By Russell Shaw
The sad case of Tiger Woods offers the familiar spectacle of media and the public setting a celebrity on a pedestal, then taking gleeful satisfaction in knocking him off. If this episode has redeeming value, it’s the reminder that even in this sex-obsessed culture, sexual delinquency still matters.
Strictly by accident, the Woods episode coincides with publication of a major new study, “The Effects of Pornography on Individuals, Marriage, Family, and Community,” demonstrating why it should. It is the work of Patrick F. Fagan, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and director of its Center for Marriage and Family Research.
“Powerful and deep” is how Fagan sums up pornography’s capacity to “undermine individual and social functioning.”
The great merit of this heavily documented review of social science literature is lies in backing up its conclusions with serious scientific sources. No one who takes the time to read it can buy the liberal cliché that pornography does no harm (a companion piece, incidentally, to the conservative cliché saying guns don’t kill people, people do).
As a matter of fact, pornography, like handguns, does great harm: to its users — especially, those who become addicted — as well as to marriages, to family life, and to society as a whole. Internet pornography is today a major menace to the nation’s children, including those who become users and those victimized by sexual predators.
In brief, says Fagan, “habitual consumption of pornography can break down the relational substrates of human interaction — family, friends and society.” (Those who want to read this important document can find it at www.frc.org/pornography-effects.)
Those are psychological and sociological dimensions of the problem. Beyond them lies the dimension of the ascetical struggle. Let me explain.
Lately I’ve been writing a book about a book. The book I’ve been writing about is a small volume of meditations composed by the founder of Opus Dei, St. Josemaria Escriva, and called “The Way.” More about that some other time.
Here I note what might seem an oddity of the book. The chapter on chastity comes way up front — fourth of 46 chapters — and the topic itself receives a generous 28 “points.” Considering that other virtues are treated much later in “The Way,” why such prominent billing for chastity?
The reason is simple. The model of the interior life used by St. Josemaria is the inclined plane — start at the bottom and work your way up toward union with God. With regard to chastity, he takes the tough, realistic view that spiritual progress can’t even begin in the case of somebody who habitually and, as it were, complacently sins this way. Someone who falls occasionally, repents, resumes the struggle — yes. Someone for whom unchastity is a way of life — no.
Looking for an explanation for many seemingly unrelated problems in the religious world today? You’ll find them here — in self-deception and rationalization concerning unchastity as an obstacle to interior life.
But the idea of chastity isn’t an easy sell now, not even in religious circles. I think of a man who told me cheerfully he’d been assured by his brother, a religious order priest, that it’s impossible to sin seriously against chastity by looks. Really? The New Testament quotes Jesus like this: “I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mt 5.28).
My guess is that many people have either forgotten that or don’t care much. Anyway, keep Tiger Woods and his family in your prayers.
Russell Shaw is an OSV contributing editor.
Do you have someone hard to buy for on your gift list? Gift subscriptions to OSV Newsweekly are always appreciated! Call 800-348-2440 today!
Do you have someone hard to buy for on your gift list? Gift subscriptions to OSV Newsweekly are always appreciated! Call 800-348-2440 today!
Visit 
Posts
17 comments:
I would strongly agree that pornography is intrinsically wrong--using people, demeaning people, etc. However, PLEASE refrain from comparing pornography to gun ownership/use! Guns are morally neutral, whereas, pornography ALWAYS hurts someone (the subjects of pornography, the users, the family members, children, etc.). It's apples and oranges. There is no comparison.
Please do not confuse issues here! By comparing this to guns, you can risk driving away people who might be convinced by your argument only to find your flawed sense of comparison and issues.
I was reading over my fiancee's shoulder when I saw the Tiger Woods article. It seemed like a great article until we got to the comment about handguns. I must ask, how do handguns do great harm to their users? Please explain for I am an ignorant conservative.
"As a matter of fact, pornography, like handguns, does great harm: to its users — especially, those who become addicted — as well as to marriages, to family life, and to society as a whole."
Maybe you made a mistake when you insinuated that handguns, like pornography, were harmful to there users. Maybe not. Also, I would like to point out that hammers don't knock nails into the wall, people swinging hammers knock nails into the wall.
Remember St. Thomas and the Unmoved Mover? hmm... think about that one for a moment.
Other then the one comparison that was made, the rest of the article is great.
I strongly agree that pornography is a very real problem in our society. However, I do not appreciate the anti-gun plug. It was not relevant and is a completely different topic. I am a proud conceal carry permit holder; I carry a handgun to protect my family, which is the opposite of what pornography does.
I agree: the reference to gun owners has no place in this article. The reference to pornography should be separate from gun owners. When I read the article, I thought it implied more to infidelity in marriage. I believe that is harmful to a marriage and certainly is not fair to the wife and children.
Well, I might also take exception to the notion that "pornography is harmless" is a liberal idea. It sounds like a good business motto from pornographers. Feminists tend to be anti-porn. I would have to count myself in the categories of liberal, feminist, and anti-porn.
Otherwise, yes, a needed essay.
Perhaps a parable will help.
Generous Uncle Ted buys his nephew Jack a high-quality handgun for Christmas. Jack has a history of violent behavior, but Ted reasons, “Guns don’t kill people, people do.”
Touched by his uncle’s generosity, Jack buys Ted a high-quality camera in return. As it happens, Uncle Ted is a pornographer by trade, but Jack reasons, “Cameras don’t make pornography, people do.”
Farfetched? Of course it is. That’s how parables go. But the point is sound: “Guns don’t kill people, people do” and “Cameras don’t make pornography, people do” are equally bad arguments.
Handguns and cameras both are instruments subject to abuse. While the fundamental moral issue in both cases is the abuse, not the instrument, facilitating the abuse by knowingly making its instrument available to a likely abuser is a form of participation in the abuse. Gun fans ought to think about that.
A rare writing error by the esteemed R Shaw: a grossly inappropriate and completely distracting analogy, guns and pornography.
Mr. Shaw, here's what you just said in your most recent post:
"Handguns and cameras both are instruments subject to abuse. While the fundamental moral issue in both cases is the abuse, not the instrument, facilitating the abuse by knowingly making its instrument available to a likely abuser is a form of participation in the abuse."
Or basically:
Handguns and Cameras = Instruments/Enablers
This statement 100% correct. The problem is what you said originally in your article. I believe that what you were saying earlier was that pornography was likened to handguns or basically both were evils.
"As a matter of fact, pornography, like handguns, does great harm: to its users — especially, those who become addicted — as well as to marriages, to family life, and to society as a whole."
Or basically:
Pornography and Handguns = Evil
If you are in fact saying that handguns and cameras can be abused and used the wrong way, you're absolutely right. A handgun can enable a person to shoot someone. A camera can allow someone to take pornographic pictures.
So what exactly are we talking about, Cameras and Handguns? Or Pornography and Handguns? Please do not confuse the issues.
Clarification on your point of view would be appreciated.
Why blame liberals ("the liberal cliché that pornography does no harm") when this, along with many other problems, is a problem for political groups?
Thanks to Thomas F. for raising a relevant question. The analogy I am drawing is between handguns and cameras as instruments subject to abuse, not between handguns (instrument) and pornography (abuse). No doubt I should have made the point in my original piece, but in informal writing one doesn’t always anticipate a need to spell out every single thing. Live and learn. Now would the handgun fans please get down to brass tacks and say what measures they support to deal with the widespread abuse of handguns?
I don't believe that the issue you raised was at all related to guns--pornography. You have saved yourself by making the connection (or spelling it out) of guns to cameras, but this article we are commenting on is still about pornography. I don't think this is the place to discuss abuse of handguns.
Also, informal writing or not, certain logic should always be evident. Like Dr. Peters said, analogies should not be "grossly inappropriate and completely distracting." The issue was pornography, not guns. Why ask for "handgun fans" to switch topics. We already agreed with the main point of your original article, and you have now clarified your analogy so that it is not completely inappropriate.
However, as you ask, here is simply one small dealing with the abuse of handguns which came up at a secular, state university in the past month.
Here are the pieces:
__
Simply put, I believe there should be a removal of this “weapon ban,” (at UNL) or at least some amendments.
An average student walking into class with a pistol holstered on his or her hip would definitely instill fear amongst many, probably myself included. So the open carry of firearms is definitely a no-no. How about concealed carry of guns, though?
This is where I think some amendments should be made. Concealed guns are, well, concealed, so no one should know whether or not someone is armed. In turn, there would not be the same fear created that an open-carry firearm owner would create.
In order to legally carry a concealed weapon, one must take a class – which isn’t cheap – and be tested quite extensively to prove their knowledge of their firearm, the rules of concealment and safety practices.
So why exactly am I advocating the allowance of concealed gun carry on campus? The ban of concealment is believed to be a method for protecting the student body from danger, but there are some instances where allowing it could save lives, or at least prevent attempts on people’s lives.
Take the Virginia Tech incident that occurred 2007. People were shot and killed and basically had no form of self-defense except to run. This was, of course, because they were abiding by the school rules of not carrying weapons, while the assailant, Seung-Hui Cho, had no regard for the rules and brought guns on campus anyhow.
The point in mentioning this tragedy is that even though there were weapon-free regulations in place, this did not (and has not historically) stopped an attacker from hurting others.
I had mentioned in a column a couple months ago that criminals often avoid committing crimes in fear that their victims may be armed. This would likely hold true on a campus that allows concealed carry. Any person to said crook’s left or right may be the wrong person to mess with. Women are especially prone to crimes like sexual assault on college campuses, but that might be reduced knowing that she or a bystander may be armed.
Professors who choose to participate in carrying a concealed gun could “advertise” a “safe haven classroom,” duly noting that students were safer in their classrooms, and most attackers would avoid facing classrooms with armed individuals.
Some would probably argue that most “school shooters” are clinically insane, and that they would have no fear going to classes that may be armed. As this is possible, unarmed victims are stuck with little luck for safety until the authorities arrive, and the minutes that pass for them to arrive are often minutes where innocent people become endangered. Under this concealed carry amendment, there would be a heightened chance to end dangerous standoffs more quickly.
In today’s society, there are massive amounts of control and policies that actually restrict safety, even though they are designed to heighten it. In general, many weapon controls often create this reality, as many heists and killings occur in weapon-restricted areas. This is not a coincidence. This is because the average criminal knows these locations are where we are the most vulnerable.
The weapon control rules of campus are designed to keep us more safe. But as they are currently written, they could have the opposite effect.
Josh Loomis is a senior Fisheries and Wildlife major.
Reply:
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
I have to say that he exactly, and very respectfully and coherently, expresses my own opinion on safety. We need “the good guys” to have guns because laws are clearly not stopping the “insane” or malicious criminals from harming people and carrying weapons.
The points that Loomis brings up are valid and vital. I strongly believe that this issue needs to be brought out and discussed. We can even look right here in Nebraska at the decision faced and resolved at the mall in Omaha after the shooting there.
I hope to complete a concealed carry course myself so that I can be safe and provide safety for others around me.
Senior Music major
Both of these pieces can be found at:
http://dailynebraskan.com
Live and learn - yes! Don't mess with the handgun fans. A feisty bunch, they get up in arms.
C'mon, people, save your indignation for the real issues. No one's taking away your guns. You've got that lobby ocked up.
Bravo to all the gun owners! And sorry, Mr Shaw, this appeared to me, too, to be a sloppily written, gratuitous shot at gun rights' advocates that backfired, not an innocent or casually-written analogy. I think we all know the difference. And your animus is shown by your rhetorical question re what laws we would favor re gun abuse. For the record, I favor enforcing the laws we have, with rapid, certain punishment of those who commit crimes using guns. If liberals, in and out of the Church, would temper their soft-on-crime, "social justice" rhetoric to include a serious plea for accountability of criminals and the justice of such punishment, maybe liberal legislators would stop using liberal Catholics, in and out of the Church, as cover as they push in the legislatures for silly "root causes" defenses of criminals.
and to sclcs, preserving my right to protect my family from those whose main interests are something OTHER THAN my security IS a "real" issue. If you prefer to trust that law enforcement will always be there for you if you need them (even though they make no such promise), or if you prefer to believe you will never be threatened, that's your right, but I think you are being smug.
Hey sclcs, maybe people are just upset when other people say that guns are the same as pornography. I'm just glad there are people like palinurus out there who realize how poorly put together and flawed Mr. Shaw's article is and to know what's right.
Post a Comment