Moral Necessity

     When one takes what is generally considered to be a "moral obligation," such as the golden rule or the Decalogue, and compares such an imperative to its practical application, he will soon find out that, in order to call it a law, he must admit that it is more like a civil law than a scientific law; i.e., the "obligation" is suggested but is not evident.  The word implies being drawn from some binding principle (cf. Latin, ligare), but there is nothing directly binding about these moral imperatives.  God Himself says, "Thou shalt not steal," but people steal all the time, and without divine intervention.  The "obligation" of such imperatives are more commonly understood in the sense that there are consequences for those who would disobey them.  In this sense, the imperative is conditional, and is properly understood as implying an "if" clause: "Thou shalt not steal - if thou wilt be spared," "Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you - if ye wish to inherit the Kingdom," etc.  This is probably the same way most people understand the moral import of civil law, e.g. "pay your taxes - if you wish to avoid punishment," which suggests that the "binding" quality of an obligation is found merely in the connection between an action and its imposed consequences.

     There are still real obligations, however, which are so immediately binding as to be called "moral necessities."  The Golden Rule nor any of the Ten Commandments are moral necessities, properly speaking.  This is simply because of what necessity is:  A necessity is that which cannot be impossible or, in other words, a necessity is something which has no alternative.  Take the 7th Commandment again: "Thou shalt not steal."  If it were a necessity, then nobody would be able to steal and, in which case, it would be superfluous to demand that men keep to their own property.  It could be argued that the very fact of the Commandments being commanded proves that they are not moral necessities, but rather practical rules which are based on necessities.  It may be that moral necessities are so little known precisely because they are necessary and not given to alteration or change of form based on their practical import.

     So, we are led to ask the question, "what then, are the moral necessities?"  Moral necessities can be found in what is called the "Natural Law."  In this case, "law" is more akin to the laws of physics than the civil law.  The necessities found in the Natural Law cannot be escaped precisely because they are necessary.  One example of a moral necessity, and part of said law, is that all men must will only what they desire.  This is about as practical as saying "all men must throw with their hands" but is nevertheless important in understanding the rules of morality, just as the necessity of throwing with one's hands is important in drafting the rules of baseball.  Nobody can choose to do something he does not desire to do (if only at least for the sake of something else) because if he chooses to do something he does not desire, he is not choosing it at all, but is rather compelled by some outside force.  (Here, perhaps, one can see what St. Thomas Aquinas meant when he posited that, if God were to “force” his will on a man, the man would still freely choose it because God would be working through the man’s will. God does not impose on a man as a master commanding a slave; rather, He works through men as the architect of his nature:  It is a poor architect who struggles against his own design. [S.T., P1, Q83, A1])

     At this point, it is now possible to show how the so-called moral imperatives are linked to moral necessities.  God, Who commanded certain acts and forbade others, establishes the Natural Law in the act of creating (and creation is not final but is ever dependent on its Creator), so His commandments are inherently linked to man’s nature, man’s ultimate purpose or end, and man’s happiness both now and in eternity.  Consider that it is a moral necessity to desire life and happiness.  Revisiting the 7th commandment once more, we are told “thou shalt not steal” because man necessarily needs material goods in order to live, it is necessary for him to live in society with other men in order to be happy, and it is impossible for a man to maintain a healthy society without mutually respect for the material goods they need.  Of course it is not impossible for a man to steal, but it is impossible to be both a thief and a good neighbor.  So, though the imperative can be ignored, the necessity cannot, and by defying the former, the latter becomes unbearable.

     The fact that man must desire what is good (because it is impossible not to) while at the same time choose to do evil is mere evidence of the fact that he is broken.  Even if he knew all the consequences of his actions, both external and innate, he would still not necessarily have the integrity to choose what he knows is good.  Men are not completely free to choose what they want or know to be good. But this does not negate the fact that each man would choose the good if it were in his power to do so.  The more one looks at the human condition of sin, his self-struggle, his incapacity to act in accord with his very nature, the more one might doubt whether there is moral necessity at all, for who can claim to act always with the clear aim of true and integral happiness, let alone claim that he has attained it?  Many people would not even admit to having even a desire for happiness.  But moral necessity, particularly that man must desire and choose the good, is rooted in a metaphysical necessity; namely, that all things are intrinsically good.  This deeper truth involves a commitment bordering on faith, the affirmation of existence, echoing the very words of its Creator, Who is nothing less than Goodness itself, “And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good.” (Gen 1:31)

Ugly Christmas Trees

     It might be a demonstrable fact, if I had the time and discipline to do a real study, that the "cultures" with the most pervasive sexual disorder are those which have the weakest or most dysfunctional families.  In any case, I shall theorize that individuals are more prone to sexual disorder the fewer personal and intimate connections they have with other people.

     Vice and addiction can best be described not as a disease (you can't "catch" perversion) but as a disorder; things are not working properly.  One should be in control of his actions, he should understand the purpose of his actions, and most of his actions should be directed by conscious decision rather than emotional impulse.  Every conscious decision is a moral decision because it contributes to our moral formation:  Our actions define our character, and our character influences our actions.  Not all decisions are completely 'free', though.  A typical alcoholic is not free to choose just one drink, a chain-smoker is not free to smoke just one cigarette, and a porn-addict is not free to browse Wikipedia until midnight when nobody else is around.  Freedom of choice is a state of habitual control over one's impulses and passions (consider that 'passion' is to 'passive' as 'action' is to 'active';  if you are overcome with passion, you are not the one acting, but are being acted upon.)  You cannot control impulse with impulse:  Something "above" your impulses needs to step in and take the reins, as it were.  This is where reason comes in:  Your mind, or intellect, needs to assess the intent and nature of your desire before acting on it in order for it to be considered fully 'free'.  When we can assess our desires, before choosing whether or not to act on them, we are in control.

     The ability to assess an action depends in part on one's understanding of it.  Say, for example, that my car breaks down; I check under the hood and realize that it's really hot and that it smells burnt, but I know nothing about mechanics.  Am I free to fix my car?  I might guess that it needs coolant, but because I do not understand what is in front of me, I might do more harm than good if I decide to try something (and from experience, I can say it would be a bad idea to add coolant in that instance).  So, if you do not properly understand the nature of an action, it is unlikely that you are free to do it well.  The better one understands something, however, the easier it will be to act on it freely:  A repressive alcoholic who thinks that he drinks because he is a bad person and therefore must punish himself will not be as free to change as one who has learned the psychology of addiction.

     This brings us to the topic at hand - sex.  I think most people do not understand it.  I am no longer talking about mechanics, mind you.  I am referring to its proper place in the family:  To put it plainly, you cannot understand sex outside of the family.  To adapt the words of Pope Paul VI, sex can be accurately described as "the free, total, and exclusive expression of love between spouses which is the renewal of their life-long vows and the human collaboration with God the Creator."  Anything else is perversion and depravity.  This probably seems like too strong and rigid a stance for the average person to accept, but consider it in a thoroughly human context.  Remove institutions, corporations, screens, machines, and fantasy.  Imagine society as it was before social engineering, before high-rises, and before automobiles (bear in mind that this is all of human history minus 200 years).  Human beings, being social animals, do not move far away from their family and friends unless pressured by lack of freedom.  Without a pretended need to limit the amount of children a couple creates, children abound.  After just a few generations of blessed fecundity (let's say an average 4 or 5 children per generation), a married couple can expect to have about 20 grandchildren in their lifetime.  The children of the 3rd generation could have 10 uncles and aunts and 19 cousins. The uncles or aunts who married into the family have their own families which, if they are of similar size, have their own siblings who probably married into other families of like size.  A town with just a dozen family names could thus boast of over 600 citizens; citizens of varying ages, roles, occupations, and relationships.  One living in a relatively new town (of just 3 generations or roughly 100 years) could walk from one side of it to another and know everyone he sees on the way; his name, what he does, where he lives, and how he is related.

     There is no internet or television or magazines in that town.  The only people you could see were people you knew and who knew you.  Now consider sex.  Would fornication be common in such a village?  How many people could one “sleep around” with before they need to leave town by the sheer amount of relationships they have damaged on the way?  Now consider a bigger and older town, one more than a few centuries old:  There are thousands of inhabitants, which still might only have a dozen or so family names, but the inhabitants are very distantly related, albeit steeped in their heritage and family tradition.  Even if one does not know everyone in town very well, they might guess a few things about him merely upon learning his name.  Even in such a place, every person one meets is a face, a name, a story, and a relationship.

     This is almost unimaginable in the developed world today.  We are accustomed to seeing droves of people without even caring about who they are or what they are up to.  We are trained not to make eye contact with people in real life, but to follow the intimate details of lives we have nothing to do with.  If one gets married and has children, it is not unlikely that he lives more than 20 miles from his nearest relative, and he can expect to watch  his children move far away from him as soon as they are able.  Homes typically contain two permanent residents per generation.  When one travels to his job every day, he works beside people he sees only at work.  When one goes to the store, he is greeted by strangers.  If he, for some reason, decided to walk down the street from his home, he might pass by several people he might have noticed in passing but whose names he does not know.

     Sex is one dimension of a unique relationship, a relationship which is at the heart of society and which is related to every other family relationship.  Today, intimate relationships are rare (especially true friendship), so it should be no surprise that sex is commonly misunderstood.  It is still possible, however, to come to a better understanding by deepening the relationships one has.  Spend less time watching TV and more time with your family (not watching TV).  Call up your sisters or brothers, if you have any.  Get in touch with your cousins; send a message to your uncle or your grandmother who you might not have seen since last Christmas.  You probably have known these people for your whole life, so there is probably a deep-seated inclination to treat them in a unique way:  For example, there are probably things you would only say to your brother or things you would only do for your grandmother.  These are key to understanding any basic relationship:  Brotherly love is not motherly love, your affection for your mother is not the same as for your sister, you do not treat your uncle like you treat your wife, etc.

     Now consider something disordered; fornication.  When one decides to have “relations” with someone who is not his wife, with whom he has made no vows, for whom he has no responsibility, with whom he has no real relationship (besides, perhaps, a facsimile of friendship), he is pretending at something for the sake of his passions.  It is not truly free and so it is not true love.  With whom has he decided to copulate?  It is not his wife and I would hope it is not his sister, his aunt, or his cousin.  It might be a mere acquaintance, in which case there is a very thin relationship and one which would be damaging to more substantial relationships if they were at all associated.  When one asks himself, “why do I not seek sex in the context of marriage?” his answer will likely expose an anti-social and egotistical malformation.

     This all being said, it is Gaudete Sunday and Christmas is at hand.  We are preparing to celebrate the pinnacle of human history, the moment when humanity itself was elevated unto kinship with God, when God entered into the human family by becoming one of us.  Many of us have put up and decorated an evergreen, evocative of eternal life and the family tree that has Christ at its summit.  While we prepare to rejoice at the Word having become perfect man, we should keep in mind that the rest of humanity is imperfect, including our own family.  One reminder of this is Christ’s own genealogy, recorded in Matthew 1:1-16 and in Luke 3:23-38 (the apparent discrepancy between both Gospel genealogies is explained by Eusebius in his Church History, book I, chapter 7).  Another reminder is the unavoidable ugliness of family Christmas trees whose mismatched diversity of ornaments is directly proportional to the size of the family.  Living life near one’s family can be difficult precisely because of unique differences and imperfections.  But if the Creator of the universe can deign to mingle Himself with our fallen nature then perhaps there is something to gain from sharing His experience.  After all, He decided to re-enlighten our darkened existence, not by divine command from on high, but by joining us in our misery.  If it is not beneath the Almighty to form an intimate, complex, blood relationship with us, it is not beneath us to build relationships with others on the same principle, forgetting ourselves and cultivating society in the bond of family and true friendship.

Equality Is Real

Human beings come in all types:  Some are smarter than others, some are stronger than others, some are more attractive, some have talents that others do not, some are more massive than others, some darker-skinned, and some are so mentally and physically handicapped that they are not able to take care of themselves.  All human beings (I'll use the classic 'men' for now on) start their lives naked and helpless, they rely almost completely on their parents for almost a quarter of their lives, struggle in the world for about half of their lives, and finally end up frail and helpless again.  But because all men possess different traits from birth and are given different advantages or disadvantages throughout life, most men cannot relate to each other in many things.

By the time we reach adulthood, it is obvious to us that we cannot always "get along," probably because men cannot relate to each other and the less we can relate, the less we tend to get along.  Today there is a fierce moral imperative sweeping the world which demands that all men be treated equally.  To anyone not indoctrinated from birth with this idea, it is not very obvious that all people should be treated equally.  After all, if nobody is equal, why should they be treated as equal?  To say "all men should be treated as equal" is about as easy as saying "all cows should be treated as equal."  We eat some cows, milk some, put ribbons on some, and wear some on our backs.  If a meat cow is born a runt, he will likely be killed off.  If a milk cow is infertile, she will probably be killed off.  Going further with the comparison, even the color of a cow's skin will determine what it is good for.

But people should not be treated according to what they are good for.  They should be treated as equal, even though they do not seem equal at all.  Any argument about mutual self-interest or social contracts or the golden rule as being all-important for a stable society fall short before most of human history:  Many societies more stable than our own have used caste systems or slavery.  Social conventions do not hide plain facts:  If people are not equal, we should not pretend they are equal.  But it is a plain fact that all men are equal; not physically, but in essence.

Whatever it is that makes someone a human being, it is not smarts or brains or looks or property.  If there is something that makes someone a human being, then we all have it, period.  This thing is not at all physical, which is why one cannot have more or less of it:  One is either human or not human.  This "thing" we all have is called a "soul."  In fact, it is more accurate to say that it is what we are, or specifically, a 'soul' is 'what makes me human'.  Of course, one could not take a cow's body, insert a human soul, and voila! have a human.  Even though a soul is a defining factor of a human being, our biology is still very much a part of who we are:  We are, by virtue of our biology, part of the same "human family" and are related to each other in that sense.  My parents are in this sense a part of me and their parents in them, and so on.  My identity as a human being relies partly on being related to all other humans, so I cannot truly say that I am just a soul trapped in this body.  I am my body and my soul.  My body and soul are one, and that one thing is me.

If this soul stuff sounds too weird or ethereal to make any sense, consider how nonsensical "humanity" and "equality" become when you leave the soul out of the picture.  If it is enough to be related to other men to be called "human," then we run into problems when considering things like genetic disease or evolution or -- God forbid -- if a man is grown in a test-tube or has more than two parents or has DNA that does not come from another human.  We leave room for eugenics or ideas of master-races if some genetic groups of men can be shown to be "more evolved" or can trace their lineage through more "desirable" families in history or to origins which might suggest that their ancestors were of a more intelligent progenitor species (in which case polygenism could be shown to be very problematic indeed).  Consider simply the fact that some families are smarter than others, that most white people cannot get sickle-cell anemia, or that it is much less of a nuisance to have a penis than to have a vagina.  It is not enough to be "one of the family" to be considered equal to all other members of that family.  Anyone who grew up with his family can attest to that.

Think about the traditional theme of the Totentanz, the "Dance of Death," in which members from all levels society are depicted as being forced by Death to partake in a grim daisy-chain onward into the grave.  It was understood, even in cultures well-accustomed to a tradition of hierarchy, that all men were equal when the worldly trappings of status were stripped away.  Peasant beside merchant, king beside bishop, queen beside pauper, pope beside knight; all were brought to the same end.  To see the opposite side of this is the key to seeing the source and justification of equality:  To say that this transient body has a soul is to say that it is alive.  Each man's life is equal to the other, because being alive -- i.e. a living human being -- is the same as being alive, regardless of any external embellishment.  And this is important, because if we do not see this, we have no reason to be equal.

The Hardest Holiday

Easter is often a time of disappointment for me.  It is easy to plunge myself – or rather, to let myself be absorbed – into the ineffable joy of the Paschal Mystery, especially if I am able to attend a liturgy which at least attempts to reflect the eternal glory of that momentous occasion.  But Easter, most notably the later days of Easter week, is sad because of my incapacity to communicate this joy.  Joy is deepened and broadened when shared; but this joy is, after all, ineffable.

This morning I thought about trying to teach my son, who is only a year old, something about Easter.  He is smart enough to learn names and places and customs attached to them, people and animals and what they do, but I realized that he is not old enough to understand Easter.  Why not?  Little children can understand Christmas to a degree; that a special little baby was born.  They can understand Halloween, that we dress up and act like other, special people.  But not Easter…

 My little child cannot understand Easter, not because it is terribly complex, but because he does not yet know enough about evil.  The joy and glory of Easter is only as apparent to us as the evil which Christ has overcome.  A one-year-old knows almost nothing about evil:  He may know hunger, discomfort, loneliness, and fear, but his experience only amounts to small samples of these things.  He does not know real pain, abandonment, anguish, or dread.  He does not know what it is like to have no home, no good friends, and no clear future.  He does not know what it is like to worry about feeding his family.  He does not know what it is like to look into the eyes of someone he loves, knowing beyond all doubt that this will be the last time.  Any child can feel love and gaiety and excitement, as they will, hopefully, in these coming days of Eastertide, but it will be a superficial gaiety compared to what the adult Christian should know.

That an adult has a greater capacity for joy than a child points to another, more important fact.  The reason that adults have a greater capacity for joy is precisely because they understand and have experienced more evil.  In regard to the Easter Mystery, which is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the joy which it demands has no limit.  This is because the Resurrection marks the limit of all evil:  Jesus Christ, Who is a flesh-and-blood human being, has set the precedent for all other human beings.  No matter what evil things happen to us, we have our own resurrection to look forward to, merited by Jesus Christ on Calvary and established in that moment which Easter continues to remember.

An epithet which I would like to see propagated (which perhaps would come second in weight only to “the Death-Slayer”) is “the Hero of Eternity.”  Our present culture understands the notion of ‘hero’ well and continues to pay homage to heroes living and dead, as well as creating an abundance of literature and popular mythology which centers on heroes.  Whatever heroes we honor, be they warriors or martyrs, we understand their heroism according to their deeds and accomplishments.  In another essay, I expounded the idea of Jesus Christ as the greatest hero of which can be thought, because of the greatness of His victory.  What I did not realize at the time, however, was the infinity of that victory.  This comes to light against the darkness of evil, because without evil there can be no hero.

We are reminded of the famous line from the Exsultet, remembering Adam’s sin, “O Happy Fault, which merited for me so great and glorious a Redeemer!”  Our dark and evil history becomes a cause for joy and consolation in the light of Christ’s redemption.  But this truth runs as deep as we dare to look.  Many of us honor veterans, if not for what they were called on to do, at least for the horrors they were made to endure:  We know that we cannot fully appreciate their sacrifice because our empathy only goes as far as our imagination.  The same holds true for police men:  We would rather not know what they have to see on a regular basis, even for our sake.  Every Good Friday, though, we are forced to imagine the suffering and death of Christ.  For most of us, it is at worst mildly uncomfortable.  We know we cannot fully appreciate what Christ endured.  But what about what Christ has transformed?  We are reminded that His passion and death were not arbitrary, and not even regretful, but that there was something about that episode which changed the meaning of evil.  Before we were redeemed by Christ, we deserved everything we got:  That is, because of our despicable nature, because of our sin, we could not even begin to repay what we owed to God nor endure enough hell to buy our way out of it.  After Christ’s redemptive suffering, every evil we endure is a bonus; something to add to Christ’s suffering.  Evil now means something. 

And neither can it be the end.  If there is no depth to man’s capacity for evil, then Christ’s Goodness is beyond any depth.  There can never be enough evil to undo what Jesus Christ did.  But it is more than this:  A child cannot know the joy and hope of the Resurrection because he does not know or fear death.  But as we grow older and more weary, so grows our joy.  The more fear and death there is in one’s life, the more cause one has for joy and hope.  Every evil that can be imagined becomes fuel for the unquenchable fire of God's Love:  The more we have to worry about, the more that bothers us, the more that evokes our anger and indignation, the more cause we have to be dizzy with excitement.  The greater our slavery and subjection, the greater our salvation.  This terrible world is not merely a place to practice patient endurance, it is a counterpose; a dark backdrop to eternity, which will shine all the brighter on our darkened eyes.

A Brief History of the Family Decline

Early 1700s

The man works at home, either on his farm or in his shop, which is near or adjacent to his home.  He needs his wife and children to work around the house. Daily work can be anything from pulling weeds and feeding chickens to mending socks and spinning wool.

Late 1700s to Early 1800s

The Industrial Revolution is underway.  Men are encouraged (often forced) to leave home to work in factories, mines, or other specialized jobs so that he can earn a wage.  Because wages are so low, wives and children are often pressed into work to help earn needed income.

Late 1800s to Early 1900s

Public schools are instituted.  Children are sent off to school for most of the day.  By 1917, education is compulsory in every state for all persons between the ages of 6 and 17.

Mid 1900s

"Second Wave" Feminism fights for labor and "reproductive rights" for women.  The image of the career woman becomes a social norm.  The woman who typically tended the home by herself was encouraged to have less children and to enter the workforce.

Late 1900s to Today

Rising divorce rates, single parenting, gender confusion, LGBT activism, a struggling economy, and rampant depression all mark an age when the family is a faint and arguable notion.  Conservatives claim that LGBT activism hurts families, but the truth is that the family has been steadily declining over the past two centuries because of institutions and laws currently supported by both "Conservatives" and "Liberals."

Some Food for Thought

Those who wish to save "traditional family values" should focus on the general trend which has been progressing for centuries (such as the empty homes created by things we are now required to have) rather than its shallow symptoms (such as "gender identity" crises).  I suggest we take a step back, look at how we got to where we are, and re-think our current social climate rather than taking it for granted:

• Would family or gender roles be as ambiguous as they are today if the whole family lived, worked, and learned at home?
• Is there any way we could have raised the "standard of living" without removing the husband from his house?
• Is there any way we could have improved education without institutionalizing and homogenizing it?
• Is there any way we could have assured justice and equity for women without pretending that they are the same as men?
• In what context is it useful to refer to any particular family as a family if its members perform no meaningful activity together?
• Is there any way we could return the family to the home (e.g. is it possible to make work and education family business, rather than corporate or state business)?  Would anyone want that?

Christmas: The Humility of God Revealed

The mighty Savior, which the prophets foretold, is born in a cave, in Bethlehem (which means in Hebrew, “the House of Bread”).  He is laid in a manger, a food trough.

He has entered fully into the world and is immersed in our humanity. Now that he is human, He is destined to experience the variety of human misery; cold, hunger, pain, loneliness, loss, abandonment, betrayal.  The sin of Adam oppresses even Him, though He is completely without sin.  He will live a blameless life, though He will be blamed for much.

God, Master of the universe and the Source of all being, has become a child.  He is Goodness itself, but because he is now a son of Adam, he will receive the punishment of Adam’s sin and endure every kind of evil.  This baby, called Jesus, is none other than the Word of God, the One Who holds all things in existence.  In His own Person, He has restored the unity between God and man, and will do what is the perfect contradiction of the Fall of Adam.  Man, who desired to be like God, reached after the one forbidden tree.  God, Who desires to be with man, has become man, but will reach after a very different tree.  Out of pride, Adam tried to lift himself up as a god.  Out of extreme humility, God has come down so that he may be lifted up –  onto the bloody and despicable cross – and make himself the final and perfect sacrifice on our behalf.

Jesus Christ has not come to put on a show.  He was sent to accomplish a mission.  He was born a man in order to die; He will die in order to rise; and once risen, He will become an even greater man than Adam was in his innocence.

Adam was banished from paradise so that he would not eat from the Tree of Life, a fruit which he did not deserve.  Eve took down a fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  Mary, the New Eve, will take down her son from the Cross, which will be for us the new Tree of Life.  Food will again be laid out on that Tree.  He will continue to come down into this desert wasteland of sin as the new manna, the “bread from heaven,” the Eucharist, so that we may remember and re-offer that same sacrifice of the Cross.

CCC 386-412

Christmas Sermons, St. Leo The Great

On the Incarnation, St. Athanasius 

Diversity or Individuality: Pick One

Diversity can be useful in some instances (such as higher education and genetic variation to name some of the few) but in almost every sphere of human life, diversity is subversive to community and is directly harmful to individual identity.

A community is a unified body of people.  To have a community, there must be something common to unite it.  Unity is created when people share things:  The things that create the strongest unity are the same things that give people their individual identity, The things, in general, are what we call culture.  The things which make up a culture, include, but are not limited to, religion (the sense of the sacred, ritual practice, and faith-tradition), memory (temporal-spatial  and emotional experiences, traditional customs, and local and genealogical history), and values (ethical conduct, moral principles, life-goals, the arts, and leisure in general).  It is not a community which gives the individual his identity, but neither is a community dependent on individuality:  Culture creates both individual identity and community.  The individual alone cannot create a culture, he needs to be part of a community in order to become immersed in its culture.  The community, however, cannot maintain a culture without the active participation of its individual members.  Individuality and community are mutually dependent:  You cannot have one without the other.

Diversity is the property of having different elements or qualities in a thing.  Diversity is, by definition, contrary to community.  A “diverse community” is an oxymoron.  A community needs a cohesive culture to make it a community.  There can be small niche cultures, such as a “gaming culture,” a “baseball culture,” a “rock-and-roll culture,” etc. effectively making even smaller communities possible (e.g. the “Warcraft community”) but these are extremely limited and superficial notions of community.  When one typically speaks of community in general, the whole extent of religion, memory, and values is evoked.  If a given group of people do not share the same religion, the same memory, or the same values; if they have vastly different backgrounds, perspectives, life-goals, and moral principles, than it is no community.  One can effectively distinguish communities by pointing out cultural differences between them.

Because you cannot have an individual without community, diversity effectively dissolves individuality.  It creates a fragmentation of culture and so weakens the bond between the individual and the community from which he learns his identity.

There is indeed such a thing as healthy diversity, e.g. a larger state composed of diverse communities, and there is unhealthy diversity, viz. no community at all, on account of the lack of unity between persons within a given area.  Any given state can have a multitude of different communities, each with its own unique culture.  When diversity is promoted within a community, that community begins to dissolve.