Sunday, May 18, 2008

Alisadaire McIntyre, Gay "Marriage," and Church Music

A couple of essays on widely disparate topics happen to address the same philosophical minefield.

Dreher on gay "marriage" wherein he demonstrates that he is not an optimist.

It is astonishing, though, how quickly gay marriage went from being something as unthinkable by most people as legalized polygamy is today, to being considered a constitutional right by high courts, and accepted by roughly half the populace...

...So it is with the institution of marriage. Gay marriage is and is not a sudden shift in the meaning of marriage. It started with the Reformation. The reason I think gay marriage cannot be stopped, only delayed, is because it is only the latest manifestation of deep social trends in the West going back centuries. These currents run so deep in our civilization they carry us all along without many of us being aware of how far from shore we're receding

He quotes Carle C. Zimmerman and adduces Richard Weaver on the origins of the phenomenon:

In an interesting parallel with Richard Weaver's contention that the West sowed the seeds for its own destruction in the 13th century with the victory of nominalism over Thomism, Zimmerman says the process of the family's decay began at the same time, for the same reason.

It had a firm beginning with the rise of nationalism and the Protestant conception that the family bond was holy but not a sacrament. [A logical follow-on to the rejection of the priesthood.] It led through the philosophical conception of the eighteenth century that the family was a union based upon private contract with only incidental, but necessary, civil implications. The nineteenth and early-twentieth-century schools of family sociology, with their consistently negative attitudes toward the binding and displeasing aspects of the family unit, were but the wholesale development of centuries of previous thought which in a smaller way had the same attitude toward familism.

Thus modern thinking about the family, other than the scholasticism of the Christian [Catholic] church, has been largely a product of the Reformation and has attributed to the family all those elements of nominalism and contractualism so prevalent in institutional thinking since that period. Just as John Locke, J.J. Rousseau, Thomas Paine, and a number of the Founding Fathers of our own nation could hold that the social compact -- government -- if it became unsatisfactory to the body of the people could be abolished for a new form, so the developing school of family negationists could hold that unsatisfactory family types had been, are being, and will continue to be abolished.


Which is related to an essay on "Beauty" in church music from Fr. Rob. Johannsen. Here Fr. J. quotes the prototypical parishioner on the question of 'what music to use for Mass.'

Well, Father, you like all that classical music and chant, and the traditional hymns, and that's fine for you. But I [we] like [insert musical genre here], and, after all, it's all for God's praise. One kind of music is just as good as another.

What's wrong with that? McIntyre had a response.

Alasdair McIntyre, in his seminal book After Virtue, described this mode of thinking as emotivism, that is, the collapsing of all moral or qualitative judgments into mere expressions of personal preference. And this kind of thinking is the besetting sin of the post-modern West.

In fact, "emotivism" is the son of nominalism.

And McIntyre could well have used the term "besOtting" instead of "besEtting."

What is missing in the thinking illustrated above is any sense that the liturgy, and the music of the liturgy, has any objective quality whatsoever

We can emplace that into the debate above, substituting the word "beauty" for "liturgy" and arrive at the following:

"What is missing in the thinking....is any sense that BEAUTY has any objective quality whatsoever."

The important term, of course, is objective, which is not part of McIntyre's "emotivism."

Thus, the liturgy has an objective nature to which we more or less perfectly conform ourselves. [As does marriage.] The Church expresses her appreciation of this objectivity by holding up certain forms or expressions as models which we are urged to adopt and which have been treated as sources or starting points for development which is "organic", that is, which always respects and makes reference to the model. In the area of music, the Church has held up chant and polyphony as those models.

The post-conciliar period has seen, in many if not most sectors of the Church, a loss of a sense of the objective nature of the liturgy. With the liturgy coming to be seen, as Pope Benedict has written, as the outlet for personal "creativity", the liturgy became something expressing not that which is universal and objective, but private and subjective.

Just as "marriage" has become an expression which is private and subjective since the (deficient) understanding that it is a "private contract" between "two individuals" became the operative predicate. That understanding germinated from the Nominalism of the Protestant Revolution in the 1500's, which is the burden of Dreher's thesis.

Thus Fr. J's paragraph about music for worship also (mutatis mutandis) describes the blindlings promoting and espousing gay "marriage."

Aristotle taught that the ability to make correct judgments was about more than simply amassing the necessary data. It involves the training and formation of the person in virtue, so that he has the kind of mind and soul that can apprehend the True, the Good, and the Beautiful. These three Transcendentals have a moral quality, and the inculcation of moral excellence and the ability to make right moral judgments requires, as the ancients taught, and as the Church continues to teach, the proper formation of the mind and soul.

Such 'proper formation' is necessarily based on objective reality, or that which is True. Aristotle and Aquinas taught that knowledge of the Truth is simply conforming one's mind to reality.

Dreher also covered the question of "how can Dan and Bill's 'marriage' hurt YOUR marriage,' which, of course, is a red herring of the first water. Here, Fr. J. answers that question but in the context of liturgy and music:

...what has happened in large part is that extra-liturgical forms and even sometimes texts, many of which come from the dominant mass culture, have been imposed on the liturgy from without. And this has obscured the meaning and nature of the liturgy. It has led to confusion and a weakening of faith. A people that has been led to believe that the liturgy is whatever Father Feelgood or Sister Liturgist make it this week is not a people who will necessarily be able to properly apprehend truth or beauty when they encounter it. The moral equipment that they need to do this has been damaged, and it needs to be repaired.

Dreher's parallel:

I think the most common, and superficially common-sensical, questions that comes up in discussions of this issue is, "How does Jill and Jane's marriage hurt Jack and Diane's?" The idea is that unless you can demonstrate that a gay marriage directly harms traditional marriage, there is no rational objection to gay marriage.

But this is a shallow way to look at it. We all share the same moral ecology. You may as well ask why it should have mattered to the people of Amherst, Mass., if some rich white people in Charleston, SC, owned slaves. Don't believe in slavery? Don't buy one. Similarly, why should it matter to the people of Manhattan if the people of Topeka wish to forbid a woman there to have an abortion? Or, conversely, why do the people of Topeka care if women in New York City choose to abort their unborn children? Don't believe in abortion? Don't have one.


Some issues are so morally consequential as to affect the moral ecology of an entire society.

And that's all one can say. There are no micro-analytics to which one can refer in answering the question--there are only macro-analytics, and they don't show up in 60 minutes-less-commercials which satisfy the typical American mind.

They show up over 50- or 100- year spans, when the results are endemic and horrifying.

HT: Aristotle

7 comments:

PaulNoonan said...

Seriously? OK, this will be easy.

I think the most common, and superficially common-sensical, questions that comes up in discussions of this issue is, "How does Jill and Jane's marriage hurt Jack and Diane's?"

in fact, no conservative on earth has ever given a satisfactory answer to this question. Because there isn't one. But let's give this fellow a shot anyway.

The idea is that unless you can demonstrate that a gay marriage directly harms traditional marriage, there is no rational objection to gay marriage.

Uhm, yes. Because we don't make laws restricting things that are not harmful. Because they are not harmful. Unless they are in that harmful-non-harmful category. Fortunately I just made up that category and it doesn't really exist, and it makes no sense, and only a moron would argue otherwise.

But this is a shallow way to look at it.

Why? No citation or explanation. -1 point.

We all share the same moral ecology.

My plants and cats are pretty puritanical.

You may as well ask why it should have mattered to the people of Amherst, Mass., if some rich white people in Charleston, SC, owned slaves.

OK, just so everyone knows, the people who had the biggest problem with slavery were slaves, followed closely by people of Amherst, Mass. Slavery, of course, causes harm. A very direct, measurable harm. I started typing out all of the harms of slavery, but if you don't know them, you probably can't read anyway.

Don't believe in slavery? Don't buy one.

If only all of the slaves would have just boycotted slavery, the Civil War would not have been necessary. Perhaps the seat licenses at the Riverside Theatre will boycott Bill Maher's next performance.

Similarly, why should it matter to the people of Manhattan if the people of Topeka wish to forbid a woman there to have an abortion?

OK, I'm going to pretend I'm pro-life for a second and concede that fetuses are actual people, and that abortion is murder and that unnoticed sponateous abortions should be the focus of nearly all medical research as it kills tens of millions of people a year.

Clearly, abortion causes harm to the aborted kids. Once again, this is nothing like gay marriage.

Or, conversely, why do the people of Topeka care if women in New York City choose to abort their unborn children?

Because it's murder? Because it eliminates the rights of a person in the most total way possible?

Don't believe in abortion? Don't have one.

Don't believe in burglary? Don't steal stuff. Don't believe in rape? Get consent first.

This argument, in total, is moronic. It starts by asking:

1. People ask, what harm does gay marriage cause?

He then gives no answer, and proceeds to compare gay marriage to activities which actually produce victims, all without mentioning or arguing how gay marriage makes a victim out of anyone.

If you showed this argument to Aristotle and called it logic, he would punch you in the face, as he would conclude that to be the only form of communication you are capable of understanding.

Dad29 said...

The point, which you carefully avoided, was that there is absolutely no relationship between gay "marriage" and hetero marriage.

But there IS an objective reality, based on essence (which is true) having to do with procreation, family, and marriage.

LibertarianLoonies don't bother with niceties like that.

PaulNoonan said...

The point, which you carefully avoided, was that there is absolutely no relationship between gay "marriage" and hetero marriage.

Really. I thought your entire argument was based on the idea that one would destroy the other. And yet they are not related.

We libertarians (especially the econo/scientific wing) deal in facts. I can make up my own truths to support my points too (which is true), but I prefer to go with the real, actual facts as they exist in real, actual, objective reality.

Amy said...

1. People ask, what harm does gay marriage cause?

There isn't a doubt in my mind gay "marriage" will open the door for other forms of co-habitation and union...from incest to polygamy to inter-species "marriage" (and some woman has already "married" a dolphin - who are we to deny them their civil rights?).

Which undermines marriage between man and a woman - the form under which sexual expression is best made, which fosters the most stable environment in which to have and raise children, and which is meant to be an earthly mirror of the relationship between Christ and His Church.

Society garnered privilege to real marriage (between a man and a woman) for the benefit of society.

There isn't a doubt in my mind those of us who believe marriage is reserve for a man and a woman, for the purpose of raising a family, will be compelled by the State to accept homosexuality (and all other manner of sexual behavior) as will our places of worship.

Paul, you are right only in the extent that gay marriage cannot dissolve or harm the sacramental nature of my marriage (or any valid marriage in the eyes of the Catholic Church).

But the eventual harm to society will be revealed in the fullness of time. Once a culture eschews morals for relativism, God for the worship-of-self, it is on a slippery slope to self destruction.

Anyone who supports or applauds the California ruling not only enjoys the mish-mashing of the three branches of government, but contributes to the crumbling of our society.

I wouldn't boast about that...

Dad29 said...

I prefer to go with the real, actual facts as they exist in real, actual, objective reality.

So long as you deny the "real, actual, objective reality" of your wife's body-ness (and yours) as having something to do with marriage and are comfy with that, Paul, your weltaunschaaung is a bit cockamamie.

Have it any way you wish.

As to gay marriage "affecting" my marriage: Amy said it best.

But I will repeat, because you are obtuse: it will have NO effect on my marriage. It will have an effect, in time, on the social ecology as a whole--a point Dreher made, just as well as Amy did.

You might try reading his entire essay for openers.

PaulNoonan said...

There isn't a doubt in my mind gay "marriage" will open the door for other forms of co-habitation and union...from incest to polygamy to inter-species "marriage" (and some woman has already "married" a dolphin - who are we to deny them their civil rights?).

But why?

Which undermines marriage between man and a woman - the form under which sexual expression is best made, which fosters the most stable environment in which to have and raise children, and which is meant to be an earthly mirror of the relationship between Christ and His Church.

Except for those Solomonic polygamous/concubinical (probably not a word, I know, but it rolls well) marriages in the old testament. And those marriages used to join the property of families without regard to the individuals involved in most of Europe for most of time. The marriage you refer to is quite new. And the Christ metaphor always gives me the willies. I'm not saying that to be mean or sarcastic. IT's WEIRD. It is, at the very least, a lousy metaphor for Christ's love for his church.

Society garnered privilege to real marriage (between a man and a woman) for the benefit of society.

Tautalogy. -1 point.

There isn't a doubt in my mind those of us who believe marriage is reserve for a man and a woman, for the purpose of raising a family, will be compelled by the State to accept homosexuality (and all other manner of sexual behavior) as will our places of worship.

As right now they are being denied rights and privileges that you enjoy by you, a small part of me thinks that that would be fair. However, granting the right to marry would be freedom enhancing while your Orwellian description would be fredom reducing. They have nothing to do with each other and there is not slippery slope.

Paul, you are right only in the extent that gay marriage cannot dissolve or harm the sacramental nature of my marriage (or any valid marriage in the eyes of the Catholic Church).

I know.

But the eventual harm to society will be revealed in the fullness of time.

Too bad we don't know what it is right now. Makes it hard to have a rational argument.

Once a culture eschews morals for relativism, God for the worship-of-self, it is on a slippery slope to self destruction.

Relativism sucks. You're just wrong. Objectively speaking.

Anyone who supports or applauds the California ruling not only enjoys the mish-mashing of the three branches of government, but contributes to the crumbling of our society.

Tough call on the Cali decision. They did mangle the law a bit, I must admit. My points are about what should be, but if you would like some procedural analysis, I'll concede a bit there.

However, this is not necessarily an area where the courts should not act. Where the wil of the majority serves to opress the minority, the application of rights should be enforced by the courts agaisnt the will of the legislature and executive. That is their most basic function.

I wouldn't boast about that...

Nor would I.

PaulNoonan said...

So long as you deny the "real, actual, objective reality" of your wife's body-ness (and yours) as having something to do with marriage and are comfy with that, Paul, your weltaunschaaung is a bit cockamamie.

Except I'm not gay.

Have it any way you wish.

As to gay marriage "affecting" my marriage: Amy said it best.


I know. That's why I'm right.

But I will repeat, because you are obtuse:

I love it when you call me obtuse. It's so acute.

it will have NO effect on my marriage. It will have an effect, in time, on the social ecology as a whole--a point Dreher made, just as well as Amy did.

How? Neither Amy nor Dreher makes any case as to why. They just assume it to be true and then restate it.

You might try reading his entire essay for openers.

I did. It made no arguments.