When is cancel culture justified?
–
The recent rightful outrage at Balenciaga’s ad campaign got me thinking a lot about cancel culture.
–
It’s not very often that I see my online peers calling for something to be “cancelled”.
–
Perhaps it raises the debate, that while this is an obvious example of cancel-worthiness, where exactly is the line drawn?
–
It is fortunate that the sexualisation of children happens to be universally condemned in the age we live in.
–
However, what of all the other lines that have been long crossed, that we’ve now accepted as the norm of the times we live in?
–
Mainstream conservatives are often criticised for being hypocrites, for
“only being against cancel culture when they are being censored, but more than willing to cancel anything that goes against their beliefs.”
–
But see, in order for “cancelling” to really be consistent, we need the objective morality system that comes with a hierarchical, dogmatic religion like Catholicism.
–
Because Christianity has always been a religion that cancels.
–
Just as St. Nick “cancelled” the heretic Arius and punched him in the face, Catholicism “cancels” behaviours that go against Christianity.
–
But who dictates the nuances of what ought to be cancelled?
–
Without Catholicism, we cannot have true freedom. Without the objective guardrails set by a higher God-given authority, socially-accepted behaviours become a subjective, democratic decision of the times.
–
Unless Christendom can beyond the weak, elementary, subjective moral guidelines of:
“The Bible says …”
Society will always find another line to cross.
–
Lines that may not be as universally condemned as this case.
–
So when society points to Christians as hypocrites who only cancel things they don’t like, Bible thumpers can spiral into an endless debate on what the Bible says and doesn’t say.
–
But we who submit to a higher, earthly representative of a higher authority, one that gave us the Bible in the first place, can confidentially “cancel”, not based on a subjective interpretation or opinion, but based on the unchanging teachings of the Catholic Church.
–
The recent rightful outrage at Balenciaga’s ad campaign got me thinking a lot about cancel culture.
–
It’s not very often that I see my online peers calling for something to be “cancelled”.
–
Perhaps it raises the debate, that while this is an obvious example of cancel-worthiness, where exactly is the line drawn?
–
It is fortunate that the sexualisation of children happens to be universally condemned in the age we live in.
–
However, what of all the other lines that have been long crossed, that we’ve now accepted as the norm of the times we live in?
–
Mainstream conservatives are often criticised for being hypocrites, for
“only being against cancel culture when they are being censored, but more than willing to cancel anything that goes against their beliefs.”
–
But see, in order for “cancelling” to really be consistent, we need the objective morality system that comes with a hierarchical, dogmatic religion like Catholicism.
–
Because Christianity has always been a religion that cancels.
–
Just as St. Nick “cancelled” the heretic Arius and punched him in the face, Catholicism “cancels” behaviours that go against Christianity.
–
But who dictates the nuances of what ought to be cancelled?
–
Without Catholicism, we cannot have true freedom. Without the objective guardrails set by a higher God-given authority, socially-accepted behaviours become a subjective, democratic decision of the times.
–
Unless Christendom can beyond the weak, elementary, subjective moral guidelines of:
“The Bible says …”
Society will always find another line to cross.
–
Lines that may not be as universally condemned as this case.
–
So when society points to Christians as hypocrites who only cancel things they don’t like, Bible thumpers can spiral into an endless debate on what the Bible says and doesn’t say.
–
But we who submit to a higher, earthly representative of a higher authority, one that gave us the Bible in the first place, can confidentially “cancel”, not based on a subjective interpretation or opinion, but based on the unchanging teachings of the Catholic Church.
