Charlie Rose and the Reason for Rules

Last updated on: November 21, 2017 at 1:04 pm by Fr. Dwight Longenecker

Charlie Rose and the Reason for Rules 2017-11-21T13:04:34-05:00 Fr. Dwight Longenecker

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Charlie_Rose_2014_(cropped) And now its Charlie Rose, and I reckon the hits are going to keep on coming.

There’s something spooky about this that nobody else has noticed: all these revelations about creepy predatory celebrities have suddenly tumbled out right after the death of Hugh Hefner.

It’s almost like that Hugh’s death closed the Playboy Chapter of American history and now all the girls are speaking out and saying, “Hey. We don’t want to be bunnies anymore!”

The sexual revolution was all about chucking out those fuddy duddy old rules about sex being kept for marriage. Suddenly it was “If You Can’t be With the One You Love Honey, Love the One You’re With.”

It was a sexual free for all and sex was free for all.

The rules went out the window, and indeed the same mentality has crept even into the Catholic Church. Some Catholics want to put away those black and white, hard and fast, rules. There should be no more talk about acts that are “intrinsically evil” and the “pastoral approach” is to be recommended in which circumstances and intentions prevail over rules and regulations. Individual conscience is the pre eminent rule.

But the present firestorm of accusations against sex pests and predators shows just how important the rules really are.

The rule are not simply to prohibit predatory behavior. They are also in place to protect people.

They are there not only to protect the victims who are being preyed on, but also on the men who might be innocently accused.

This was brought home to me not long ago when a woman was divorcing her husband. She went around telling people he had had an affair. They all thought he was sleeping with another woman, but the wife meant he was having “an emotional affair” and that consisted of the fact that the fellow had been chatting on Facebook with his old High School girlfriend. Now that may have been dumb and may have been injurious to his marriage and hurtful to his wife but it wasn’t adultery.

The rules against adultery define adultery. Adultery is when a married person has sexual intercourse with a person to whom they are not married. The definition of fornication is sexual intercourse outside marriage.

The rules are also definitions and definitions are important because they give a clear and strict understanding of what exactly happened and why it was wrong. Everyone knew that groping a woman or making sexual suggestions to her were wrong, but they were not fornication or adultery. They were indecent, insulting and degrading.

The rules therefore helped to protect not only the victim, but also the person who was accused because it was clear what they had done and what they had not done.

Now that there are no rules everybody makes up their own rules. Now that sentimentality and emotions rule the society anyone can make any kind of accusation against any other person and bring their world crashing down.

Just what is the sexual harassment that is destroying the lives of predators? Is it a suggestive comment? Is it a sexual innuendo or does it involve inappropriate touching? What is inappropriate touching? Is it a pat on the back or a hug or is it the touching of genitals or secondary erogenous zones? Is a man going to far if he pats her knee or is above the knee too far?

Because there are no rules anything goes, but also nothing could go.

What if a man smiles at a woman and undresses her with a dirty look? Is that sexual harassment? Who decides?

Don’t misunderstand. I’m not defending predators or sex pests. I’m pointing out that there was a reason for the rules and the reasons were not simply to prohibit certain activities. They were also to protect the innocent.

Boundaries were set up by the rules and those boundaries extended outward to include other behaviors which were unacceptable if not criminal. The rules were rooted in an appreciation and affirmation of Christian marriage. Christian marriage was the foundational rule and all the others flowed from that. Good actions supported marriage. Bad actions broke marriage. It was simple.

Once the boundaries were broken in the name of “anything goes” then things continue downward into chaos.

I predict that this wave of accusations is going to lead to a new emphasis on morality in our society (see my post here on the New Puritanism) and that this negative manifestation will be balanced by a new generation who will be done with the sexual free for all and start looking for positive, life affirming, rules to help build good, solid life long partnerships.

That is something we call “marriage” and when they come searching the Catholic Church will be there to help show the way.

Image Wikkipedia

Uncategorized

Previous Post

November 14, 2017

Abortion and Bill Clinton's Sex Crimes

Next Post

November 18, 2017 Prepare for the New Puritanism

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Anglican Matters Apologetics Architecture Blobble Study Book Reviews Brideshead Caitlin O'Rourke Catholic Art Catholic Culture Church Politics Chust for Nice Contemporary Culture Duane Mandible Ed Blanch Film Reviews Fr Harvey Nicolaitan Frank Viola Mantilla the Hon More Christianity Mrs Brady Catholic Old Lady Mystery of the Magi Norman Anderson Queen Hillary Saints and Supernatural Spirituality The Inklings The Vicar Theology Todd Unctuous Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz