(Image: Yoav Hornung/Unsplash.com)

Examining the various components of the philosophy driving the proponents of the sexual revolution, as well as many Catholic progressives, a good summary of their various proposals is simply this: the entire realm of human sexuality is not to be governed by law. Sex is, so to speak, a law-free zone. Although rarely advertised as such (its still too radical for most people), a thoughtful investigation of progressive thoughtboth secular and Catholicreveals that this expression is, in fact, an accurate summary.

In other words, the entire realm of traditional moral thinking, and the rules it places on the exercise of human sexuality, is to be completely eliminated. It is to be replaced by a free exercise of choice unrestrained by anything that Western thought hitherto has recognized as a law.

The notion that human sexuality should not be governed by firm, unchanging principles is most readily evident in secular thought. For decades, we have heard the chorus that traditional moral norms concerning sexuality were puritanical, hypocritical, inspired by male dominance and/or female suppression, oriented to control (taken to be a bad thing), turning women into baby factories, and constraining human societies in the mires of pre-Enlightenment thinking. The upshot is that we should turn this all over to human freedom. Men and women who come of age can make their own decisions concerning such matters.

We can investigate the sexual revolution as deeply as we wish to, inquiring into who can participate in sexual acts, the various categories of relationship between the participants (lover, one-night stand, etc), and the circumstances surrounding the act (married, unmarried)and we will find that there is nothing that can be called a law to govern any situation. The entire realm is determined by free choice, which itself is determined by whatever norms the participant has chosen for him or her self, in the pursuit of another self-chosen, normless understanding of fulfillment or simply pleasure.

There is no circumstance in which a sexual act can be deemed immoral because of the nature of the participants, the acts themselves, or the circumstances surrounding the acts. No argument asserting that a particular sexual act is governed by a permanent norm will have validity hereunless the participant has chosen that particular norm.

We must be more clear and more aware of the significance of this shift. It is a clich to note that sexual mores have changed. While it is not wrong to say that sexual norms have changed, the prevalence of this language tends to obscure the specificity of what has actually occurred. I could, to use an analogy, be walking down a street and alter my course by five degrees to the left or right. That would also be a change. But it would be a very poor and lacking description of what has happened to sexual norms.

We have taken the norms that governed human sexuality for the entire history of the West and we have reversed them completely. And now the new normsactually the absence thereofhave us going in the opposite direction from before. The new norms are 180 degrees in the opposite direction compared to the original.

Everything that was wrong and was recognized as such two generations ago is now right: divorce followed by serial remarriage, adultery, cohabitation among the unmarried, fornication in general, contraception, masturbation, and homosexuality. Few of us really think through the full implications of this; I will mention just two implications here.

First, whereas the traditional prohibitions were clearly oriented to preserving the creation and stability of families, and exercises of sexuality supporting that end, the current norms can logically only result in the destruction of the traditional family. As sexual morality goes, so goes the family.

Secondly, if the progressives and the new norms are correct, the clear implication is that Christian churches and denominations generally, and the Catholic Church most of all, has for centuries actively misled the entire human race on what are perhaps the most central norms of human moral existence. Given the depth and breadth of such a colossal error, why would anyone listen to what the Church or Christians say today? Further, should the Church effectively concede the supposed error? It is all the more puzzling when one realizes that those Christians advocating for a radical shift to the modern view believe that such a change will make the Church more credible!

It is worth noting that this phenomenon of removing laws from the sexual realm is, overall, in direct contrast with what occurs in nearly every other aspect of life. In the past two generations, weve witnessed a large swath of laws regulating our behavior almost across the board. Compare, for instance, where we are today with the early 1960s concerning laws regulating health care, privacy (excluding the realm of sexuality), the economy, and education. The clear pattern, in general, is to subject human behavior to more and more regulations. Politically, this translates most often into federal regulations. So, the sexual revolution has this further peculiar trait of being a call for the end of law in a society that is generally expanding the areas covered by law and multiplying regulations.

Another clarification is also in order. Some may be puzzled by the claim that the realm of sexuality is becoming a law-free zone. Are there not, in fact, more and more laws restricting us here? There is a proliferation of laws telling us we cannot restrict abortions, that we must provide contraceptives for free at government expense, that we must permit and protect same-sex marriages, transgenderism, and new sexual rights constructed out of whole cloth. It does not appear that the proposition of being law-free holds in the realm of sexuality.

All of these are undoubtedly true, but they do not really contradict the proposition. There are indeed many new laws, but they all designed to ensure that sexuality not be governed by any proper and objective sexual norms. They are there to preserve the law-free zone from potential incursions by legislators, executives, and courts. For example, laws mandating access to contraception at public expense are clearly there to promote their use, to ensure that participants in sexual acts have their free choices respected without the inconvenience of pregnancy and a child.

Lets now consider the Catholic version of the problem, which at first glance seems to have nothing to do with progressivism. We have a Catechism filled with prohibitions against all the things the sexual revolution has legalized: divorce, cohabitation, fornication, masturbation, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and transgenderism. While some Catholic progressives make common cause with their secular counterparts, the Catholic context requires (at least to some degree) these people to advance with a more indirect approach toward the same end. It would be too much to simply advance the secular agenda unabashed. Even worse, such an approach makes the end rather transparent to just about everyone; it would be obvious that the goal was simply to overturn the entire set of norms which have existed for centuries. Many Catholics are not ready for that, or at least not ready to do it so openly. The new theology that has developed here is not really that new, as we heard about it in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council. One of the problems with it is that it is surrounded by endless discussions of who exactly embraces it, much of which is frankly disingenuous.

Recall that St. Pope John Paul IIs Veritatis Splendor was written as a response to the development of the kind of deviant moral theology that negates the existence of a binding, permanent law concerning human sexuality. The various schools of thought rejected by the 1993 encyclical ultimately stood in stark contrast to actual Church doctrine. The point here is that these various schools, known variously as the fundamental option theory, consequentialism, proportionalism, and teleologism, all point in the same direction of loosening the hold of strict, concrete norms over human behavior. They all tend to support what has been called a gradualism of the law, by which no specific universal law governs moral behavior in all situations.

In other words, this approach does not simply negate any of the Churchs norms. It says that people may find themselves in situations wherein they are not able to meet the full demands of the law. It involves, to some degree or another, an acceptance of the violation of the norms. Often qualifiers are put up, demanding a Catholic consult with a priest firstand then, of course, with his own conscience. But, at the end of the day, the person chooses what norm is going to govern his behavior that dayso long as he promises to try to reach the Churchs norm at some future (though not determined) point. Obviously, no full discussion of this can take place here. But the contrast with the Churchs perennial teaching became clear in those who, such as Walter Kasper and most of the German bishops (and a host of others around the world) who argued for giving Communion to the divorced and remarried under certain circumstances. Those pursuing this option were expected to examine their consciences with the help of a priest to determine if their current actions were the best they could do. But the bottom line was that they would choose for themselves. The moral law would not be speaking thrown out, strictly put, but it would be kicked upstairs so to speak; it acted as a long-term goal, and not as an immediate guide and judge of action.

When the long theological excursions along these lines are followed in individual cases, and when it comes down to the actual practical choice of action to be made, the moral law no more guides this Catholic person than it does his secular counterpart following the relativist norm. This may seem harsh, and I am not saying the cases are identical. But the reality in both cases is that the acting person is not governed by a universal law, but (at least for some undetermined period of time) a law of his own choosing. As John Paul II and Benedict XVI made clear many times, this approach is incompatible with what the Church has always taught. The Church teaches that certain violations of sexual norms constitute grave matter and are subject to repentance and conversion the moment they are committed. The Church in no way can permit or sanction actions that intrinsically violate her moral and sacramental norms.

Looking ahead to the Synod of Bishops meetings coming up at the Vatican the next two Octobers, I will avoid throwing my two cents in as to the possibilities. (Others have done that and I believe it is probably best done by experts in canon law.) Ultimately, if things go sour, possible solutions will depend upon the rights of orthodox bishops and cardinals under canon law. I merely wish to underline one rather unsettling possibility. Pope Francis, in Amoris Laetitia, produced an often ambiguous document that just as clearly did not clearly forbid communion to the divorced and remarried, and seemed to open the door to it. He was asked by four cardinals to clarify the Churchs position, said he would not do it, then turned around and endorsed the Argentine bishops approach, but clearly did crack open the door. The Catechism has remained unchanged.

But what if the current Synod terminates next year with the issuance of a document, from the Pope and with magisterial authority, that essentially takes the same approach to a range of sexual issues that the Pope previously took to Communion for the divorced and remarried? Without changing the Catechism, the entire Churchs doctrine on sexuality, marriage and family could be effectively undermined and overturned using the same methods: issue an unclear document, refuse to give a definitive interpretation, then allow the Argentinian or German bishops and others to interpret it as they choosean approach I think would clearly lead the Church into at least a practical schism. The supporters could all deny that anyone changed Catholic teaching. I think it would make the Catholic Church, in essence, much like the current mainstream Protestant churches or the Anglican Communion, in which no one can agree on the nature of marriage, or family, or sexual morality.

More attention should be given to just how normal all of this already seems, and how much worse that sense of indifference is likely to get. Have we not already accustomed ourselves to the idea that some bishops and cardinals are orthodox, while others are not? And is this not already reflected in our acceptance that some parishioners hold Catholic positions while others hold to the opposite positions? Are not younger Catholics absorbing all of this? So, unorthodoxyholding the opposite of what the Church teachesis no big deal. Pope Francis is already on record saying that he does not fear schisms. And it is hard to see him really cracking down on these bishops in the future for doing what they are already doing today.

I really dislike publicly criticizing the Pope, but I must say this is one of the worst results of his way of governing the Church. The young Catholic is led to understand that Latin Masses in his parish must be banned by decisive papal intervention, but Cardinals can mouth unorthodox positions on a regular basis with generally no response from the Pope. Theologians have already been doing it for two generations. Yes, the Pope has formally criticized the German bishops and the Synodal Path, but they and others may interpret the lack of action as a kind of indifference to the offense. And just a week ago, several Germany bishops announced they will allow liturgical blessings of same-sex unions in their churches. Again, what lessons do young Catholics absorb?

We all need to say more in opposition to what is happening before our eyes. When I was growing up, it was unthinkable for professing and practicing Catholics to oppose Catholic moral teaching on sexuality and family. A bishop doing so would have been removed, and quickly if he did not publicly repent! Now we can wonder if there are ever going to be any disciplinary measures taken against bishops and cardinals holding unorthodox positions. Let us all pray very hard for Holy Mother the Church this Lent and beyond.

Endnotes:

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

Read more here:
The law-free zone of human sexuality and the Church today - Catholic World Report