In the West, we just celebrated Easter. In the East, where the Old Calendar is sometimes used, it's today. This might mean, for the observant, that they were in Church the prior Sunday, in which case, for churches using the Catholic liturgical calendar, they heard this.
Then Judas, his betrayer, seeing that Jesus had been condemned,
deeply regretted what he had done.
He returned the thirty pieces of silver
to the chief priests and elders, saying,
"I have sinned in betraying innocent blood."
They said,
"What is that to us?
Look to it yourself."
Flinging the money into the temple,
he departed and went off and hanged himself.
We all know, of course, that Judas was Christ's betrayer. Not too many stop to think that he was seized with remorse and hung himself.
Why was he so miserable?
Probably for the same reason that Western society, on the whole, is.
He thought of himself and chose his own inner wishes rather than being willing to sacrifice.
It's struck me recently that this is the defining quality of our age. We won't sacrifice and don't believe we should have to. It explains a lot.
Interestingly, in a matter of synchronicity, after I started writing this I happened to listen to an episode of Catholic Stuff You Should Know on Augustine's City of God and Lewis' The Great Divorce that ties in perfectly. It's here:
Also, a matter of synchronicity, we passed the 111th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic after I started this.
The wealthy men on board the doomed ship, and a lot of the other men, stayed on the sinking ship so that women and children would be saved. The men who went were largely the crew, needed to man the lifeboats as part of their tasks. Otherwise, men didn't complain, they just stepped aside so that as few women and children as possible wouldn't die. A Catholic Priest stayed with them to prepare them for entry into the next life. All of them were living up to a standard, but the interesting thing to note there is that it was a standard. They were heroic, but not because they exceeded the standard, but rather because the occasion came to apply it, and they unflinchingly did.
Now we shove women into combat, something that in any prior age would be regarded as an outright societal act of cowardice and a complete failure of male virtue.
We've come a long ways, all right. And not in a good way.
Sacrifice was almost the defining quality of any prior age, or at least those that preceded the late 1960s, and very much the defining quality of the 18th through mid 20th Centuries. Men would die before they'd let women and children be injured, and if they didn't, they'd be branded as cowards for the rest of their lives.
Most people married, and marriage was understood to have a sacrificial element to it in numerous ways. People didn't "write their own vows", the vows were part of the ceremony and they were, well, vows. Promises you weren't getting out of, in other words.
Latin Rite English wedding vows still reflect this. The entire series of events reads goes as follows.
First, the Priest asks a series of questions, to which the couple responds "I do", or words that effect:
(Name) and (name), have you come here to enter into Marriage without coercion, freely and wholeheartedly?"
"Are you prepared, as you follow the path of Marriage, to love and honor each other for as long as you both shall live?"
"Are you prepared to accept children lovingly from God and to bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?"
Only after ascent to that, the Priest reads:
Priest (or deacon): Since it is your intention to enter into the covenant of Holy Matrimony, join your right hands, and declare your consent before God and his Church.
Groom: I, (name), take you, (name), to be my wife. I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life.
Bride: I, (name), take you, (name), to be my husband. I promise to be faithful to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, to love you and to honor you all the days of my life.
The element of sacrifice is so strong in marriage, that in Croatia, a Catholic country, an added element is present, in which the Priest states:
You have found your cross. And it is a cross to be loved, to be carried, a cross not to be thrown away, but to be cherished.
That's really heavy. That's not a fuzzy bunny, flowery rose, type of view of marriage at all. You're signing up for a real burden.
But one to be cherished.
And that's the thing that the West has lost.
We don't want to sacrifice at all.
If you look at life prior to the late 1960s, sacrifice was darned near universal. Everyone, nearly, married and divorce was rare. People sacrificed for their marriages. Most married couples had children, and having children entailed sacrifice. Reflecting the common values of the time well, the screenwriter of The Magnificent Seven summed it up in this fashion in a comparison of family men to hired gunfighters:
Village Boy 2 : We're ashamed to live here. Our fathers are cowards.
Bernardo O'Reilly : Don't you ever say that again about your fathers, because they are not cowards. You think I am brave because I carry a gun; well, your fathers are much braver because they carry responsibility, for you, your brothers, your sisters, and your mothers. And this responsibility is like a big rock that weighs a ton. It bends and it twists them until finally it buries them under the ground. And there's nobody says they have to do this. They do it because they love you, and because they want to. I have never had this kind of courage. Running a farm, working like a mule every day with no guarantee anything will ever come of it. This is bravery. That's why I never even started anything like that... that's why I never will.
The line, "And this responsibility is like a big rock that weighs a ton. It bends and it twists them until finally it buries them under the ground." was literally true for many. Indeed, it's been noted that up until some point after World War Two Finland, which routinely comes in as the happiest country on Earth, had a very early male death rate, simply because the men there worked hard, and basically worked themselves into the grave for their families.
People were not, of course, perfect, and therefore children naturally arrived on the scene with an unmarried origin. Depending upon the age of the couple, that often ended up in a marriage before the child was born, adding an added element of sacrifice in which the couple sacrificed, in essence, an element of freedom or even their future for what they'd brought about. When that didn't occur, the child was more often than not given up for adoption, which involves an element of sacrifice, but because it arises in a different context, we'll not get too deeply into that.
Things tended to be focused on that fashion. There were people who didn't follow this path, but they were a minority.
This has been portrayed, since the 1970s, as some sort of horrible oppression. But the surprising secret of it is that people seem to be hardwired for it, and when it's absent, they descend into, well, a descent.
None of which is to say that sacrifices aren't present in the modern world. They are, although by and large society tries enormously to avoid them.
It's tried the hardest in regard to the natural instincts of all kinds. People are able to avoid nature, and so they do, least they have to sacrifice. But that's a sacrifice in and of itself, but for what?
The self, is what we were told initially. But the self in this context turns out to be for the economy. In a fairly straight line, we're told that you should avoid commitments to anything requiring commitment, so that you can get a good career, make lots of money, and go to Ikea.
Very fulfilling?
Ummm. . .
No, not at all.
In The Great Divorce, which I haven't read but which Catholic Things summarized extensively, Lewis placed a self focused Anglican Bishop in the role of the self-centered intellect. Self Centered is the epitome of the current age. And that self-centered role placed the figure in Hell.
We're doing a good job of that figuratively for the same reason, and literally as well.
Marjory Taylor Greene, left, Howler Monkey's right (By Steve from washington, dc, usa - howler monkees doing their thing, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3963947). One of these examples is shameful, and it ain't the one on the right.
This is an interesting and in my view largely correct, insightful blog entry by Robert Reich:
It also comes, I'd note, on the same day that a Wyoming Republic commentator made what are somewhat similar comments, calling a member of the GOP Central Committee a hypocrite in no uncertain, and indeed highly crude, terms, although if true, they'd be deserving ones.
And hence, I guess, my comment.
While I think that what Reich is complaining about is in fact shameful, which starts with Marjorie Taylor Greene acting like a Howler Monkey during the State of the Union Address, how the crap can anyone on the hardcore political left sincerely make this claim? The hard left in the country has spent the last 50 years totally dismantling any concept of shame in absolutely everything whatsoever.
And that's a lot of the reason why we are exactly where we are.
Do we have no shame?
Of course not. We were told that nothing is shameful.
And indeed, this tracks well into the purpose of this blog, looking at then. . .and now. And, moreover, we often fail to note this trend, i.e., descent, in literature, as we assume that everyone in the past was living in the sewer or wanted to be like us, in the sewer.
That's truly not how it was.
I'll admit that I am torn in how to present this post. When I started drafting it, I found I went into detail on where shame has exited. I hadn't intended in the first place that the thread be a catalog of things formerly shameful, and now no longer shameful. And in looking at it, I don't think that's the correct approach. Maybe I'll expand on individual items later.
But what I will note, is there are a lot of things that were once regarded as highly shameful, in the arena of personal conduct, that no longer are, and in some instances, left-wing social engineers have gone so far as to impose shame on anyone commenting on them, or not engaging in them. Shame hasn't really left in that sense, it's been transferred.
Taking what is a short arch of history, but a long one in terms of individual lives, since World War Two, and really, since the late 1960s, a massive effort has been expended on this by the left. Even as late as the early 1980s, for instance, many things that are now not shameful, were.
Sex outside of marriage, particularly for women (or girls) was shameful.1 Having a baby out of wedlock was shameful.2 Homosexuality was shameful.3 Men dressing in women's clothes or affecting a female appearance was shameful. Prostitution was shameful4 . Avarice was shame, including avarice in these areas.5
Even into the 1970s, being divorced conveyed an element of shame.6 Living with the opposite gender and not being married was shameful.
Well beyond that, having a child and not supporting the child economically, even to the point of your own well-being being impaired, was shameful.
While it was definitely changing during the 60s, putting yourself on display, i.e., being an "exhibitionist" was shameful.
Pornography, even after Playboy, and its consumption, was shameful.
All this started getting ripped down in the late 1940s, it accelerated in the 60s and 70s, and it's gone on to really stretch the balloon in our present age. The results have quite frankly been a disastrous assault on nature.
Now, I don't wish to suggest that every conveyance of shame was warranted or a good thing. There were some really bad results. The high abortion rates of the 70s and 80s were partially due to it being simply too shameful in many people's minds to bear a child out of wedlock, with the shame being imposed both on the young woman, but also on her family. That this has ended is a good thing.
But the Me Generation's deep dive into themselves, and "if it feels good, do it", as the ethos, has been hugely destructive. The KIA, MIA, and WIA of the Sexual Revolution has caused a limping society. The focus on "me" lead to a focus on "mine", destroying community and boosting greed.
And in no small part, it's lead to where we are in things like Reich has complained about, and not just in this post. It's all sort of the same package. If the whole world is about me, me, me, and my needs, needs, needs, I really don't need to care what anyone else thinks or even reality. The difference, therefore, between Marjorie Taylor Greene howling for attention and a transgender advocates demanding that a man be viewed as a woman, as he wants to be, are really thin. Likewise, the difference between a AoC and Elon Mus isn't all that much.
Also, really thin is the difference between individualized self-expression, including pantless individualized self-expression, and Harvey Weinstein pulling the latter off of somebody else. It all just goes together. In a way that they likely couldn't recognize, Hugh Hefner, Harvey Weinstein, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Lauren Boebert are all fellow travelers on the same destructive cultural bus.
Reich cites to shame being a necessary social engine, and it is. But you can't partially restore shame, really, as it has to be based on a larger something. You can't just say "bad", and it's bad, because it's bad. Bad things are bad, but due to something else making them bad.
We've been seeing a lot of this recently, interestingly, and some of that's a good sign. The Me Too movement is an effort to restore shame where it had once been. At least up into the 50s, if not beyond, men who expected women to put out were called "wolves", and to be tagged that was shameful. While the name was no longer around by the late 70s, early 80s, the same conduct was still not admired at that time, but Hefner and company were ripping it down, and in deed, raping it down, basically. Hollywood, where actress self prostitution was pretty common all along, was interestingly the first to really say "enough", on an individual level, and try to reverse it.
But you really have to restore the metaphysical basis for why that's wrong, to really get anywhere.
Young people, left without the guide rails of the culture that was torn down, have partially restored it as well, although groping for a basis for it remains. And in some odd ways, as we recently addressed, even the transgender movement, deep down, is an effort to reach out to get back to a less material, less perverted, time.
So here we now are. Having become comfortable with a Quasi Judaical Dictatorship that's suddenly betrayed autocracy and restored democracy, the left finds itself now championing what it had become comfortable omitting, and here at last, its rediscovered, shame.
So is this a "everything was better in the past" post? No it isn't.
But shame exist for a reason, and excising it wholly was a mistake.
Footnotes.
1. People will instantly claim that there was a double standard, and to some degree that was true, but not to the degree that people commonly imagine. It is true that it's becoming public knowledge that a girl had sex outside of marriage would tarnish, and often severely, her reputation, and if it was a case of multiple men, it would put her in a category that would be difficult to ever get out of, but men who were multiple standard violators likewise got tagged with a permanent, indeed lifelong, reputation they couldn't get out of either. They had greater leeway than women, but not absolute leeway.
2. As noted in later in the thread, this probably partially lead to the high abortion rates of the 70s and 80s. It also, however, lead to a lot of children being given up for adoption in a process in which the pregnant girl often absented herself, or her family absented her, for a period of time so that the pregnancy would not be discovered. I know at least one person who experienced, this, later going on to a very respected adult life and the pregnancy not being discovered until after she had died. As there was a high demand for healthy infants to adopt, and frankly white healthy infants (and there still is), this often worked out well for the adopted as well. Again, I personally know one such person whose mother was a college student when she became pregnant and the father never knew.
Indeed, that latter item is surprisingly common. You'd think the distressed young woman would have always told the father, but often, they didn't. This is because they didn't want, quite often, to be faced with the choice of marrying the individual, which also often occurred. Such marriages usually happened quickly before the woman "showed". In cases in which the women were in their 20s, they often just didn't want to be married to the man in the end, and for teens, their families didn't want to put them in that spot, quite often. And of course, date rape wasn't really a concept at the time, and therefore in cases in which that resulted in pregnancy, not wanting to marry the man made sense.
3. This tended to have an arresting influence on open displays of homosexuality, and it also led to quite a few homosexuals simply suppressing it individually, or even refusing to acknowledge it in any sense.
4. It still mostly is, of course, but there are ongoing efforts to break this down.
The degree to which prostitution is shameful, although not really being a prostitute, tends to change by era. In rough and ready frontier areas, the institution tends to exist pretty openly, and it also tended to very much be associated with certain armies, sometimes by compulsion. That doesn't necessarily mean that the individual shame associated with it evaporates, but rather the tolerance of it is pretty open. In other eras, there's very low tolerance for it.
There tends to be a myth that prostitutes were the founding women in a lot of regions of the frontier, which is just flatly false. I've heard this myth associated with one local, now long deceased, historian, but as I've never read his work, and for acquired bias reasons I'm unlikely to, I don't know if that's really true. Be that as it may, the most typical fate for prostitutes was early death, due to the lack of protection from disease.
5. But not just in these areas. Being "greedy" has been something that's always been around, but which wasn't tolerated in the way it now is until after the Reagan Administration came in.
Americans have always had a very high tolerance for the accumulation of wealth, but not to the present level. Simply being wealthy is not a sign of avarice, but having wealth was at one time very much associated with a social expectation of charity. Quite a few wealthy people still exhibit that trait today.
"I pay my taxes", while something nobody likes doing, was actually something the very wealthy used in their self-defense at one time, as the upper tax rate was extremely high.
6. Fault, of course, had to be demonstrated for divorce up until nearly everyplace, or maybe everyplace, adopted "no-fault divorce".
Divorce is really regarded as being routine today, but even into the 1970s it was a mark against a person.
