Hugh Hefner sacrificed the human person. Catholics, beware of doing the same.

Hefner is not alone in thinking we may feed as many bodies we like into the oven, as long as we tell ourselves we’re building a fire that benefits all of mankind (and never mind that mankind is made up of individual bodies just like the last one that passed through our hands).

It’s wrong when Hugh Hefner does it, and it’s wrong when anyone does it. If we catch ourselves feeding an individual human into the flames to fuel the fire of our just cause, then we are no longer just.

Read the rest of my latest for The Catholic Weekly.

Photo by Alan Light via Flickr (Creative Commons)

Liked it? Take a second to support simchajfisher on Patreon!

20 thoughts on “Hugh Hefner sacrificed the human person. Catholics, beware of doing the same.”

  1. It should be noted that while there are people using other people’s bodies, there are also willing participants. There are a lot of women who were willing to take their clothes off and bed Hefner. That man in question isn’t the only perpetrator– not when there’s thousands of women who don’t think there’s anything wrong with it.

  2. He was a predicted result of feminism by Pius XI:

    “More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man.”

    Unfortunately, the Catholic establishment still prefers to lecture men about how they are causing feminism to fail. Modern feminist marriage is basically unattractive to pretty much everyone. That’s the ground Playboy sprouted from.

      1. I dunno, my husband seems happy. Basing my reply on an understanding of ‘modern feminist Marriage’ as one where men and women bear equal responsibility and influence for decisions that affect the family.

          1. Nevermind, found it. Paragraph 75 of Casti Connubi.

            Note that the paragraph before (paragraph 74) notes that a woman can’t conduct affairs outside the home if they mean neglecting home and family. I think ‘if they neglect home and family’s is the operative phrase here. Otherwise St. Zelie Martin and St. Gianna Molla have some explaining to do, seeing as both of them worked in business outside the home to bring in an income. An earlier paragraph (paragraph 28) even says a woman should take the lead role in her family if the man neglects it, and the one before that (paragraph 27) says a woman is not required to be subject to her husband if what he asks is against her human dignity or ‘not in harmony with right reason.’

            I don’t think a marriage in which both man and woman take part in making day to day and major decisions is against Church teaching in Pius XI’s time based on a reading of the whole document. Take into account Eph 5, which states that a man should die for the good of his wife as Christ died for the Church, and it seems that the point of this document is that BOTH man and woman have a responsibility to the good of the family. A
            man should not be pursuing his own interests and career to the detriment of his family either.

            Humanae Vitae and Theology of the Body seem to be an extension of the themes introduced here, not a conflict. I think modern church teaching is consistent with Church teaching in the 30s.

          2. It’s interesting to note that St. Zelie was actually the primary breadwinner in the family. Her husband quit his watch making business to make lace for her lace making business.

          3. I read Story of a Soul so i know a little about them. It honestly doesn’t surprise me that they would choose that couple to canonize. It’s perfect because she’s easily imagined as a proto feminist and he was apparently psychologically fragile and had a mental breakdown and had to be institutuonalized. That’s the kind of man the establishment holds up as the ideal for men.

          4. St. Therese goes into a lot of detail in Story of a Soul about how her father led her to her faith and her vocation. And it’s strongly suggested that his health struggles later in life came about because he offered himself as a victim soul to God. I think he’s a great saint for men to emulate.

  3. Well, your examples are certainly….interesting. I would say they represent less of what you think they do and more a type of selective indignation, but you probably wouldn’t agree or care. I suppose you are going to be trotting out Fr Pavone, Donald Trump and unnamed prolifers as your whipping boys until you’ve finally satisfied yourself. Whenever that will be. Does strike me as ironic. You are in this very post doing the thing you claim ought not be done.
    If you think you are right, then let your conscience convict you and do the thing you claim should be done.

    1. AH. -Huh? No offense (I don’t even know you), but you seem to have an axe to grind, rather than a useful point to make. Consider your comment from this point of view: would Simcha’s post have been as clear had she *not* used specific examples?

      There’s a difference between
      ▫ using someone’s behavior as an example,
      ▫ demonstrating a lack of interest in, or regard for, a person’s dignity/what they in justice are due, wouldn’t you say?

      1. Well I don’t know you either but my point is to Simcha, being that it seems she has a certain “axe to grind”. I think it’s totally ridiculous to compare Hugh Hefner’s life legacy to the people/examples she picked….she’s picked on these people before. She clearly doesn’t like them. So then she uses them as her examples…cause she doesn’t like them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *