Pneuma & Einstein

Trick question to start: is this a balloon? Yes, of course....well, technically, yes. This isn't a 'Ceci n'est pas une pipe' trick question, is it? No, it's a regular trick question. OK.

Next trick question: is this a swimming pool? About as much as that balloon is a balloon.

Well, is it or isn't it? I don't like the question, stop annoying me.

These are pictures of real things, but they really aren't what I'm pressing you to say they are: a balloon, and a swimming pool. We know that their reality isn't complete without air and water, respectively. Obviously if we imagine balloons and pools, if we think about them as ideal forms, our image of each form includes the air and water.

The pool has two distinct physical parts, but conceptually they make a unity of 'poolness.' An empty pool is zero swimming pool; a few thousand gallons of water without a container is zero swimming pool. The same goes for the balloon and the air; let's just stick with the balloon at this point, since in class I bring a balloon, but not a swimming pool. The airless balloon has the potential of 'balloonness,' but without the air, it's just some rubber. Pointless. "Wow, those are great party balloons! When are we going to blow them up? We aren't...I like them better without any air in them." What?

Sort of like a convertible top that will never be put down....heh.

Now the only reason we know the balloon has air inside it is we've blown up plenty of balloons. If you showed an inflated balloon (an ideal balloon?) to an isolated tribesman in Amazonia, he'd reasonably think it was a single entity. But after a day or so, it'd go flat. If you blew it back up, he'd learn that it was really two things: the rubber, and your breath. Plus he'd see it wasn't ideal, either. Ideal balloons don't go flat. Real ones do.

Einstein derived the formula E = mc² about a century ago. I love this equation...it's easier to understand than you might guess. E is energy, m is mass, and c² is the speed of light squared which as you may guess is a big, big, number with a whole lotta zeroes. Anyway the equation means that even a little piece of anything (remember the Flux Capacitor in 'Back to the Future'?) has a preposterous amount of energy in it at the subatomic level. I know you will be relieved that none of that 'matters' right now. Haw! What punishment! I kill myself.

What matters in this post is that the equation shows that Energy and Mass are interchangeable. Einstein said Energy and Mass are "manifestations of the same thing," sort of like 1 gallon = 4 quarts; or 1 pound of ice = 1 pound of water. We perceive Energy and Mass as different, intrinsically separate, as un-alike as two things can be, but our perceptions do not reflect reality. The reality is that at the most fundamental level of physical existence (not existence in the sense of life, but in the more absolute sense that there is anything at all, instead of an empty universe consisting of dissipated energy) matter is just very tightly bundled subatomic wads of energy. I am doing my best not to digress.

Oh, yeah, Pneuma. I forgot. Pneuma (πνεύμα) is Greek for breath or air, as in pneumonia or pneumatic. It also means soul, as does spiritus in Latin (breath, as in respire, aspire, perspire, transpire, inspire, expire, ok now I am digressing.)

We understand our souls animate our bodies as our breath 'animates' a balloon. Our souls & bodies go together, but are separate things, as are the rubber and the air; or the pool and the water. Body over here, soul over there; God puts 'em together, it's a unique person. Dirt + Pneuma = Adam. Remove the pneuma and you have a deflated balloon, a dead body. Yeah, that's so...but, but...

We know life isn't ideal....but don't we all think it should be, ought to be, ideal? It's just cosmic unfairness that balloons lose air, people do bad things, bad stuff happens like earthquakes. What's wrong with the tectonic plates? Stop that! I object to earthquakes on a moral basis! The universe is a mess! Yeah, it is. It's mess due to sin. As God said, "cursed is the ground because of you." The physical world is Fallen, not just we people, the moral agents. That's why, as St. Paul says, we see dimly. Not just spiritually, but physically.

So we can't see what's true about our individual creation: each of us is a continuous, whole person, which we perceive as as a body and a soul because sin blocks our full perception of our seamless selves, and also makes that unity imperfect. As Einstein observed that Energy and Matter are manifestations of the same thing, our bodies & souls are manifestations of the same thing, a person. But due to sin, Body & soul are separable. It's not normal, but it's what we're stuck with for the time being. The person is still ideally one essence, but sin pries the singular into two parts, by no coincidence into a part we can perceive, and another part we only dimly perceive, because sin also stunts our perception. (I imagine saints have no trouble seeing the unity of things we perceive only in parts.) As an ideal balloon doesn't lose its air, an ideal person doesn't lose his pneuma. An ideal person would of course also be sinless.... more than coincidence?

Anyway, somebody in the 20th century (no, not Sting) once described the body as simply the manifestation of the person in the material world, which is not the totality of our existence, but just the totality of what we can physically perceive, what we can measure. Yeah, but in Genesis God clearly made man out of two distinct parts, dirt and breath, body and soul, they're separate items combined by God to create one thing out of two, this is all silly carrying on about Einstein and balloons.

Well.....I don't think so. If all creation is an expression of God's love (Einstein might say God's energy) then the physical parts and non-physical parts are just...manifestations of the same thing...God's love. In fact, long before Einstein, Dante described the energy of the Universe as "L'amor che move il sole e l'altre stelle/ the love that moves the sun and the other stars." So matter, and thus my body, is just very tightly bundled subatomic wads of divine love. Although it's true that due to sin, the oneness, the continuity, is presently imperfect. So why do I care about this continuity business? Because it shows why Works are part of Faith. Faith & Works are not separable, they are manifestations of the same thing. What are Works? They're manifestations of Faith in the physical world. I can't view salvation as a soul issue but not a body issue. Oneness: believe/do. Don't believe/don't do. I can always say 'I believe x,' but I know I believe by what I do. Do I believe Jesus is our Savior, or am I just telling myself I believe? Well, do I act as though I believe? And of course the body can train the soul, that's why parents instill good habits in children, so that over time their bodies, physically trained in virtue, will likewise train their souls. Why, even Socrates* knew as much, and he was just a pagan: "Socrates, what should we aspire to? You should aspire to be virtuous. And how does one acquire virtue? By doing what virtuous people do." And in my own life I've stuck my neck out to do virtuous things I didn't want to do, only to discover that by the doing, my soul came to believe.

And the body/soul continuity also sheds particular light on Catholic sensibilities, especially with respect to the sacraments, and even Jesus Himself, a oneness of not just body & soul, but also God & Man.

*I think it was Socrates.

Fin de Siècle

The Wednesday Sunday School year is over until regular school starts up next August.

I flipped through my class notes and Bible (is that possible, to flip through a Bible?) and here are most, maybe all, of the stories I use in our 30 sessions. 'Story' being a broad term, since Levitical sacrifice, e.g., isn't a story per se. Lots of other bits and verses are also used, but only briefly, and usually to add to one of these stories.

Creation: each successive day/ higher life forms >Hebrew, Shabbat, why did God rest, cui bono? >Hebrew Adam/ Adama > Adam's authority/ dominion over animals shown by naming them, but not eating them. >Rib-bone vs. toe-bone vs. heart >Eve is God's last (best?) creation > creation before sin >friendship with God

The Fall: everybody thinks they know better than God >creation messed up by sin: death, tornadoes, germs, you name it >driven out of Eden, physical separation from God.

Noah, the Ark: eating meat >40 >morality after the Fall >see Lent and Meat

Abraham, Sara, Isaac and the Ram: marriage >miraculous conception >children >laughter >firstborn sacrifice >substitution

Isaac, Jacob & Esau: the permanence of laying of hands >see Yet another dose of the Holy Spirit?

Moses: Burning Bush >showing respect

Moses: Plagues, Passover (Pesach) Pharaoh/ Egyptian/ Hebrew Big House >killing & eating Paschal Lamb >sprinkling blood >see Big House

Moses: Manna, Water from the Rock >physical conduits of God's power >40 > see Wednesday Sunday School

Moses: Golden Calf, Decalogue >40 > Egyptian false gods >idols vs. icons

Moses: Levitical Sacrifices >sprinkling blood on the people >hyssop >sprinkling water in Ezekiel >sprinkling water at Mass (Asperges) >blood and water >atonement vs. forgiveness

David & Saul: Psalms >Envy

David, Bathsheba, Uriah, Nathan, Solomon: chastity >fidelity >aural confession & absolution >atonement vs. forgiveness >see David & Nathan

Solomon, Bathsheba, Abishag, Adonijah: Mother's intercession

Elijah cloaking Elisha, crossing the Jordan, fiery chariot: physical media of divine power >body & soul not separated >Ascension >Assumption >see Wednesday Sunday School

Elisha and Naaman: baptism >physical media >Gentile healing

Elisha's bones: physical media of divine power >relics >saints

Isaiah: unclean lips, etc., >sin purged by fire >Purgatory

Isaiah: Shebna & Eliakim >authority of office >Jesus & Peter

Isaiah: the feast for all nations >Chosen people vs. Gentiles >Wedding feast of the Lamb

Ezekiel: I will sprinkle you, etc. >baptism >change of heart >sprinkling vs. immersion > sprinkling water vs. blood

Annunciation: free will >miraculous conception >Mary and Eve >Isaiah: virgin >Hail Mary prayer

Visitation: miraculous conception >Sara >leaping John >abortion >Hail Mary prayer

Nativity, Magi, Herod >Chosen people vs. Gentiles >gifts >refuge in Egypt >Isaiah >see: Christmas Party!

Cana: marriage >wedding feast >Mother's intercession > 4th commandment >wine miracle >best for last >abundance >alcohol

John the Baptist: baptism of repentance >drowning/cleansing >Isaiah >Lamb of God >Trinity >Jesus- a sinner? >40

Salome: marriage >chastity

Rich Young Man: decalogue >materialism >Jesus loved

Mt 25 Judgement of nations through least of my brothers: Jesus judges by works >see Jesus in fellow man >body/soul/faith/works

Heal paralytic: action required, not just faith > sin and illness >intercession >authority >forgiving sin > see Dat ain't God

Heal blind man, clay, Pharisees: healing through physical media >obstinate pride >pride/blind/humble >see Dat ain't God

Heal centurion's servant, Jairus' daughter, demon-possessed son: healing through intercession >action required, not just faith >Mass (I am not worthy...) >see Mass Density (Mass, not mass)

Woman w/ hemorrhage: healing through physical media >action required, not just faith

Render to Caesar: legitimate authority

Loaves & Fishes through Bread of Life: delegated authority of apostles > eating flesh & blood >Mass >faith vs. understanding >see Don't Reach...Ask!

Wedding Feast parable: Revelations Wedding Feast of the Lamb > proper attire >Chosen people vs. Gentiles >see

Heal on Sabbath/ Rub grain on Sabbath: cui bono Sabbath?

Prodigal Son: repentance >selfishness >confession >forgiveness >happiness >Rembrandt

The Two Sons: faith & works

Last Supper: old & new Passover meal >Bread of Life discourse > Melchizedek >Mass

Gethsemane: prayers answered, sometimes God's answer is no.

Arrest thru Crucifixion: Peter breaks oral contract, denies 3x >Lamb >broken bones >blood & water >hyssop >Good Thief

Resurrection up to Ascension: Anastasis >Sheol >faith & doubt >apostles receive Holy Spirit, authorized to forgive/ retain sins >confession >Jesus in & out of time >explains OT to apostles >restore oral contract 3x love/feed sheep >see Anastasis

Ascension >Second Coming >Assumption >Elijah >Enoch >Jesus physically in Heaven

Replacing Judas with Matthias, Acts 13 hands laid on Paul, 2Tim Paul's hands laid on Timothy: authority physically transmitted >Isaac and Jacob >bishops

Acts: episkopos, presbuteros, diakonos: papa >hierarchy >office >authority >see Bishops and Telescopes

Acts: Paul healing through facecloths & aprons >faith & works >healing through physical media >relics >see: Let's Get Physical

Paul discussing burning away of dross: works >Purgatory >Malachi 3 purifying fire >Isaiah

James: body & soul/faith & works >dead faith

1John: spirit, blood, water > baptism >Paschal Lamb >blood & water at crucifixion

Revelations, resurrection of the dead, General Judgement, New Jerusalem >Judged by works >Pilgrims vs. nomads >pilgrim church reaches destination >no temple >restoration of status quo ante, i.e., Earthly Paradise >body & soul restored >Eden restored >Lamb's Supper >Mass >see Nomads & Revelations

Convertibles & Choice

We revisit subject matter in class all through the year, depending on how important it is, or how much it relates to the topic at hand. Abortion is a big deal (no, not the only big deal), so it comes up in different contexts. One such context is the issue of free will (a good thing), which some kids will conflate with 'choice' in the abortion sense. We discuss the incorrect idea that some of them have already imbibed, that to endorse 'choice' is not a de facto condoning of abortion.

For most of my life I've been around convertibles. I grew up in a convertible family, and I currently have an inherited Oldsmobile that's a bit older than the one in the picture.

What do you call a car that has a roof that goes up and down? A convertible.

Yes. I have one. I can choose to have the the roof up or down. Most cars aren't like that. The roof is permanently up. You can't choose to have the roof up or down on most cars. With a convertible you have an alternative.

So...trick question, do I have a convertible so I can have that choice, up or down? Well.....why else would you have it? They sense something is wrong with the question, how it's phrased.

Let me ask it this way: suppose I buy a new convertible. My neighbor comes over, says: pretty car, is it nice with the top down? I say, I don't know. I'm not ever going to put it down. What would he think? Then why did you get a convertible?

Well, maybe I just like the idea of being able to have the top up or down even if I'll never put it down. What's wrong with that? But if you aren't going to ever put it down it doesn't matter if it goes down or not.

So if the reason to have a convertible isn't to be able to put the top up or down, what is the reason for one? To put the top down.

Yes. The whole idea of being able to choose doesn't mean anything if no choice is going to be made. I can choose to punch myself in the nose...am I ever going to? Ha! NO!

And if I choose to not punch myself in the nose, am I really choosing anything? No, it only matters if you pick the other thing.

Yes. Not hitting myself is normal, typical, standard, just like the roof on a car. It's not a choice, not an alternative. I don't sit around all day & constantly choose not to hit myself. But I would have to choose if I did punch myself; that would be the alternative.

So does it matter that I can choose to punch myself in the nose? No. Why? Because you won't ever do it.

Right, that'd be what we'd call a theoretical choice, I'd never choose that, it's just a idea with no practical value. Like a convertible top that never goes down.

On the other hand, a long time ago it was against the law to drink alcohol, but adults are free to choose to drink nowadays. I like being able to choose....why? 'Cause you like to have a beer after class! (having a beer after class is a running joke)

That's right, I do! But at the same time I know a lot of lives are ruined by drinking and thousands of people get killed by drunk drivers. But I want a beer sometimes, or wine with dinner, and even though much pain is caused by other people's drinking.....it's worth it to me. I don't support drunk driving, but I have to accept that by insisting on my right to have a drink, that other innocent people will die because of alcohol. I have to be OK with that...in a small way, I share responsibility for those deaths & ruined lives because I am pro-choice on alcohol, even though personally I have never hurt anyone by drinking alcohol.

Now suppose I say I'm not in favor of the death penalty, but I'm pro-choice on the death penalty. I support the right of judges & juries to choose to have criminals executed, but I don't support the death penalty. Is that ok? No...that doesn't make sense.....

Yes. And if I say I'm pro-choice on abortion but don't support abortion? That doesn't make sense either.

Now, y'all know that people can have abortions in America. People will say they don't support abortion, abortions are terrible, but they want us to have the right to choose an abortion. Now if someone wants the right to choose an abortion, but refuses to ever have one, what's the point?
There isn't a point. Right, so what is the point of choice in this case? To have an abortion.

Yes. Remember the convertible top, remember my un-punched nose, and remember my beer: if you don't want to choose the alternative, then you won't care about the choice. And if you support the choosing, you share in the responsibility for the choice.

Speaking of my nose: do you know why it is such a handsome nose? It's not handsome!
Please...be charitable...do you know why it's so handsome? Why?
Because....it's hand-picked!
And the 6th grade girls say "EEEeeewww!"

Don't Reach...Ask!

You just never know where in the Bible Catholicism will rear its ugly head. For example, let's look at the miracle of the Loaves and Fishes. No, this isn't about the Bread Miracle; no, not the Overbundance of Blessing, and no, not the preliminary for the Bread of Life Discourse. As Noah Cross said, "Mr. Gittes, you may think you know what you're getting into, but believe me, you don't."

Here's the story. It shows up in all 4 Gospels. This is mostly John's account with a bit of the Synoptics thrown in:

I have compassion on the multitude, because they have now been with me three days, and have nothing to eat.

[The apostles say:] Send them away, that they may go into the country round about, and into the villages, and buy themselves bread: for they have nothing to eat.

He answered and said unto them, Give ye them to eat.

And his disciples answered him, Whence can a man satisfy these men with bread here in the wilderness?

He saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? Go and see.
One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, saith unto him,
There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many? He said, Bring them hither to me.
And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.
And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would.
When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.
Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten.

Not too long; Jesus doesn't say anything cryptic; doesn't quote the Old Testament; pretty straightforward.

Here are the characters in this story: Jesus, the apostles and the people.

Here's an outline:

1. Jesus tells the apostles the people need to eat.

2. Apostles propose dismissing them to buy food in nearby towns.

3. Jesus tells apostles, y'all feed 'em.

4. Apostles say, how we gonna do that?

5. Jesus asks apostles, what food is there?

6. Apostles inform Jesus a kid has some loaves & fish.

7. Jesus tells apostles to bring Him the food; they do.

8. Jesus tells apostles to get everyone seated; they do.

9. Jesus blesses the food; distibutes it to the apostles; they distribute it to the people.

10. After all have eaten, Jesus tells apostles to gather up the leftovers. They do.

Here's a stripped-down schematic:

Jesus (people need to eat)>

Apostles (send 'em out to buy)>

Jesus (y'all feed 'em)>

Apostles (how?)>

Jesus (what food is available?)>

Apostles (check for food)>

People (boy with food)>

Apostles (kid has some food)>

Jesus (bring it here)

Apostles (deliver food)>

Jesus (blesses it, distributes to Apostles)>

Apostles (distribute food to people)>

People (eat)>

Apostles (cleanup)

Why, oh why, do I care about this? Because it shows Jesus exercising his Authority exclusively through his apostles even though he is there. Only Apostles speak with Jesus; people speak only with Apostles. Jesus never speaks or listens to the people. Apostles mediate the entire miracle. In this case, not even the little children are permitted to come to Jesus: the Apostles bring Jesus the loaves & fishes, not the boy who had them. Jesus gives the food to the Apostles; they distribute it to the people; they clean up the leftovers. Except for doing the indispensable God part, Jesus delegated the whole miracle to his lieutenants (lieu-tenant, place-holder).

What we are looking at is the management prototype for the Church in general: Christ's authorized agents hierarchically conducting his business with his people. This establishes a model for how the church will be run after the Ascension.

And it's a model for the Mass in particular: people hunger; people have some food, but it's lacking; they bring it to the priest, who presents it to Jesus; Jesus works a food miracle; the priest distributes the miraculous food; the people receive it; the priest cleans up the leftovers.

The lesson is, for some things you can go straight to Jesus; for other things though, you can't. You have to go through his visible Church, and through the sinners who have authority. How physical; how annoying; how humbling.

Yes, you may say, but Jesus used the Apostles because there were so many people, there's no point being made about authority or access. Maybe. But Jesus could have removed the crowd's hunger any way he wanted to; or even sent them home before they had a chance to get hungry; but maybe he chose this rather cumbersome method in order to publicly make clear His delegation of authority....so that after he ascended, His Church wouldn't fragment into little pieces over the question of....you know....Authority.

Dietrich and the Sea Turtles

Today I read this abortion quote by German Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer:

"Destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed upon this nascent life. To raise the question of whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of its life. And that is nothing but murder." (1940-3)

Indeed. Pretty old quote, by the way.

Here's how we handle this concept in South Carolina Wednesday Sunday School:

Who went to the beach last year? Lots of hands go up. Which beaches did you go to? Myrtle Beach! Edisto Island! Garden City! Pawley's! Folly Beach!

OK, who has seen the sea turtle nests with the fences around them and the signs? Bunch of hands go up again. I ask someone to tell the class what we are talking about.

Who has seen the baby turtles hatch? I haven't, but the occasional child has, and will describe it vividly.

And who has seen an adult sea turtle? No-one, except at an aquarium.

Easy question: if I were to catch and eat fish or crabs at the beach, is that OK? That's OK, we go crabbing, it's ok to eat them. And we eat the fish that we catch.

How about if I caught a sea turtle, could I eat it? NO! That's against the law!

Yes, because sea turtles are protected. There aren't many of them, so to kill even one would be bad.

But here's tonight's trick question: I know it's illegal to kill a sea turtle, but why are the nests protected? (I am playing stupid here) Because we have to protect the turtles!

(More stupid) Yes, but there are no turtles in the nest. But there are eggs in the nest!

C'mon, turtle eggs aren't turtles.....don't y'all know that? It's pretty obvious to me. Yes but there's a baby turtle in the egg, Stratopops! (How dense can I be?)

Well, maybe when they're about to hatch, but at first the eggs are just full of goop, like chicken eggs. Could I make myself some scrambled turtle eggs if I made sure they had just been laid, and I couldn't see even a tiny turtle in them? If the cops came, I'd just say, well, there weren't any turtles in the eggs yet. No, it's still going to be a turtle, you can't ever eat it.

Yeah, but look: not all the eggs hatch, and not all the hatchlings get into the sea, not all of those that do live very long, sometimes just a few minutes. Considering how few eggs actually become independent turtles in the sea, can't we say the eggs are just possible turtles, potential turtles, and I can eat them? No, it's still the same as killing a turtle, even if all the eggs wouldn't make turtles anyway.

OK (I finally see the light). Let's think about human babies for a bit. We all know it's wrong to kill a baby. I take out my plastic fetus. And it's wrong to kill a little fetus like this one even if it doesn't look like a regular baby yet, right? It's still a baby even if it's weird-looking.

Yes. I put a dot on the board. This dot is bigger than either a human embryo, or a turtle embryo when they are just a few days old; they are very small, almost invisible. You might not even be able to tell the turtle from the human under a microscope. If it's just a dot of cells, then is it ok to kill a turtle embryo? No, it's already a turtle even if it's a little dot.

Right...and how about the human embryo? It's just like with the turtle, it's a baby the whole time.
So if you kill a turtle embryo what do you kill? A turtle.
And how about a human embryo? You'd be killing a baby, a person.
And what's that called when you kill an unborn baby? Abortion.
Yes.

plus encore Tempus Fugit

Psalm 128:

"Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table."

This Thursday we'll celebrate our 21st wedding anniversary; last Saturday the Elder Daughter attended her Senior Prom.

Did I mention that time flies? Don't even blink.

The Future Is a Few Years Old Now

I remember this Eastern Savant (above) used to be on TV and predict things, figure out hidden meanings, that sort of stuff. I can't check if he was right or not, there are no written records of his predictions.

But there are plenty of old predictions of the consequences of widespread contraception. What follows is a sampling of what a bunch of repressed killjoys had to say, but first a bit from contraception's Pandora Moment:

1930 Lambeth Conference

Resolution 15: The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex
Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.

Yeah, yeah. Whatever. Oh, and by the way:

Resolution 16: The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex
The Conference further records its abhorrence of the sinful practice of abortion.

No worries. We'll open it just a crack, and slam it shut again.

Celibates & Nerds respond:

1930 Pope Pius XI

For now, alas, not secretly nor under cover, but openly, with all sense of shame put aside, now by word again by writings, by theatrical productions of every kind, by romantic fiction, by amorous and frivolous novels, by cinematographs portraying in vivid scene, in addresses broadcast by radio telephony, in short by all the inventions of modern science, the sanctity of marriage is trampled upon and derided; divorce, adultery, all the basest vices either are extolled or at least are depicted in such colors as to appear to be free of all reproach and infamy. Books are not lacking which dare to pronounce themselves as scientific but which in truth are merely coated with a veneer of science in order that they may the more easily insinuate their ideas.

.....some men go so far as to concoct new species of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the times, which various new forms of matrimony they presume to label "temporary," "experimental," and "companionate." These offer all the indulgence of matrimony and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without offspring, unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a matrimony in the full sense of the law.
Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be legitimatized by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of the modern "culture" in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples.

1931 Washington Post (!?)

It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation or suppression of human birth. The [Anglican] church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the "scientific" production of human souls. Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee's report, if carried into effect, would sound the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution, by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be "careful and restrained" is preposterous.

1933 Christopher Dawson:

....the use of contraceptives has made sexual intercourse independent of parenthood, and the marriage of the future will be confined to those who seek parenthood for its own sake rather than as the natural fulfilment of sexual love.
But under these circumstances who will trouble to marry?
Marriage will lose all attractions for the young and the pleasure-loving and the poor and the ambitious.......It is impossible to imagine a system more contrary to the first principles of social well-being.
So far from helping modern society to surmount its present difficulties, it only precipitates the crisis. It must lead inevitably to a social decadence far more rapid and more universal than that which brought about the disintegration of ancient civilization. The advocates of birth-control can hardly fail to realize the consequences of a progressive decline of the population in a society in which it is already almost stationary, but for all that their propaganda is entirely directed towards a further diminution in the birth rate.
Many...are obsessed by the idea that over-population is the main cause of war and that a diminishing birth rate is the best guarantee of international peace. There is, however, nothing in history to justify this belief.
If, however, questions of population should give rise to war in the future, there can be no doubt that it is nations with wide possessions and a dwindling population who will be most likely to provoke an attack.
But it is much more likely that the process will be a peaceful one. The peoples who allow the natural bases of society to be destroyed by the artificial conditions of the new urban civilization will gradually disappear and their place will be taken by those populations which live under simpler conditions and preserve the traditional forms of the family.

1967 Pope Paul VI

.......a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

The Future these reactionaries anticipated has been around so long it's practically the Past. I guess we should look ahead toward an even better, brighter future. The old future is the new baseline, the jumping-off point.

A more...Enlightened future, if that's possible; just imagine.