
Denver, Colo., Jun 11, 2017 / 04:07 pm (CNA).- One of music artist John Mayer’s most signature songs is “Daughters,” a sweet and simple tribute to the importance of parents’ influence on their little girls. Here’s the refrain:
“So fathers, be good to your daughters, Daughters will love like you do. Girls become lovers who turn into mothers, So mothers, be good to your daughters too.”
But when John Mayer isn’t crooning about your beautiful daughters, he’s looking at naked pictures of them, sometimes hundreds at a time before he gets out of bed in the morning. In fact, he often prefers that to an actual human being, according to his wildly controversial 2010 interview with Playboy magazine.
“You wake up in the morning, open a thumbnail page, and it leads to a Pandora’s box of visuals. There have probably been days when I saw 300 (naked women) before I got out of bed,” he told the magazine.
Unfortunately, Mayer’s morning routine is not unique to him. Studies show that easy access to free internet pornography is having devastating effects on real-life relationships.
Preferring pixels to people
“For many individuals, the more porn they consume, the more likely it is that they can end up preferring the fantasy to reality, they can end up preferring the pixels to a person, and that’s really messing up relationships, as you can imagine,” said Clay Olsen, co-founder of the internet movement “Fight the New Drug” (FTND).
The FTND movement, so named because of porn’s addictive properties, aims to raise awareness of the harmful effects of pornography through creative mediums such as blogs, videos and infographics. The website includes personal stories as well as scientific studies to illustrate pornography’s effects on the brain, the heart (relationships), and ultimately on the world.
“Our goal is to change the conversation from ‘Dude, check this out,’ to ‘Dude, that’s messed up,’” Olsen told CNA.
The longstanding, pervasive cultural narrative surrounding pornography is that it is a healthy sexual outlet and can improve sex lives. However, science begs to differ. Several studies cited in FTND’s article, “Porn Ruins Your Sex Life,” found that pornography not only leads to dissatisfying sex, it can lead to less sex with actual human beings.
In a series of studies examining pornography use, “The Social Costs of Pornography: A Collection of Papers” published by the Witherspoon Institute, researchers found that those who viewed pornography became less satisfied with their sex lives, and that viewing porn just once can lead to feelings of dissatisfaction towards a human partner.
According to an article in Psychology Today by clinical psychologist Tyger Latham, Psy.D, erectile dysfunction, while once considered an issue plaguing old men, is cropping up more in young men who rely heavily on pornography to become sexually aroused. A study by the Italian Society of Andrology and Sexual Medicine surveyed 28,000 men on their internet porn habits, and found that porn use over time led to a lower sex drive and an eventual inability to become aroused at all.
“As soon as they try to actually get close to someone and commit to somebody and have an intimate relationship with somebody, it’s in those moments that the harms of pornography show their full colors and truly manifest themselves,” Olsen said. “The unrealistic expectations are completely exposed…
And we now see people in their 20s having porn-induced erectile dysfunction because they cannot get excited or aroused without the presence of pornography.”
A decline in marriage rates
Not only is pornography use destroying the physical sexual life, it may be impacting the number of people pursuing marriage or committed sexual relationships.
In the fall of 2013, an article in The Guardian sounded the alarm that fewer people in Japan were having sex, citing as evidence numerous statistics on the country’s declining birth rate, marriage rate, and even rates of young people who are dating or who are interested in dating.
A follow-up article on Slate found that while the actual number of people having or not having sex might not be definitively pinpointed, the statistics on falling marriage and birth rates only mean Japan is leading a world-wide trend, rather than bucking one. While it’s not clear whether porn is directly influencing these numbers, many have speculated that it is.
Researchers with The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Germany found an increase in free Internet pornography is at least correlated with a significant decrease in the percentage of young married men, and it may even be contributing to the trend. A 2013 Pew study found that 71 percent of single Americans were not looking for a committed relationship. Another study found that nearly 40 percent of American women had never been married.
“The results in this paper suggest that such an association exists, and that it is potentially quite large,” the study notes, as reported in the Washington Post.
The study used General Social Survey (GSS), a comprehensive, nationally representative survey which analyzed internet use of 1,500 men ages 18-to-35, between the years 2000 and 2004. The researchers studied the number of hours spent on the internet per week, how often internet pornography was used in the past 30 days, as well as other activities such as use of religious sites.
Even when adjusted for variables such as age, income, education, religion and employment, the study found that generally, the more a person used the internet, the less likely they were to be married. Additionally, it found that the more a person used internet pornography, the less likely they were to be married. On the other hand, the use of religious websites was positively correlated with marriage.
Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin and a Catholic who has studied religion and sexual behavior, cautioned against assuming that correlation equals causation in such studies – but said that pornography use is likely part of a more complex reason for dropping marriage rates.
“We know that both things are occurring, but it’s difficult to establish a causal connection,” he told CNA in an e-mail interview. “A variety of things are contributing to the declining marriage rate.”
“I don’t think porn use necessarily causes that, but contributes to it (together with diminished earnings power, diminished confidence, etc.),” he added. “To be sure, porn use doesn’t help build confidence in men, something that’s pretty necessary (but not sufficient) to be considered marriageable. So I’d say porn use is a suspect here, but connecting the dots is hardly straightforward.”
Increasing awareness
Only in the past few years and months has a conversation countering the “it’s healthy, it’s normal” narrative been emerging in mainstream media about pornography. Several celebrities are speaking up, and there are an increasing number of websites dedicated to helping people fight pornography addictions.
In 2015, the release of the controversial “50 Shades of Grey” movie sparked a conversation on social media about sexual violence against women in media, with the hashtag #50dollarsnot50shades encouraging people to forgo the movie and instead donate to places that help victimized women.
The movie sparked a response from an unlikely source – British comedian Russel Brand, whose short video about the problems with pornography went viral, generating over 500,000 views on his YouTube channel and over 2 million views on FTND’s website.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt is another celebrity who has been outspoken about the negative impact of pornography, most notably in his 2013 movie “Don Jon,” which he wrote, directed and co-starred in along with Scarlett Johansson. The film explores the unrealistic expectations of love and relationships that come from pornography addictions and from the media at large.
“I think that there’s not a substantial difference between a lot of main-stream culture and pornography. They’re equally simplistic, reductionist,” Gordon-Levitt said in an interview with NPR about the film.
“Whether it’s rated X or ‘approved by the FCC for general viewing audiences,’ the message is the same. We have a tendency in our culture to take people and treat them like things.”
But the internet has been around for decades now – why has it taken society so long to catch on to the fact that pornography is harmful?
“Science has caught up with the fact that pornography’s harmful,” Olsen said, “but society is still catching up.”
It often takes years for something that was once culturally accepted as true to be flipped on its head as science proves otherwise, Olsen said, so Fight the New Drug knows they still have a lot of work ahead of them.
“We’re very excited to see some of this progress and some of these mainstream media outlets kind of following suit and starting to talk about the negative impacts, we couldn’t be more excited about it, but we still have a long way ahead of us.”
Some other websites that are also trying to raise awareness and give help to those struggling with pornography include The Porn Effect and Covenant Eyes, and internet filtering and accountability system.
The best way to kick a porn habit? Keep fighting it and lean on the sacraments, Regnerus said.
“(My) advice: don’t give up hope; pursue confession regularly; recognize and avoid the contexts which give rise to temptation. That’s a start.”
This article was originally published on CNA April 16, 2015.
[…]
JPII allowed Cardinal Ratzinger to give communion to a Protestant, Brother Roger Schutz, so there is some precedent here.
That is true, but Brother Roger was at least a believing Christian.
Of the Lutherian type; the Zwinglianisme ilk, perhaps, or some other sect? There are a lot of protestant fancies and flavors Father and some hold rather weird views about the Eucharist, let alone the Real Presence. Just because he may have been a “believing” person really doesn’t make him a brother to us Catholics, Father.
There is a substantial difference between a baptized Christian and an unbaptized person. By itself, the lack of baptism renders a person incapable of receiving Christ in the Eucharist, and therefore a case of sacrilege – the same as if a Catholic were to receive the Eucharist while in mortal sin.
Presumably, Cardinal Ratzinger had the care to ensure that the Protestant believed as the Church believes regarding the Eucharist. Canon law requires this, along with baptism, even in the limited cases where bishops are allowed to make exceptions to the rule of Catholics only. Such exceptions are not necessarily prudent (there’s still the question of whether they are in error or heresy, and whether they have committed a mortal sin at any point in their lives), but they are not manifest and obvious sacrilege.
From the sounds of it, the archbishop committed sacrilege, and according to him, he did this for the sake of human respect. One ought not commit even the smallest sin for the sake of human respect. From the sounds of it, the sheik intended no disrespect and had no reason to know. It is the archbishop’s job to know – it’s your average parish priest’s job to know – even an EMHC has the obligation to know this sort of thing, and act accordingly. It’s not bread, it’s God. Treat the Eucharist like it’s more precious than the universe, because it is.
This is no “precedent”. This is blasphemy. Neither the sheik or the protestant are Catholic believers with our understanding of the real presence in the Eucharist. In both cases these high churchmen who handed out communion like a party favor should have known better.The non-Catholic churchmen should never have moved up the aisle to receive to begin with.
I would suggest that at all events with “mixed” religion attendees, an announcement should be made about this, loud and clear. Non-Catholics are NOT to receive. Period. I have heard such done at weddings and funerals so there is no reason they cannot clarify this point. Mass is not a friendship tour and should not be treated as such.
How does that make it right? Only Catholics in good standing in the Catholic are to receive Holy Communion.
FIRST, we are groomed to think that “synodality” is a dialogue among the “baptized”—with the distinct sacrament of Holy Orders seemingly reduced to a “difference in degree” and no longer a “difference in kind” (this being a corruption of the Council’s Lumen Gentium).
So, SECOND, are we now to believe that a “pluralism” of religions erases another distinction? That is, (apart from the value of deep interpersonal attachments), is there still the difference between the revealed Catholic Faith and the beliefs of the followers of Islam? Islamic belief replaces the Incarnation of the Second Person of the eternal Trinity with the “uncreated” and dictated verses of the Qur’an. Under Islam, “The Word made flesh” is replaced by the “word made book.”
Is it still admissible to at least think about this, and about the categorical difference between ecumenical and interreligious dialogue? What, too, of sacramental incorporation into the Mystical Body of Christ, versus the companionship of natural religions?
Another progressive roadkill? Two starting points for INQUIRY:
“Corresponding to the image of a monotheistic God is a monogamous marriage. Marriage based on exclusive [!] and definitive [!] love becomes the icon of the relationship between God and his people and vice versa, God’s way of loving becomes the measure of human love. This close connection between eros and marriage in the Bible has practically no equivalent in extra-biblical literature” (Benedict XVI, Deus est Caritas, 2006, n. 11).
“In religions, this [non-monogamous] attitude found expression in fertility cults, part of which was the ‘sacred’ prostitution which flourished in many temples . . . The Old Testament firmly opposed this form of religion, which represents a powerful temptation against monotheistic faith, combating it as a perversion of religiosity. But it in no way rejected eros as such; rather it declared war on a warped and destructive form of it, this counterfeit divinization of eros [some versions of inclusivity?] actually strips it of its dignity and dehumanizes it . . . It is part of love’s growth toward higher levels and inward purification that it now seeks to become definitive [!], and it does so in a twofold sense: both in the sense of exclusivity [!] (this particular person alone) and in the sense of being ‘forever” (Deus Caritas Est, nn. 4,6.)
From Pope Benedict, the above thoughts about eros/inclusivity AND exclusivity….
Thoughts which seem, at least, to be sidestepped by possibly unilateral inclusivity—of either indiscriminate synodality, or an ideological pluralism of religions. But, who am I to judge?
When you don’t believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, then the only remaining reality by default is that of a piece of bread. Maybe this Muslim shiek was hungry and the Archbishop thought he was “giving food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty.” (I do suppose the Archbishop might have refrained from giving the Precious Blood to the sheik if Communion was being distributed under both species. After all, inclusivism would have precluded giving offense to the sheik.)
“When you don’t believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist…”
Bingo.
A further INQUIRY. Is this the Holy Spirit? The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 2 (verse 3), begins with the Descent of the Holy Spirit, and the “parted tongues as of fire,” i.e., fn. “Parted tongues: in Greek, ‘tongues distributing themselves’ as from a central source.”
A central source? Does the polyhedral Church (or polyhedral churches?) mean that there are neither coherent answers nor even coherent questions–as between the baptized and ordained, as between ecumenical and interreligious, as between universal natural law and locally accommodated?
In any event (now, are there only events?) does the polyhedral thing appeal to its own ersatz history for precedents…as already when President Clinton received the Eucharist in 1998 and when Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper also did so in 2009? A tradition!
And decentralized sources (plural and pluralist) versus parted tongues from a “central source”? For want of a shoe, a battle was lost…problem, what problem?
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/bishops-not-told-clinton-was-to-take-communion-1.140573
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/harper-clinton-and-reception-of-communion
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=11-03-005-e
Can’t fault the Sheik for assuming his Bishop friends knew their Catechism and cared to live it. The Sheik comes off as well met. Praying for him.
As for some of our Bishops, one has to wonder if they would teach Scientology is they thought it pleased the Pope.
You know that something is so fundamentally broken with the clergy of the NO / Vatican 2 “church” when the sheik that took the precious body of Christ had more remorse for doing so than the cleric who disbursed him against all spiritual and lawful church teachings. The AB should be required to step down and re-enter basic seminary training again. THIS, folks is what is wrong with V2 and what is staged to be a disaster of unparalleled proportions post-synod. FIND the Catholic Church by getting to a Latin Mass now – one that has some protection and insulation from this madness. IT.MATERS. Full.stop.
what does V2 have to do with a AB making a wrong decision and then trying to find support through others. He was wrong in his actions. The Latin Mass while beautiful in its own right isn’t the cure for this madness, it is a matter of faith.
Joe, the priests catechized and educated in the old tradition, what the NO church dispensed with since 1962 (arguably even before that in the case of some hot beds of heresy/modernism in Europe) would never have so easily compromised the B&B of Christ in this manner. Many of the NO priests that actually believed in the B&B of Christ in the Eucharist have been “canceled” by this gaggle of modernists in this post-V2 world. The NO church is adrift. It’s dying in a fantastic manner and is, maybe, 1-2 generations from extinction. It can’t come soon enough. If you want to know the truth of the matter, the NO church was a willing and intentional break with the Catholic Church. What we have been experiencing is the fall out of that horrific decision for the last 50 years. So much for a “pastoral council” when pastoring becomes an exercise in the embrace of heresy and apostasy.
Absolutely agree with you.
And while we mention Vatican 11, it was put in place under the guidance of Almighty God. Those who “bad mouth” it do so at the peril of their immortal souls.
Before suggesting remedial seminary education, we might want to check that the seminaries have been fixed. From what I’ve heard, there has been significant, but insufficient improvement.
Part of the reason the TLM has priests that wouldn’t dream of doing what the Archbishop did is that the only men who offer it were either formed in seminaries with a high quality formation process (FSSP, ICKSP) or have put in a phenomenal effort to educate themselves. This contributes to the TLM being something of an oasis in the midst of madness – and of course, it’s a lot easier to remain sane when surrounded by people who are sane. Similarly, one should not send a child into a woke school and expect them to come out sane.
I would classify what the bishop said as more of an excuse than an “explanation”. So, we can just ignore almost 2,000 years of Church teaching, the Catechism and Canon Law, and go with some statements by Pope Francis. I am surprised that he didn’t use “everyone is welcome.”
At least he didn’t propose changing Church teaching, as some Bishops and Cardinals have done with regard to homosexual acts.
Beautiful and eloquent spin on Catholic teaching.
Mildly curious if the sheik would have similarly approached an altar rail, knelt down, and received Our Lord on the tongue—or would that have been too great an acknowledgment of the Reality.
Genevieve, that is an excellent question. If allowed to speculate, my guess would be the sheik would have said no thank you.
I can’t see a Muslim religious leader committing such “idolatry” in such a public way. I mean, Pope Francis wouldn’t tolerate a public act of idolatry, would he?
Wonderfully expressed and greatly appreciated!
Personnel is policy and praxis is no less so. In Catholic context praxis reflects magisterium. The Archbishop cites Francis. The Bergoglian “magisterium” is clearly a contradiction of 2000 years of Christian praxis and magisterium.
What is one to infer regarding the present occupant of the Chair of Saint Peter? What is a groundling to conclude?
This is plainly a news agency item.
The Holy Eucharist is not the body of Jesus it is the «Body of Christ», the Risen Lord.
The sheikh was entitled to a blessing from the celebrant, no more.
Dressed as he would be as a Muslim cleric he could not have been mistaken for a Catholic. even one of the many who never confess before receiving the Holy Eucharist.
This seems where «making a mess» gets us, deep into confusion even about the «basics».
What is the meaning of the binding and loosening given to Peter? Also, where in scripture are we given the right to judge? Perhaps we would be better taking the log out of our own eyes before we attempt to extract the mite out of others! 😂
James, the teaching of the Church is an objective reality. Too much gives way when we become the standard for what we judge to be right or wrong behavior. Sadly, your own comment is one that condemns you as much as anyone else in this matter. Let Church teachings, which are objective decide. Simple.
The Pope can make and unmake ecclesiastical law. He cannot make divine law. (See Galatians 1: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.”)
But even so, canon law forbids the distribution of Holy Communion to non-Catholics. That is the law the Pope made, and which he has not changed, in over 10 years of having the authority to do so.
The archbishop is not pope. He cannot alter or make an exception from this law: he is bound by it.
Giving Holy Communion to an unbaptized person is not a mite, it is sacrilege. If you think that there should be no reaction against it or punishment for it in the ecclesiastical sphere, feel free to advocate for legalizing murder in the civil sphere – that is approximately the same level of gravity.
From brother James we read: “…where in scripture are we given the right to judge?”
Indeed, where is scripture does it say that we do not have a moral conscience and the universal natural law, and therefore the obligation to make moral judgments?
Instead, this from St. Paul: “When the Gentiles who have no law do by nature what the Law prescribes, these having no law are a law unto themselves. They show the work of the Law written in their hearts” (Romans 2:14-15).
The conscience? It is by the moral conscience that we are obliged to make moral judgments about actions–quite different from presuming to judge the souls of others. The fallacy of replacing such objective judgments of conscience with merely subjective decisions is addressed in Veritatis Splendor:
“A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid and general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final DECISION [no longer a ‘MORAL JUDGMENT’] about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a ‘creative’ hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept [thou shalt not…]” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 56).
A bunch of nothing for an excuse and to think this guy is a prince of the Church.
Great comment James Conner! Thank you!
There is even more reason to be outraged by this outrage. Not believing in the real presence is sufficient to deny anyone Holy Communion. However, Muslims also believe that Christ was merely a prophet lesser than Muhammad, and that He did not die on the Cross. In fact, Muslim belief maintains that Allah allowed Christians to be duped into believing this.
In the Qur’an, Sura 4:157, the following is set forth in grammatically challenged phrases that are a prominent feature throughout the Qur’an:
“And because of their saying, We killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the messenger of Allah, they did not kill him or crucify him, but it seemed so to them, and indeed, those who disagree about this are in doubt about, they have no knowledge of it except pursuit of a supposition, they did not kill him for certain.”
___
Keeping the foregoing in mind, it can only be concluded that the primary purpose and reality of the Mass is one big show of blasphemy and ignorance to Muslims, so even more so than other Christians outside the Church, no bishop or priest should even consider allowing a Muslim to partake in Holy Communion which the Muslim deems to be a blasphemous and ignorant thing and action.
The article incorrectly cites cannon 844 as setting the rule for the universal church. It is the code applicable to the Latin Rite only. The Eastern Cade has a similar provision, so claiming universal application of the Latin code is incorrect. Further. In the Latin Code, Section 844 also provides as follows:
“§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.“
Have these Church “leaders” lost their minds? The more I read about the strange utterances and actions by priests from the top down I wonder if the Catholic Church hierarchy has become or is becoming apostate.