage, the Catholic organization dedicated to those who desire to live out obedience to the Church in living their lives with same sex attraction. If I look back on the downward spiral of my life with pornography, how I wish I could turn back the clock where mere human imagination could feed my lustful thoughts. That point was passed long ago, sadly.
As one who has lived with this millstone, I find the following to be a clever turn of phrase, a bit of good writing, but lacking in complete accuracy. It SOUNDS good, and is a good closer to a piece of writing, but it’s a bit wide of the mark in several aspects:
"Technological means may be enough to solve some purely technological problems. For responding effectively to sins and temptations, however, the only adequate technology is a sanctified nature. Nothing can filter out tempting images but our own revulsion to them and our love for something else, or for someone else—and ultimately for Someone else—we would not want to disappoint."
I agree that the only element that works to conquer pornography is a sanctified nature, but beyond this, this passages reflects in my mind a meaning that I think is in direct conflict with what St. Paul wrote on the subject of sin and temptation. When one is addicted to something such as pornography, one is like Paul: the spirit is willing, and the flesh is weak. The desire to not disappoint the Someone we love is never quite strong enough to overcome temptation! I have been addicted to pornography, and have grieved perpetually that I have disappointed the Someone I love, and yet, as a dog returns to its vomit, so too have I returned again and again to pornography, even when I have found those images revolting in retrospect. Revulsion to these images, or love for God is not the answer. That is never sufficient to conquer sin in our lives. It’s the beginning, but it is not the answer. The only "technology" that works is the Cross. In my battle with pornography and same sex attraction, I have reached the point where I have "gloried in my weakness," for it is through my very inability to conquer this part of my life through my own efforts that I have come to realize my utter need for Christ's redemption. Blessed Columba Marmion wrote, "Jesus is our holiness," and it is through my very inability to master my sexual urges that I have come to learn this most fundamental truth of my humanity: I am nothing without Christ and the Cross.
To quote G. K. Chesterton: "About sex especially are men born unbalanced we might almost say men are born mad. They scarcely reach sanity until they reach sanctity."
I have seen that my path towards sanctity has come through my very insanity with regards to sexuality. It's the aspect of my life which reveals my utter need for God. In the meantime, technology, through the use of an internet filter, is a grace from God that helps me in my obedience to him, as I desire to love Him with all my heart, and within the confines of my human frailties.
7.2.2010 | 4:56am
Anther says:
"Amazingly however, there are Christian- and Catholic-based arguments, that would ALLOW mild pornography."
First and foremost they are not Catholic arguments, they are your own perverse reasoning's, and the fact that you can't differentiate the two is a testament to the grand scale of your pomposity.
First and foremost they are not Catholic arguments, they are your own perverse reasoning's, and the fact that you can't differentiate the two is a testament to the grand scale of your pomposity.
7.2.2010 | 2:59pm
Gil Costello says:
I love James P.' reflection. Especially, "The only ‘technology’ that works is the Cross. In my battle with pornography and same sex attraction, I have reached the point where I have ‘gloried in my weakness,’ for it is through my very inability to conquer this part of my life through my own efforts that I have come to realize my utter need for Christ's redemption."
The path to holiness that we are called to journey on starts to make real sense when we discover that whatever thorn is pressing against us, it is finally a great gift, perhaps the most important gift that keeps us centered in humility, where Christ’s cross becomes visible.
The path to holiness that we are called to journey on starts to make real sense when we discover that whatever thorn is pressing against us, it is finally a great gift, perhaps the most important gift that keeps us centered in humility, where Christ’s cross becomes visible.
7.3.2010 | 12:22pm
DD says:
As another person who has struggled with sexual addiction, I wholeheartedly concur with James P.'s comments.
If we are a people who pray, "lead us not into temptation," then we had better be a people willing to do whatever it takes, technologically or otherwise, to eliminate the ways that we lead ourselves towards temptation. Again, I echo that the only way to true freedom is through sanctification, but God gives the grace that sanctifies us partly through mundane things.
What grieves me most, however, is that I know that there are some people among the above commenters who are themselves even currently struggling with pornography. If you are desperate to end that struggle for good, but don't know how, please check out the online curriculum at http://www.settingcaptivesfree.com/ .
If we are a people who pray, "lead us not into temptation," then we had better be a people willing to do whatever it takes, technologically or otherwise, to eliminate the ways that we lead ourselves towards temptation. Again, I echo that the only way to true freedom is through sanctification, but God gives the grace that sanctifies us partly through mundane things.
What grieves me most, however, is that I know that there are some people among the above commenters who are themselves even currently struggling with pornography. If you are desperate to end that struggle for good, but don't know how, please check out the online curriculum at http://www.settingcaptivesfree.com/ .
9.23.2010 | 10:54am
Larraine Florist says:
Virtue in virtual gomorrah. I want to be clear that the vast majority of priests have truly been called to be priests, and I'm confident that they'll do the right thing if their apostolic leaders, their bishops, continually encourage them to do so, to not concentrate on numbers in the pews, but to ensure that the faithful are taught, governed and sanctified. Not rocket science. What helps me in tempting situations is asking myself, what is your first love? And interposing the person of Christ into the situation. Seeing Him clarifies the choice....
