17 January 2012

Kyrie, eleison

Touchstone calls it like it sees it in this month's issue. Please read what is available online, when you have the time. And this, by way of a teaser:

Christians are not the only ones in a position to understand what Augustine and Leo XIII and Paul VI understood—that marriage resides at the very foundation of culture. They are not the only ones who have reason to be concerned about the bastardization of the citizenry through same-sex marriage, or about the Kulturkampf that threatens to leave behind it a moral wasteland blanketed by impenetrable judicial thickets. They are not the only ones capable of standing for freedom. Christians may, however, be the only ones capable of standing against contraception, which is their particular duty.

Douglas Farrow, "Why Fight Same-Sex Marriage?," Touchstone Jan/Feb 2012

5 comments:

Reb. Mary said...

Hey! I just read that article! Thanks for saving me the trouble of telling everyone else that they had to read it too. ;) That whole issue, actually.

Though it sounds ridiculous to most of America, I've yet to hear anyone effectively refute the argument at hand: that if we're going to insist on our right to contraception, we might as well give up the fight against same sex "marriage."

greatgaunts said...

Thanks. So, Gauntlets, would a non-pastor subset benefit from a subscription to Touchstone? Would I have to call you a week after I've stewed over the latest edition so you could explain it all to me? Do advise.

dwcasey said...

Thanks for link.

If you are considering getting a subscription, you can get a Touchstone subscription on the kindle e-reader.

http://www.amazon.com/Touchstone/dp/B0057OOYX8/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1326830919&sr=1-1

Gauntlets said...

greatgaunts: Definitely, on everything but the assumed befuddlement. You'll love it. And you'll also get all our gently read copies as soon as we're done with them, if you like. Unless you go by way of Kindle. That's a pretty sweet deal.

Untamed Shrew said...

I particularly loved this quote by Elizabeth Anscombe:

If you can turn intercourse into something other than the reproductive type of act (I don’t mean of course that every act is reproductive any more than every acorn leads to an oak-tree, but it’s the reproductive type of act) then why . . . should it be restricted to the married? Restricted, that is, to partners bound in a formal, legal, union whose fundamental purpose is the bringing up of children?



Of course, when we follow the logic we must ask, "Why should it be restricted to adults?" and, "Why should it be restricted to two people?" and, "Why should it be restricted to those of the opposite gender?"

Always sex, never babies. Always winter, never Christmas.