Liberal Secularism and Subsidizing Unchastity
Liberal secularism is crassly materialistic
I suppose had he been more circumspect and Shakespearean, he could have, with an added delightful double entendre, called her a Winchester's goose, and then the modern media would not have known what he was talking about.
(Though it is possible that a Professor of Elizabethan English would have known exactly what he meant. Google it, I will not do the work for you!)
As for me, I would not stoop to call Ms. Fluke such vulgar and plebeian names. For me, Ms. Fluke is a Knight.
Ahhh, but she is not a knight like the woman knight Britomart in Spenser's epic poem The Faerie Queene, for Britomart was a Knight of Chastity. For me, Ms. Fluke is a Knight, but a Knight of Unchastity.
As the commentator on Spenser's Faerie Queene Elizabeth Heale observes, the virtue of which knight Britomart is a symbol-chastity-is not simply abstention from sex. For Spenser chastity-before marriage and in marriage-was "a binding force central to social, national, and indeed universal concord."
As it turns out, Ms. Fluke has turned out to be a symbol of unchastity, an unchastity which is more than mere profligacy, sex upon sex upon sex. No, the unchastity of which Ms. Fluke is a knight is unchastity as "a binding force central to social, national, and indeed universal concord."
We have heard it bantered around that more than 98% of all women have, at least at some period of their life, used artificial contraception. Whether this sad fact is true or not is hard to tell, but it is certainly perceived as true. And, what is more, it is perceived as a good thing, one that is worthy of public promotion so that the 98% can have their way paid for by everyone else and so that the last 2% holding out may eventually be captured.
That is why this unchastity needs to be subsidized, the experts say. That is why unchastity as a social institution needs a Knight. And that is why Ms. Fluke-ahem, Sir Fluke of the Law Students for Reproductive Justice-has received her many accolades from the Knights of the Round Table of the liberal press, and even a call from the King of the kingdom of which she is a knight, President Obama.
Sir Fluke has been offered the Siege Perilous of Liberalism, that vacant seat of the Round Table reserved for that one great knight who would successfully attain the Holy Grail: 100% subsidized contraception.
I've read Sir Fluke's testimony, and it is downright depressing in its crass materialism. There is mention only of "financial, emotional, and medical burdens." There is a lot of what lawyers call inadmissible anecdotal evidence and hearsay about such burdens by "real people" (as distinguished, I suppose from "unreal people," who, I gather under our current law and Sir Fluke's way of looking at things, are fetuses in the womb.). There's the de rigueur "hard cases"-a woman with "polycystic ovarian syndrome," a woman that has been raped-which-in liberal ways of thinking-makes good law. And all this is peppered with plenty of inconsistencies and non sequiturs. But all of it is based upon the supposed calculus of weighing financial, emotional, and medical grounds. Utilitarianism, all of it.
Sir Fluke never, ever considers the issue of whether artificial contraception is moral, whether it is virtuous, whether it is, from a moral standpoint, right. I repeat. The testimony is depressing in its crass materialism and utilitarianism. There is no spirit, much less Nature or Nature's God, in the thing. It is all conventional. Never does she try to get to the heart of moral reality, of what is.
The Church, of course, has an entire different vision of things. Based upon the natural law and the teachings of the Gospel, the Church insists that the use of artificial contraception, whether as an end in itself or a means for an end, is an intrinsic evil, a moral wrong admitting no exceptions.
It is a wrong based upon natural law, which means it morally obliges the entire world no less than does the injunction "Thou shalt not kill."
It is, of course, this very moral law that the Obama administration acting through the Department of Health and Human Services wants the Catholic Church and all its organs to violate, and which the Church insists-as a matter of religious freedom, and indeed in obedience to Nature and Nature's God-the Federal government cannot ...
Rate This Article
Leave a Comment
More U.S. News
- All survive terrifying plane 'belly landing' in Newark
- Nebraska Bishop: Gosnell clinic was 'reminiscent of Auschwitz'
- Why even if you lose, playing Powerball isn't such a bad bet after all
- Cheap cigarette outlets in U.S. may be funding terrorists
- Shocking report reveals 38 men, 33 women are raped each day in the military
- Father Frank Pavone: Houston Abortionist Killing Babies Born Alive
- Bill Donohue, Catholic League, Disclose Fight with the IRS, Demonstrate Courage
- Chilling note scrawled by bloodied Boston terrorist reveals motive
- Sex In Uniform: Why the Increase in Sexual Assaults in the Military?
- Fr. Paul Schenck: Finding Living Faith on Catechetical Sunday
- The Movie Yellow: Incest as 'Normal' and Cassavates's Slides Into the World of Woes
- The Chicago School Teachers Strike Reveals the Need For School Choice
- The Sexual Barbarians and the Dissolution of Culture
- The Happy Priest Challenges Us to Ask: Who is Jesus to Me?
- Michael Coren on Canadian Public Schools: Teachers, leave those kids alone
- We Cannot Ignore Our Consciences: Cardinal Dolan On Religious Liberty
- In the Face of Danger, Successor of Peter Travels to Lebanon as a Messenger of Peace
- Reflections on the Dignity and Vocation of Women: Who or What?