When Deviant Behavior Gets Respectable

How Academia Refined Away Social Problems

SAN DIEGO, California, SEPT. 28, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Last Aug. 6 marked the 10th anniversary of John Paul II's encyclical on themes related to moral theology, "Veritatis Splendor." In the introduction the Pope observed: "No one can escape from the fundamental questions: What must I do? How do I distinguish good from evil?"

It was a timely encyclical, given the worrying tendency under way to redefine harmful behaviors and break down traditional moral boundaries. And that trend has continued unabated, if Anne Hendershott's 2002 book "The Politics of Deviance" is any indication.

In her book the sociology professor at the University of San Diego argues: "The reluctance of sociologists to acknowledge that there are moral judgments to be made when discussing a subject like deviance shows how far this discipline has strayed from its origins."

Hendershott explains that up until recent times sociologists were concerned about the questions of social order and the common good. Up until the 1960s this involved maintaining that social stability is founded on moral order. "Integral to this concept of moral order is a shared concept of deviance, and a willingness to identify the boundaries of appropriate behavior," she observes.

Deviance as a concept helps to define the framework within which a group can develop a sense of its own cultural identity and social order. This is not a rigid process, the book adds. In fact, challenges to existing norms can be positive, as when people stand up to socially accepted racism.

Now, however, deviance is being redefined. Starting about 20 years ago, Hendershott observes, courses on deviance were deleted from the academic programs of many sociology faculties, and most current sociology textbooks reject the idea of defining any behavior as being deviant.

The culture of victimhood

Changes in academy have in turn influenced the media and popular views. An example of this is how drug addiction is judged. It is now common to consider addiction as "a condition in which substance abusers are gripped by a disease they have acquired through no fault of their own," Hendershott comments.

The media, through films, documentaries and magazine features, repeat that drug addiction is a disease or allergy, or that drug-taking is a response to how a person's brain responds to the chemical involved. Often ignored in this type of analysis is the person's responsibility for having decided to start taking drugs.

The next step, continues Hendershott, is that addicts go on to claim that drug use is a human right and that the government has a responsibility to make it safer to be an addict. Hence the decision in some countries to provide injecting rooms with clean needles -- and to forgo any attempt to wean addicts off their habits.

Turning to the subject of pedophilia, Hendershott comments that at the same time Catholic priests were being vilified for their abuses, academic groups were busily engaged in promoting what is termed "intergenerational intimacy." A 1991 collection of essays, "Male Intergenerational Intimacy: Historical, Socio-Psychological and Legal Perspectives," was penned by an international group of scholars, many in important teaching positions. In works such as these, pedophiles are no longer seen as deviants, but as "border crossers." Many of the essays seek to normalize underage sexual practices by proposing a neutral terminology that seeks to eliminate "the bias against pedophilia."

In 1994 the American Psychiatric Association revised its "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual" so that neither pedophilia nor child molestation would in itself necessarily be indicative of psychological disorder. To qualify as disordered the molesters must feel "anxious" about their acts or be "impaired" in their work or social relationships. Then in 1998 a study released by the American Psychological Association argued that sexual abuse of children does not cause emotional disorders or unusual psychological problems in adulthood.

Heterosexual relations among teen-agers have also been redefined. The book cites examples where sexual promiscuity among adolescents is now seen as perfectly normal. According to this view, the real problem is with programs that promote abstinence. Proponents of promiscuity allege that such programs contribute to deviant behavior, intolerance and a dangerous failure to use contraceptives.

Another area of behavior now being targeted for change is suicide. Taking one's life, explains Hendershott, has traditionally been seen as a deviant act because it devalues human life. But euthanasia campaigners are trying to change opinions by portraying suicide as an issue of "choice" and talk about "the right to die."

And at the academic level it is increasingly common to talk about two types of suicide: those that need to be prevented, and "rational" suicides that should be respected and even helped. At the time the book was written, there were about 100,000 sites on the Internet dedicated to the theme of suicide.

Changing language

Redefining language referring to human behavior is part of a larger campaign to change perceptions, concludes Hendershott. In the suicide debate, changing the terms from "disturbed" or "crazy" to "dignity" or "autonomy" is an important move. She notes that we are in the age of experts whose views are promoted as being more reliable than those of traditional morality and the churches. Combined with this is the influence of cultural relativists who call for the rejection of the concepts of good and evil.

But, Hendershott warns, a society that "refuses to acknowledge and negatively sanction the deviant acts our common sense tells us are destructive, is a society that has lost the capacity to confront evil that has a capacity to dehumanize us all."

Her words echo those of John Paul II in "Veritatis Splendor": "By acknowledging and teaching the existence of intrinsic evil in given human acts, the Church remains faithful to the integral truth about man; she thus respects and promotes man in his dignity and vocation" (No. 83).

This mission is essential in today's society, which often repeats Pilate's question: "What is truth?" The Pope noted that today the bond between truth, the good and freedom is often overlooked. Too often truth is not accepted, "and freedom alone, uprooted from any objectivity, is left to decide by itself what is good and what is evil" (No. 84).

"Veritatis Splendor" also deals with a common objection to moral norms, namely, that defending objective precepts is often seen as intolerant or not taking into account the complexity of an individual's particular situation. But, explains John Paul II, upholding the truth does not mean the Church is lacking in compassion. The Church is both a mother and teacher, and concealing or weakening moral truth is not consistent with genuine understanding and compassion.

"Still," the encyclical points out, "a clear and forceful presentation of moral truth can never be separated from a profound and heartfelt respect, born of that patient and trusting love which man always needs along his moral journey, a journey frequently wearisome on account of difficulties, weakness and painful situations" (No. 95).

Setting limits to what is acceptable behavior and maintaining the force of negative moral norms that prohibit evil, continues the encyclical, is a valuable service. "By protecting the inviolable personal dignity of every human being they help to preserve the human social fabric and its proper and fruitful development" (No. 97). The Pope calls for personal, social and political life to be "open in truth to authentic freedom" (No 101). Hendershott might hope that that message isn't lost on sociologists.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), September 29, 2003

Answers

This past Saturday I attended a Mass service (my family wanted to fulfill its Sunday obligation before heading out to dinner) and was completely floored when the deacon giving the "homily" lost his mind before our very eyes.

The deacon (a friend of my family) told the congregation that we should not be judgmental of our Protestant brothers and sisters. He pointed out that there is a movement, though not a new one, in the Church of Catholic "vigilantes" (yes, he used this word!) who want, for instance, to bring back the Traditional Latin Mass. He went on to say that this is an arrogant and narrow-minded group and that if we Catholics ever think we have all the answers, we will one day be surprised. The implication here is that he holds to the heresy that the Catholic Church does not have the complete Deposit of Faith. Incidentally, this deacon knew that his "homily" would offend me. He shared this with my in-laws.

I was stunned to hear such garbage. Here was an "ordained" deacon assaulting (and insulting) Catholics who are loyal to Sacred Tradition and elevating heretics! Surely, Christ did not say that we should defend, advance, or otherwise accept the religion of heretics.

I am afraid thata my children will lose their faith listening to this stuff. What can one do?

-- Bewildered (mistler@earthlink.com), September 29, 2003.

Reminding people not to be judgmental is "elevating" the object of their judgments?? How do you figure that? Your deacon is absolutely correct. We acknowledge that the Holy Catholic Church possesses the fullness of Christian truth, and that manmade denominations are lacking part of that truth. But if we make personal judgements about Protestant persons we are way out of line. God alone judges mens' hearts, and devout Protestants may be far better prepared for judgment than judgmental Catholics. True, Christ did not say that we should defend, advance, or otherwise accept the religion of heretics. Neither did your deacon!

Also, while "vigilantes" may be a bit extreme and needlessly provocative, it is certainly true that the tunnel vision and self-righteousness of a small band of self-proclaimed "traditionalist" Catholics is creating a mini-schism within the Church which defies the most essential - and most traditional - aspects of the faith, namely unity and truth through submission to divinely-appointed authority. Such people are NOT loyal to Sacred Tradition. They are loyal to their own self-serving, nostalgic desires, and nothing else. Sacred Tradition demands faithfulness to, not judgement of, the Vicar of Christ and the Magisterium. Such "Catholics" are far more Protestant than they seem to realize they are.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 29, 2003.

Thanks for the article, Bill.

On a similar subject, there's a book that I want to get called, "The Language Police" by Diane Ravitch. It's a study about how far school textbook authors are going in trying to "root out offensive terminology." It was discovered that the word, "insane" is the wrong word to use about a person - even if he is truly insane - because it might offend the mentally ill. According to this book, the American Philosophical Association believes that "Adam and Eve" should be changed to "Eve and Adam" to "demonstrate that males do not take priority over females."

I think this is relevant to your post because I'm sure this book couldn't be written without at least a chapter dedicated to making perversity and immorality sound innocent, acceptable, and the ever popular "non-judgemental."

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), September 29, 2003.

"Reminding people not to be judgmental is "elevating" the object of their judgments??"

YES... -- in concert with denegrating Catholics e.g. ""vigilantes"" that are "an arrogant and narrow-minded group" --further amplified: "that if we Catholics ever think we have all the answers, we will one day be surprised."

I consider the Deacon's statement a negative judgment of fellow Catholics and a literal attack upon the Catholic Church -in essence an "elevation" of protestants by degradation of Catholics in comparison...

The deacon is absolutely incorrect.

Paul -are you losing it?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), September 29, 2003.

It's sad, but most of the "fire and brimstone" homilies I've heard come from left-leaning, weak theologically and wholly ignorant philosophically, trained priests or deacons slamming some straw- man "conservative" which they claimed was "judgmental".

In my youth it was the poor woman who asked Fr Bill about why the parish was going to start using altar girls - when it had not yet been approved by Rome and Vatican II explicitly said that acolytes were to be men.

Here she asked a simple question and was roasted alive - in public - from the pulpit the next day. So much for "pastoral sensitivity"!

But when Pro-life Sunday rolled around did we hear a homily about the evil of abortion and the need for young people to behave according to the Gospel, putting faith in Christ rather than in their passions? NOOOOOOOOOO. We instead got a oblique reference to "moral challenges" of our day, and then a long winded essay on the need for Americans to feel guilty because many people in Africa and Latin America are poor!

This is the sort of thing that most "Tridentine rite" people are reacting against. You can only be brow beaten and disdained so long... you can only be made fun of for trying to learn your faith and follow it so long before you begin to take on the arrogant attitudes of your attacker.

Unfortunately for many, the amount of harassment and hazing is such that they no longer can discern that these poor clerics and their theologian or bishop allies are the minority, not the majority, and that the Pope and Magisterium are not part of the problem.

In many ways such people take the role of the Dwarves' in CS Lewis' book "The Last Battle" which is the 7th and last in the Narnia series and describes the end of that world.

It begins with a religious hoax and fraud - a donkey dressed up as a Lion and a monkey parading around as "Voice of Aslan" - leading all these simple animals astray... then the more intelligent animals too...until such time comes that so much harm is done that many rebel and reject not just the donkey, but also the REAL LION Aslan who is "son of the emperor over sea"... so that when He does appear, they refuse to "be fooled again".

So these poor Tridentine rite people - truly abused, truly attacked unjustly, truly assaulted and beaten...end losing the faith that they tried to valiantly to adhere to.

Still, since they KNOW the faith and morals, I feel that these people can become great Catholics if only they learn to distinguish between the chaff and wheat and not throw both out.

There go I but for the grace of God...

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 30, 2003.

I think that maybe we can expect some improvement in one minor area: although vocations nowadays are down in numbers, a very large majority of my fellow seminarians (and I as well) are Catholics of the simple order. We weren't around during Vatican II, so we have no reason to sympathize with today's aging 60's liberal priest.

We (and that's a tentative 'we') are more interested in learning about Jesus and the teachings of the Church than we are about "updating" anything. As a matter of personal opinion, though I'm not opposed to all change, I find talk of "updating the Church" to be incredibly small minded. It's a consumer mentality. Nobody ever bothered to argue why "newer is better"--it was just assumed.

However, let's be clear about two things: First, I can and will always give my assent to all of the documents in Vatican II, with a mind that always has an eye on Vat-I and Trent as well. V-II was not good because it was new--it is good because it is the life of the Church.

And second, whatever my generation thinks about those aging 60's liberals, the vast majority of people my age and younger know almost nothing about religion at all. All of those things that were novel for the 60's liberals (contraception, euthenasia, abortion, gay marriage, etc.) now belong to their value system by default.

So, while today's seminarians are especially loyal, our future constituency may possible be more hostile than ever.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 30, 2003.

Skoobuoy, with a little deprogramming you would have made a good traditonal priest. Yes, you will be a little lonely when those old priests die off. Being surrounded by a crowd of deacons, and some priests fromm other cultures, will take adjusting.

My diocese used to get 60 young men a year into the priesthood. Last year there was 6. God bless you, still [hopefully] your friend.

Terry

-- Terry (abc@304.com.), September 30, 2003.

Traditional seminaries are still getting vocations, as are a lot of traditional diocese. Maybe you need to look inward.

Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), September 30, 2003.

Bill, perhaps you had better look outward. Most seminaries have closed, and churches are being closed by the dozens. Some parishes already have no priests, and have to "borrow" them on Sunday.

Sad but true, Bill. It's a fact. A small ,real traditional seminary that I know has seven priests and 10 more studying for the priesthood.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 30, 2003.

If seminaries close because of lack of vocations then parishes will go without priests. That is the way it works. The facts are that seminaries now, which are orthodox are increasing in students and we will be getting more priests in time. Until then, the orthodox seminaries in South America will help us fill some of the void. This problem took years to fester, it will not be solved in a day.

The answer is NOT to become a Protestant sect.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), September 30, 2003.

. Bill, You do not confront the question as to what started this festering and why it continued. If you claim that it was the times we live in, that is no answer. The "Protestant" seminaries, as you call them, are also living in the same times. Why are the young Americans not flocking to seminaries? Some are turned away by the homosexual aatmosphere they find there. Others are discouraged because they are not politically correct. The ones in charge of these seminaries are sympathetic to the homosexuals. Not all, but many. Some young men do not want to be known as presiders. There are many reasons, but these are some. So a number are turning to the "protestant" seminaries, where they can celebrate the Mass of their fathers and grandfathers.

God bless you, Terry

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 30, 2003.

We may be saying the same thing. What I see is that seminaries that are faithful to the Magistarium are fairing much better than 'liberal' seminaries.

take care, bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), September 30, 2003.

I agree. God Bless, Terry

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 30, 2003.

I was a seminarian and religious for 11 years - spending years in Spain and Rome during parts of my training. In that time I met many non-US seminarians from around the globe and typically they all reported vocational booms: Latin America, Africa, Asia, India, Eastern Europe. None of them were as infected with pagan or anti- Christian presuppositions as Americans and Western Europeans are, and none of them had any existential angst rising from a "loss" of the Tridentine rite.

They saw things much more clearly - and more sophisticatedly then most of us Americans and Europeans. They realized that the Gospel is far more imporant that culture and custom because it gives rise to culture and custom! They all knew their Latin and Greek - as well as 2 or 3 other languages as par for the course...knowing how to speak multiple languages opens you to multiple view points.

By and large, most of us American seminarians however were much more existentially and personally involved and up to speed on the culture wars over sexuality: divorce, contraception, abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, deviant sexual vices, cloning, experimentation... and most of us had been involved in the Pro-Life movement, as well as World Youth Days, and/or charismatic or Marian renewal movements.

My religious congregation was booming - and we weekly had Mass in English, Latin, and Spanish; There is no reason why the Novus Ordo has to be boring or irreverent - we used to sing Gregorian Chant, had the candles and incense, reverence and seriousness that Mass requires...thus making the whole Tridentine Mass issue moot - since it's your attitude and reverence that makes the biggest difference, not the ritual and rubrics.

It should be noted that the numerical decline in "seminaries" after 1965 is due to the near total loss of "minor seminaries" or high school seminaries which were counted as "seminaries" back then. Currently there are about 5 minor seminaries in the USA.

As for booming diocesan and religious seminaries, most are in dioceses with strong, orthodox, no-nonsense bishops such as Arlington, Preoria, Denver, etc. So again there is no direct correlation between the rite of Mass and a big booming seminary...it is much more complicated than that. My congregation was expanding without the T-rite at all. And so are dioceses around the world (outside of North America and Western Europe).

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 01, 2003.

So what is wrong with the diocese, that tolerates the liberalism? What are these bishops doing?

-- Phil. (tanner@msn.com), October 01, 2003.

So what gives, with the diocese that tolerates the liberalism? What are these bishops doing? Why are they not replaced? They are obviously not Catholic.

-- Phil. (tanner@msn.com), October 01, 2003.

. So what gives, with the diocese that tolerates the liberalism? What are these bishops doing? Why are they not replaced? They are obviously not Catholic

-- Phil. (tanner@msn.com), October 01, 2003.

Back tot he main issue however, which is larger society.

Moral decline is seen nowadays as Progresive, and "allowiugn the rights".

The fact that to be moral is to be intolerent these days is increasignly clear. Who are you to tell me that my life is Immoral?

After all, most peopel now think Homosxuality is Genetic, and so is moral.( Its not genetic, there is no sceintific proof of a "Gay Gene" anywhere.) Sexual promiscuity is comon and accepted. I am 26, and never had sex, and wan tot marry a woman that has also waited, and am called stupoid and judgemental.

The reason is this, its a difference between short term and long term. sin, and sinners, think in the short term, and what will satisfy their own lusts at the momnent for momentary pleasure, and hoe to win acceptance of this behaviour so they dont have to hiode. Th righeous look long term, at the effect the sin ahas both on the sinner and society.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 01, 2003.