Dear friends of Istituto Acton,
At the risk of being labelled a reactionary prude or a hypocrite, I’m going to defend the indefensible in many modern minds by supporting the Catholic Church’s understanding of human sexuality. I do so not only because I believe the Church’s teaching is, while difficult to live, true and good for human beings, but also because the Church is the only remaining institution willing to resist the man-made disaster otherwise known as the Sexual Revolution.
Or so I hope, as the recently-concluded Synod of Bishops was not particularly encouraging on this front. Commentators continue to debate whether the party of law or the party of mercy won out in the final document, and we’ll have to wait to see what Pope Francis decides to do with the Synod’s recommendations. What’s at stake, however, goes well beyond being nice to divorced-and-remarried Catholics or homosexuals and reflects how we as a Church think about individual liberty, social responsibility, and the possibility of living the truth of the Catholic faith.
Although some critics portray us as libertine idolaters of the market, we at Acton are obviously supporters of our namesake’s dictum: “Liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right to do what we ought.” It’s the “ought” part that sticks in the craw of relativists and others who worship at the church of non-judgmentalism because it presumes that there are objectively right and wrong actions, ways of life that are more or less in keeping with human dignity. To speak of “ought” offends our egalitarian mores because it implies that there are morally-superior individuals who may have something to teach the rest of us.
Now, no one likes a scold and no one is perfect, so the egalitarians among us have a point. Pope Francis struck a chord when he rhetorically asked, “Who am I to judge?” because to judge a person seems to be the antithesis of love. But is judging per se wrong, or is judging hastily or wrongly the problem? What kind of love refuses to make distinctions between what is lovable and what is not, between what is noble and what is base? It would be love based on pure instinct rather than reflection and choice and hardly worthy of free human beings created in the image and likeness of God.
The Sexual Revolution, of course, is all about instincts. It seeks to overcome sexual hang-ups and inhibitions in the name of self-expression, which is the opposite of rational speech. Aided by contraception, it promises to liberate women from a consequence of sex, i.e. childbearing, that reveals a natural condition of inequality with men. And by legitimating homosexuality and other once-considered-deviant behaviors, it makes sex the most important way of expressing one’s self, which is why calling for chastity is seen as a complete denial of one’s identity in the new dispensation.
Progressives often claim the conservatives are obsessed with sex and the “pelvic issues.” Yet the problem made evident at the Synod is that a sizable portion of bishops seem to regard sex as no big deal. Knowingly or not, they have accepted the premises of the Sexual Revolution that seek to trivialize sex by separating its unitive and procreative aspects. It may seem to be the compassionate thing to do, but it actually degrades people by treating them as instinctual rather than rational beings.
The social consequences of the Sexual Revolution ought to be apparent to all, but as far as I can tell, many bishops would prefer to ignore or keep silent about them; they certainly don’t “obsess” about them. Who wants to tell people how to manage their sex lives, after all? The result of such timidity is that sex is considered a solely private matter between consenting adults, which utterly fails to understand the importance of childbearing in marriage and the family. If sex is primarily about pleasure and not procreation, there is no reason to treat it differently than eating or drinking. (If anything, our eating habits have replaced sex as a matter of public concern. Mary Eberstadt exposed the ironies of our situation in her perspective 2009 essay “Is Food the New Sex?”)
So, even though it offends good taste, it is impossible to avoid talking about sex when discussing the family and its role in society. Political philosophers such as Plato and Rousseau did not shy away from the subject, nor did Pope St. John Paul II in his “theology of the body” catechesis. I am becoming increasingly convinced that progressives understand this very well, which is why they are attempting to change the way we think about sex. (Exhibit A is the 2012 “Life of Julia” ad produced by the Obama campaign, in which the State replaces a woman’s father, husband, and ultimately God. The original ad is no longer on the Obama website, so here’s an article about it. These are the final blows against patriarchy.)
Beyond upsetting long-settled conceptions of freedom and society, what’s even more troubling may be the attitude expressed by Cardinal Walter Kasper that lay Catholics are somehow incapable of practicing what the Church teaches: “To live together as brother and sister? Of course I have high respect for those who are doing this. But it’s a heroic act, and heroism is not for the average Christian.”
I can understand why lowering a strict moral standard may seem to be merciful, but why does the Church exist if not to call ordinary, sinful people to sanctity? Not everyone can or will accomplish heroic acts but how do we know if we never try? The truly merciful thing to do, as Jesus Himself did, would be to encourage people to try again if and when they fail. Kasper’s statements reveal the low expectations and fear of failure that are the norm in today’s Europe and partly explain the continent’s political, economic and spiritual lethargy.
Which brings me to my final question: what is the end-game for the “innovators” at the Synod? Let’s assume for argument’s sake that the Church relaxes its sexual morality in order to fit the times. Would this help or hinder people getting to know Jesus Christ? Would the Church have anything to offer us that we couldn’t find elsewhere? The experience of the Protestant churches that have already capitulated to the Sexual Revolution should tell us the answer.
In the meantime, all we can do is pray and work. Pray for the bishops and especially for Pope Francis to stand firm against the tide while also expressing the mercy that is the hallmark of this pontificate. And work for God’s glory in our jobs and our families. Everything else, as one great Doctor of the Church put it, is like straw.
Kishore Jayabalan
Director
