 |
| 'Equality': A concept so old as to be considered a relic |
‘Equality’ is not a true law, nor can it justly be called a right. It’s dominance of popular culture has rendered it worse than a myth. If people are caught up in the notion of equality today it is because man easily becomes caught up in superstition.
What has given the word ‘equality’ – a word that has never lost its emotive power since the dawn of the Enlightenment - the power and force that it has in today’s society?
We now hear this word, particularly in the realm of gender and sexuality so much and it so dominates the public forum that for anybody to contradict the very notion of equality is to have committed a formal and public act of heresy that warrants public exclusion, potential loss of employment and perhaps worse.
The fear and hatred generated against those who have contradicted the concept of equality is visceral and powerful. Why? What has made rejection of this belief so highly charged? The simple truth would appear to be that the concept of equality has, as if from nowhere, acquired magical power or connotations of divinity that it does not deserve. From out of nowhere, ‘Equality’ has become a god, or a goddess before which those who refuse to burn incense are deemed to be enemies of the State and the people.
What has given this concept such force that it now rivals the Christian Church itself as a belief that threatens to engulf and destroy it and, indeed, anybody else who dares to stand in its way?
For full article, click here.
29 comments:
I think it comes down to denying Truth, because Truth is not lies, so it makes distinctions. the hegemony of 'equality' undermines distinctions, right and wrong included; so one is against 'equality' if one recognises either in one's own life or another's, sin. and likewise, if one with that despised 'Christian triumphalism', proclaims Truth, this must likewise be 'equalised' so that we don't know to rise above the lies.
-
as for 'gender equality', like all 'equalities', all it has done is destroy a generation's ability to understand the distinction between man and woman; or for that matter a mother and an unborn baby - the baby is simply a bit of the mother that she doesn't want, all things being 'equal'.
Apart from the obvious distinctions between people, is it not the case that everyone is equal in the love of God? In fact this belief is the origin of the contemporary (secular) commitment to rights and equality. Rather than denigrating it it is something to rejoice at - and then help people to see that it has and needs the divine underpinning.
Is it true that God dispenses His gifts equally? Does He love people equally? Nothing really testifies to this. We know that God loves all people, but it is not known whether this is equally. Neither will we be judged equally. God will judge with equity, but is that the same? If God was into equality, He would not have made one woman in Mary immaculate. We will pray to her but we will never have the same merit that she has.
St. Paul says that God has no favourites. In that sense everybody has the whole of God and his love available to them and therefore are equal in his love. Merit and deserts play no part in God's attitude to us. It is, I believe, our human projection of distinction-making, onemanupship etc. onto him that makes us see God in this way, but his ways are not our ways, his thoughts not our thoughts (Isaiah).
Savonarola: We may have equal rights but that does not make us equal in any other sense.
St. Paul says that God has no favourites.
That does not mean that God loves all men equally because equally means 'the same' or in the same way.
No. God loves perfectly, because when He looks at humanity He does not see a sea of people, but each and every soul uniquely as His creation, made in His image and likeness.
I concede that you could be right here and I could be wrong, but God's love is perfect. The language of 'equality' makes God's love seem as if it were a blanket over the world.
It is much more personal than that, surely!
It is much more intimate!
The lives of the Saints teach us that God gives some Catholics more grace than others. Even their co-operation with Grace was inspired by the Holy Spirit. God is always the first mover.
Therefore, can we really say that God loves all equally?
That would still not necessarily mean that in raising up these Saints, God was showing favouritism, but simply that He does not look upon the human race equally.
Another example, God chose Noah and spared his family. The rest of humanity drowned in water.
Er...equality? REALLY?????
It sounds, Bones, as if you are rather desperately trying to convince yourself that God's love could not be equally available to everyone, but that he must have favourites who deserve his love more than anyone else. Are you maybe like the elder brother of the prodigal? If God's love is perfect, infinite, you will not be missing anything if he favours everyone else as much as he does you. All you have to lose is your human pride and Catholic oneupmanship, a small price to pay for the infinity of divine love.
'and we know that to them that love God all things work together unto good, to such as, according to His purpose, are called to be saints.' Romans 8.28
-
God prefers those who love Him and 'keep' His commandments. God hated Esau, also, only God knows why, so, in short, this 'equal' business falls under the sin of presumption, which wants, yet again to take away the verticle on the cross and flatten it all to suit our purpose, not God's.
No, Savaronola, you are missing my point.
God's love is personal.
Saying God loves everyone 'equally' is to denigrate God's personal love for each and every person.
How does equality denigrate personal love? Cannot God love everyone personally as much as he loves everyone else personally? What else could perfect love be?
Viterbo, the understanding is: God hates the sin, but loves the sinner. How could God hate Esau or anything or anyone he creates?
apart from Esau, I suppose we can 'presume', God loves most of us, but scripture and tradition accept and teach that God loves some much more than others - as Bones points out, Noah and his family is an example. St Paul tells us to prefer the faithful to the unfaithful and give them preference. We can 'presume', he was not contradicting an equality dispensation from heaven.
-
p.s. there's an excellent book on kindle by Guido Stucco called, 'God's Eternal Gift: A History of the Catholic Doctrine of Predestination' (nothing to do with Calvin's saved and unsaved forget about free will rubbish).
How does equality denigrate personal love?
Because treating everyone equally in love would be to assume that everybody is the same. Everybody is different, therefore to treat everyone equally in love would not be love.
Some children are more sickly than others. Therefore, they need special attention!
Cannot God love everyone personally as much as he loves everyone else personally? What else could perfect love be?
A good point, but I suspect that the word 'equal' just is not helpful given the intensity of God's love. He does not love 'the masses'. He loves you!
perhaps what Savonarola is getting at is akin to the eastern concept 'equanimity' - whereby the 'enlightened' approach all with the same indifference. Love is not indifferent, God is not indifferent, since God approaches individuals with a personal dispensation - this apllies to nations as well - and especially the Body of Christ (St Paul prayed peace and mercy upon the Israel of God - no longer the Jews - but the faithful). We simply do not all receive the same - we all receive enough to avoid hell if we don't choose to refuse, but some will be God's elite, as St Paul mentioned. if we have a problem with this we'd better pray to get over it before our time comes.
For instance, if by God's mercy I make it into Heaven, my place will not be next to St Padre Pio!
Neither is it likely after death that my body will smell of delightful perfume!
p.s. exactly - we all hope to end up on beatitude boulevard, but when we get to heaven our own sense of justice will be perfected and we will be happy that Padre Pio has more glory!
p.s. sav' asked, 'how could God hate Esau'? don't really know but He did - not indifferent at least 'as it is written: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.' why? I guess we could form opinions - i guess God had plains and knew Jacob, not Esau, was His man.
p.s. apparently they had to formaldehyde Paul VI body during his funeral, it was decomposing so quickly. I guess we can't all be found incorrupt.
As the 1937 Preamble to the Irish Constitution still reads:
"In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.
At least that is how it reads in 2014.
that's a solid constitution - acknowledging Christ the King, and understanding that human dignity is what matters - 'equality' and dignity are not the same thing, especially since 'equality' strives to bring people 'down to the same' level - it thereby becomes 'oppressive' demanding anything other than nothing of anyone.
p.s. in fairness Paul VIs funeral was on a hot day. it's still a stunner - jpii was raised to the altars more quickly than Padre Pio, but, since Paul VI is scheduled for 2015, both he and john xxiii in about the same time as Padre Pio. how's that for equality!
@viterbo,
Would to God Ireland were guided and governed in such a way these days!
I sent an email to our Green MP recently to ask what his stance was towards the rights of the unborn. He replied that 'abortion is fundamental to gender equality.' I am still trying to work out what he means by that!
You have confused equality (having the same value) with equivalence (being the same thing). Men and women are not equivalent (they're not identical) but they are equal (they have the same value). Likewise with gay relationships and straight relationships.
This whole post is ridiculously stupid, and you need to learn the difference between equality and equivalence.
How any Christian can deny that God has made all people of equal value and worth is beyond me.
Correction - I should have written our Green MEP although we know that our MP holds the same views.
Pelerin: I think the logical outcome of your MPs statement is that men should have a right to choose in the same way as women have. Thus a father should have the right to force the mother to have an abortion against her will. This would merely formalise the current situation see:
http://clinicquotes.com/the-coerced-abortion-epidemic/
@anon: both 'equal' and 'equivalent' have the definition, 'the same'whether referring to quantity or quality, so not quite sure what you're on about. ('value' and 'thing' you introduced are not the exclusive property of either)
Viterbo is absolutely right. The "valence" in "equivalence" should have given the game away that it has to do with value. The etymology is Late Latin through French.
Post a Comment